Abstract
Theories of lexical access in language use of a productive nature such as speaking, writing, and verbal thinking differ in whether they assume that words are retrieved from memory in a conceptually decomposed or nondecomposed manner. Decomposition has been the received view for centuries, while nondecomposition is mostly not taken very seriously—undeservedly so, as 1 demonstrate in this paper. I review several theoretical objections that have traditionally been raised against nondecomposition and indicate how a nondecompositional approach can cope with them. Furthermore, several theoretical arguments in favor of nondecomposition are given. The issues concern the componential analysis of word meanings, the conceptual primitives, word definitions, the acquisition of word meaning, the conceptual dissection of messages, context dependence of word meaning, decomposition for syntactic encoding, word-to-phrase synonymy, hyperonymy, hyponymy, and the locus of decomposition. In addition, the major computational models of conceptually driven word retrieval proposed during the last few decades are evaluated both informally and by computer simulation. The decompositional models are shown to fail, whereas a specific nondecompositional model is shown to account for the difficulties. It is concluded that there are no evidential grounds for rejecting nondecomposition. On the contrary, for a theory of word retrieval there are, instead, good reasons to prefer nondecomposition to decomposition. Nondecomposition should be given more serious consideration in future work in the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1967). Dictionaries and meaning rules. Foundations of Language, 3, 409–414.
Bierwisch, M., & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.
Brown, R., & McNeil, D. (1966). The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325–337.
Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1–47.
Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development: The state of the art. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Carnap, R. (1952). Meaning postulates. Philosophical Studies, 3, 65–73.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
Dell, G. S., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1991). Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: A comment on Levelt et al. (1991). Psychological Review, 98, 604–614.
Dell, G. S., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287–314.
De Smedt, K. (1990). Incremental sentence generation: A computer model of grammatical encoding (doctoral dissertation, and NICI Technical Report 90-01). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen.
Fodor, J. A. (1976). The language of thought. Sussex, England: Harvester Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In J. A. Fodor, Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. Brighton, Sussex, England: Harvester Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Walker, E. C. T., & Parkes, C. H. (1980). Against definitions. Cognition, 8, 263–367.
Fodor, J. A., & McLaughlin, B. P. (1990). Connectionism and the problem of systematicity: Why Smolensky's solution doesn't work. Cognition, 35, 183–204.
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71.
Garnham, A. (1985). Psycholinguistics: Central topics. London: Methuen.
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.
Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition, 42, 61–105.
Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F.-J. (1984). The time course of picture-world interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654.
Goldman, N. (1975). Conceptual generation. In R. Schank (Ed.), Conceptual information processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypoythesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377–389.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1981). Mental models of meaning. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.
Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185–209.
Kempson, R. M. (1977). Semantic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1–22.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation in the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Miller, G. A. (1978). Semantic relations among words. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morton, J. (1969). The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178.
Nida, E. (1975). Componential analysis of meaning. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Norman, D. A., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.). (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman.
Oldfield, R. C. (1966). Things, words and the brain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 340–353.
Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1964). The time it takes to name an object. Nature, 202, 1031–1032.
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Potter, M. C. (1979). Mundane symbolism: The relations among objects, names, and ideas. In N. R. Smith & M. B. Franklin (Eds.), Symbolic functioning in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Putnam, H. (1970). Is semantics possible? In H. Keifer & M. Munitz (Eds.), Languages, belief and metaphysics. New York: State University of New York Press.
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 7). Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Roelofs, A. (1992a). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
Roelofs, A. (1992b). Lemma retrieval in speaking: A theory, computer simulations, and empirical data (doctoral dissertation and NICI Technical Report 92-08). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen.
Roelofs, A. (1993). Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: Retrieval of verbs. Cognition, 47, 59–87.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time-course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1). London: Erlbaum.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language topology and syntactic description (Vol. 3). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gelder, T. (1990). Compositionality: A connectionist variation on a classical theme. Cognitive Science, 14, 355–384.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roelofs, A. A Case for Nondecomposition in Conceptually Driven Word Retrieval. J Psycholinguist Res 26, 33–67 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025060104569
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025060104569