Robert Michael Foster


A traditional lexicalization analysis of a word looks backwards in time, describing each change in the word’s form and usage patterns from actuation (creation) to the present day. I suggest that this traditional view of lexicalization can be labelled Anaphoric Lexicalization to reflect its focus upon what has passed. A corresponding forward-looking process can then be envisaged called Cataphoric Lexicalization. Applying Cataphoric Lexicalization to an existing phrase from a sub-language generates a series of possible lexemes that might represent the target phrase in the future. The method is illustrated using a domain specific example. The conclusion suggests that rigorous application of Cataphoric Lexicalization by a community would in time result in a naturally evolved controlled lexicon.


  1. Baker, K. and Brew, C. 2008.”Statistical identification of English loanwords in Korean using automatically generated training data.” In Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC'08), pages 1159-1163, Marrakech.
  2. Brinton, L. L., Traugott, C.G, 2005 “Lexicalisation and Language Change” Cambridge University Press
  3. Cook P. , and Stevenson S. 2009 "Automatically Identifying the Source Words of Lexical Blends in English" Computational Linguistics Volume 36, Number 1
  4. Goyvaerts, P. 1996 “Controlled English, curse or blessing? A user perspective' Proceedings of the 1st International workshop on Controlled Language Applications (CLAW 7896) (Leuven). 137-42
  5. Gries, S. Th. 2006. “Cognitive determinants of subtractive word-formation processes: A corpus-based perspective.” Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4):535-558.
  6. Grishman, R. and Kitteridge R. (eds) 1986 “Analys-ing Language in restricted domains: Sublanguage description and processing” Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  7. Kirby, S., 2007. “The Evolution of Meaning-space Structure through Iterated Learning” In Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C., and Cangelosi, A., editors, Emergence of Communication and Language, pages 253-268. Springer Verlag.
  8. Loper E.and Bird S., 2002. “NLTK: The Natural Language Toolkit.” In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics, pages 62-69. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  9. Okazaki, N. and Ananiadou S., 2006. “A term recognition approach to acronym recognition.” In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ColingACL 2006), pages 643-650, Sydney.
  10. Weinreich, U., Labov, W., and Herzog, M.I., 1968 “Empirical foundations for a theory of language change.” In W.P. Lehman and Yakov Malkiel, (eds.) Directions for Historical Linguistics 97-195 Austin and London: University of texas Press.
  11. Wittmeyer G. © 2009 Elemental Communications Ltd. All rights reserved. Company Registration Number: 04192923, VAT Number: GB 893 5571 78

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Michael Foster R. (2010). CATAPHORIC LEXICALISATION . In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8425-06-5, pages 526-529. DOI: 10.5220/0002980005260529

in Bibtex Style

author={Robert Michael Foster},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
SN - 978-989-8425-06-5
AU - Michael Foster R.
PY - 2010
SP - 526
EP - 529
DO - 10.5220/0002980005260529