A Case for Nondecomposition in Conceptually Driven Word Retrieval

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.