Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives
Abstract
This book constitutes an interesting guide to recent developments in vocabulary studies. As will be made clear below, this review addresses researchers and others interested in issues concerning computational morphology and lexicography in a Machine Translation (MT) environment. For this reason we focus more on relevant chapters of the book than on those which concern pure language teaching and language learning issues. The book is divided into three parts. Part one contains four chapters devoted to the analysis of lexis with a particular emphasis on its role in discourse contexts. Part two consists of three chapters dealing mostly with issues related to language learning, language teaching and lexicography. Part three includes two case studies in lexical stylistics based on informant analyses. Chapter 1 explores the notion of word. A definition based on orthographic criteria (i.e. a word viewed as a sequence of letters bound on either side by a space or a punctuation mark) is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, it is observed that such a definition is violated by the existence of a great number of multi- word units (e.g. instead of, post box, etc.). On the other hand, the phonological criterion for defining a word as a string of phonemes containing only one stress is also not felicitous, firstly because it only concerns spoken language and secondly because a stress can be used as a demarcator of strings for emphatic purposes. Other problems relate to the existence of several forms for only one lexical meaning (e.g. verbal allomorphs of the same inflectional paradigm: bring, brings, brought, bringing), as well as to the appearance of the same form for different meanings (e.g. the different meanings of the word/a/r). The case of idioms (e.g. to kick the bucket) involving more than one text word which, semantically, can be substituted by a single word is also problematic. In attempting to provide a good criterion for defining a word, Carter uses the valuable concept of lexeme which helps to override most of the problems mentioned above (e.g. the existence of different form variants for the same word). He correctly observes that are the basic contrasting units of vocabulary in a language. When we look up in a dictionary we are looking up lexemes rather than words (p. 7).
- Journal
- College Composition and Communication
- Published
- 1989-05-01
- DOI
- 10.2307/358147
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- Closed
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
References (0)
No references on file for this article.
Related Articles
-
Technical Communication Quarterly Oct 2024Jo Mackiewicz; Shaya Kraut; Allison Durazzirhetorical criticism discourse analysis first-year composition writing pedagogy graduate education teacher development writing centers technical communication professional writing digital rhetoric multilingual writers grammar and mechanics literacy studies race and writing public rhetoric editorial matter
-
Research in the Teaching of English Nov 2016What Makes a More Proficient Discussion Group in English Language Learners’ Classrooms? Influence of Teacher Talk and Student Backgrounds ↗Jie Zhang; Chunling Niu; Shahbaz Munawar; Richard C. Anderson
-
Writing and Pedagogy Jul 2015Heike Neumann
-
College Composition and Communication Feb 1998Vivian Cook
-
College Composition and Communication May 1992