biology

Lexicalist hypothesis

Lexicalist hypothesis is a biology topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Lexicalist hypothesis rather than just read about it. In short: The lexicalist hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Noam Chomsky in which he claims that syntactic transformations only can operate on syntactic constituents. It says that the system of grammar that assembles words is separate and different from the system of grammar that assembles phrases out of words.

Key takeaways

Lexicalist hypothesis belongs to biology; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Lexicalist hypothesis to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Lexicalist hypothesis from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

The lexicalist hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Noam Chomsky in which he claims that syntactic transformations only can operate on syntactic constituents. It says that the system of grammar that assembles words is separate and different from the system of grammar that assembles phrases out of words. There are two versions of the hypothesis: weak and strong. In the weak version the transformations could not operate on the derivational words; in the strong approach, the transformations can operate on neither derivational nor inflectional words. The lexicalist hypothesis is a response to generative semanticians who use transformations in the derivation of complex words. There are objections to the hypothesis such as distributed morphology. The lexical integrity hypothesis is a subset of the lexicalist hypothesis.

History In the 1950s, Noam Chomsky introduced generative grammar into the world of linguistics and his theory quickly became widely accepted and popular. He mentioned multiple theories of grammar but he favoured the theory to which he gave a name of transformational generative grammar in particular. Transformational generative grammar states that sentences are formed using the standard generative grammar rules to form what is called a deep structure and from there, rules called transformations are used to change this structure by adding, moving, changing or even deleting material from the present structure. In 1960, Robert B. Lees brought up a theory that derived nominals are all deverbal and not sentential. In other words, the theory states that nominalizations are not derived from verbs or sentences. Lees' theory prevailed until Noam Chomsky released Remarks on Nominalization in 1970. It was in Remarks on Nominalization, that Chomsky proposed the lexicalist hypothesis. Both Lees' and Chomsky's theories are in support of generative grammar.

Theory The lexicalist hypothesis can be dissected into the following aspects.

Idiosyncrasy argument The relationship between derived nominals and the corresponding verb from which it is derived, is idiosyncratic and highly irregular. This means morphological transformations of the verb into its derived nominals have no regulations. For example, there is no apparent morphology-to-meaning link between the verb profess (meaning 'to claim or declare openly'), and its derived nominals such as professor (meaning ‘university teacher’) or profession (meaning 'career'). In this example, changing verbs to their derived nominals involves the addition of '-or' and '-ion', which do not inherently add a new dimension of meaning to the verb, indicating that these morphological additions are idiosyncratic, and not systematic. Another example would be the verb ignore (refuse to acknowledge), and its derived nominals ignorance (lack of knowledge) and ignoramus (a stupid person). The morphological transformations made to the verb ignore are largely idiosyncratic, and do not inherently contribute to the meaning.

Internal structure argument Structures in which derived nominals occur resemble that of usual noun phrases, rather than following the structures of the verb phrase that the original verb sits in. Using the verb refuse and its derived nominal refusal for instance:

We refuse the offer. (Verb phrase) *We refusal the offer. (Replacing the verb with its corresponding derived nominal in the same verb phrase structure) [An asterisk (*) in linguistics denotes an ungrammatical form.] The derived nominal does not occur in the structure of the corresponding verb in which it is derived from. Instead, it should occur in the structure of a generic noun phrase, which can contain determiners, adjectives, and prepositional phrases:

The unrelenting quest of the three musketeers. (Noun phrase) The stupid refusal of the offer. (Using a derived nominal in a structure similar to a generic noun phrase)

Frozen structure argument Derived nominals correspond to base structures, that is, to treat derived nominals as deep structure nouns. According to Chomsky, (a) and (b) are preferable to (c) and (d).

(a) His looking up of the information. (b) His defining away of the problem. (c) *His looking of the information up. (d) *His defining of the problem away. With this example, Chomsky demonstrates that particle shift, a process in which the phrase is split up and shifted to another part of the sentence, is not applicable for derived nominal phrases. Other processes that cannot be applied to derived nominals include:

Dative shift There-insertion: Inserting "there" into a derived nominal phrase. Transforming a raising to an object Psych-Movement: Moving the object of the psych-verb (a verb that expresses a mental state or event, also called a mental verb) into the subject position, while the original subject is made into a prepositional phrase. Tough-Movement Originally, these processes could not be applied to base nouns, and therefore, according to the frozen structure argument, they cannot be applied to derived nominals as well.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Lexicalist hypothesis

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Lexicalist hypothesis claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In biology, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Lexicalist hypothesis before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Lexicalist hypothesis ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Lexicalist hypothesis

In research: Lexicalist hypothesis appears in biology research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Lexicalist hypothesis in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Lexicalist hypothesis is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Generative syntax, Linguistic morphology, Syntax, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Lexicalist hypothesis outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Lexicalist hypothesis” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Lexicalist hypothesis in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Lexicalist hypothesis means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Lexicalist hypothesis out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Lexicalist hypothesis in simple terms?

Why does Lexicalist hypothesis matter?

Because it connects several biology ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Lexicalist hypothesis?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Lexicalist hypothesis.