2014•Oxford University Press eBooksOpen access

The Oxford Handbook of the Word

Gisborne, Nikolas; id_orcid 0009-0004-0310-2915

Open full text 54 citations

Abstract

The identification of what words are is central to grammatical theorizing: without a theory of the word, it is impossible to establish what it is that syntax combines and what semantics composes the meanings of. But there is a substantial degree of theoretical debate about where the boundaries of words are and how the relationship between syntax and morphology should be understood. This chapter addresses that literature by exploring a case of inflection in English (the passive participle) and two ‘boundary’ topics: cliticization and Noun Incorporation. It is argued that the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis—the claim that neither inflectional and derivational morphology is syntactic—is adequate in these cases. The chapter concludes that the Word is a theoretical construct, and that we should not expect naive definitions to deliver useful analytic results. It is further argued that discourse reference and other semantic phenomena are not relevant to establishing wordhood.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The identification of what words are is central to grammatical theorizing: without a theory of the word, it is impossible to establish what it is that syntax combines and what semantics composes the meanings of. But there is a substantial degree of theoretical debate about where the boundaries of words are and how the relationship between syntax and morphology should be understood. This chapter addresses that literature by exploring a case of inflection in English (the passive participle) and two ‘boundary’ topics: cliticization and Noun Incorporation. It is argued that the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis—the claim that neither inflectional and derivational morphology is syntactic—is adequate in these cases. The chapter concludes that the Word is a theoretical construct, and that we should not expect naive definitions to deliver useful analytic results. It is further argued that discourse reference and other semantic phenomena are not relevant to establishing wordhood.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 54 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The identification of what words are is central to grammatical theorizing: without a theory of the word, it is impossible to establish what it is that syntax combines and what semantics composes the meanings of. But there is a substantial degree of theoretical debate about where the boundaries of words are and how the relationship between syntax and morphology should be understood. This chapter addresses that literature by exploring a case of inflection in English (the passive participle) and two ‘boundary’ topics: cliticization and Noun Incorporation. It is argued that the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis—the claim that neither inflectional and derivational morphology is syntactic—is adequate in these cases. The chapter concludes that the Word is a theoretical construct, and that we should not expect naive definitions to deliver useful analytic results. It is further argued that discourse reference and other semantic phenomena are not relevant to establishing wordhood.

Key concepts: Linguistics, Variety (cybernetics), Mental lexicon, Vocabulary, Lexicon, Phonology, Computer science, Syntax

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Oxford Handbook of the Word — Research Paper | ScholarLens