1887
Linguistic Perspectives on Morphological Processing
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

English makes use of a wide-spread pattern of word class alternation known as ‘zero-derivation.’ This involves pairs of homophonous forms which are semantically related, yet differ in part-of-speech (e.g. a knot vs. to knot). Many theories have been proposed to describe the relationship between these forms, with some proposing that to knot is covertly derived from a knot in the same way as government is from govern; an alternative view is that these pairs are instead two forms of a single lexeme with no inherent word class. We explore these claims in the context of morphological processing, using three delayed priming lexical decision tasks. The results suggest that some pairs are in a covert derivational relationship, in which the derived form is morphologically more complex than the base. However, not all such pairs are related this way, as some instead behave like inflectional relatives belonging to a single, underspecified lexical entry. Together, the experiments offer support for a mixed model, in which the grammar distinguishes between different kinds of zero-related pairs based on their underlying morphological relationships – a covert distinction to which morphological processing may be sensitive.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.2.02dar
2016-07-18
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arad, M
    (2003) Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 737–778. doi: 10.1023/A:1025533719905
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025533719905 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R.H
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R.H. , Piepenbrock, R. , & van Rijn, H
    (1993) The CELEX lexical database.University of Pennsylvania: Linguistic Data Consortium. Accessed viacelex.mpi.nl.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Balteiro, I
    (2007) The directionality of conversion in English: A dia-synchronic study. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, D. , Kliegl, R. , Vasishth, S. , & Baayen, H
    (2015) Parsimonious mixed models. arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967,ms.,arXiv, June 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauer, L. , Lieber, R. , & Plag, I
    (2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertram, R. , Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2000) The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 26, 489–511. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.26.2.489
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.489 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bozic, M. , Marslen-Wilson, W.D. , Stamatakis, E.A. , Davis, M.H. , & Tyler, L.K
    (2007) Differentiating morphology, form, and meaning: Neural correlates of morphological complexity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1464–1475. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1464
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1464 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bozic, M. , Szlachta, Z. , & Marslen-Wilson, W.D
    (2013a) Cross-linguistic parallels in processing derivational morphology: Evidence from Polish. Brain and Language, 127, 533–538. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bozic, M. , Tyler, L.K. , Su, L. , Wingfield, C. , & Marslen-Wilson, W.D
    (2013b) Neurobiological systems for lexical representation and analysis in English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1678–1691. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00420
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00420 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clahsen, H. , Sonnenstuhl, I. , & Blevins, J
    (2003) Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In R.H.Baayen & R.Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 125–155). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Darby, J
    (2015) The Processing of conversion in English: Morphological complexity and underspecification. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Oxford: University of Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dirven, R
    (1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.Panther , & G.Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.16dir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.16dir [Google Scholar]
  14. Drews, E. , & Zwitserlood, P
    (1995) Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1098–1116. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.21.5.1098
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1098 [Google Scholar]
  15. Farrell, P
    (2001) Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 109–130. doi: 10.1017/S1360674301000156
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674301000156 [Google Scholar]
  16. Feldman, L.B
    (2000) Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1431–444. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.26.6.1431
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1431 [Google Scholar]
  17. Feldman, L.B. , & Andjelković, D
    (1992) Morphological analysis in word recognition. In R. Frost & L.Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp.343–360). Amsterdam: North-Holland. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62802‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62802-2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Feldman, L.B. , & Prostko, B
    (2002) Graded aspects of morphological processing: Task and processing time. Brain and Language, 81, 12–27. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2503
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2503 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hay, J
    (2001) Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.041
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [Google Scholar]
  20. Henderson, L. , Wallis, J. , & Knight, K
    (1984) Morphemic structure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & D.Bouwhis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp.211–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. JMP, Version 12 (1988–2007) Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kiparsky, P
    (1982) From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H.van der Hulst & N.Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part 1 (pp.131‑175). Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1983) Word-formation and the lexicon. In F.Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp. 3–29). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lieber, R
    (1981) Morphological conversion within a restrictive theory of the lexicon. In M. Moortgat , H.van der Hulst , & T.Hoekstra (Eds.), The scope of lexical rules (pp. 161–200). Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Marslen-Wilson, W.D
    (2007) Morphological processes in language comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Marslen-Wilson, W.D. & Tyler, L.K
    (1998) Rules, representations, and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 428–435. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(98)01239‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01239-X [Google Scholar]
  27. Marslen-Wilson, W.D. , & Tyler, L
    (2007) Morphology, language and the brain: the decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 362, 823–836. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2091
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2091 [Google Scholar]
  28. Marslen-Wilson, W.D. , Tyler, L.K. , Waksler, R. , & Older, L
    (1994) Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Meinzer, M. , Lahiri, A. , Flaisch, T. , Hanneman, R. , & Eulitz, C
    (2009) Opaque for the reader but transparent for the brain: Neural signatures of morphological complexity. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1964–1971. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Plag, I
    (2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pliatsikas, C. , Wheeldon, L. , Lahiri, A. , & Hansen, P
    (2014) Processing of zero-derived words in English: an fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia, 53, 47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rastle, K. , Davis, M. , & Marslen-Wilson, W
    (2000) Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: a time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537. doi: 10.1080/01690960050119689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119689 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rastle, K. , Davis, M. , & New, B
    (2004) The broth in my brother’s brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 1090–1098. doi: 10.3758/BF03196742
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196742 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rastle, K. , Harrington, J. , & Coltheart, M
    (2002) Nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 1339–1362. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000099
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000099 [Google Scholar]
  35. Reetz, H. & Kleinmann, A
    (2003) Multi-subject hardware for experiment control and precise reaction time measurement. In M.J.Solé , D.Recasens , & J.Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp.1489–1492). Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rubin, G. , Becker, C. , & Freeman, R
    (1979) Morphological structure and its effect on visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 757–767. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90467‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90467-5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R.H
    (1995) Modeling morphological processing. In L.Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.131–54). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stanners, R.F. , Neiser, J.J. , Hernon, W.P. , & Hall, R
    (1979) Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 399–412. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90219‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90219-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Taft, M. , & Forster, K
    (1975) Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80051‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X [Google Scholar]
  40. Taft, M
    (2004) Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000477
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ungerer, F
    (2002) The conceptual function of derivational word-formation in English. Anglia, 120, 534–567.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Williams, E
    (1981) On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.”Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vannest, J. , Polk, T. , & Lewis, R
    (2005) Dual-route processing of complex words: New fMRI evidence from derivational suffixation. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 67–76. doi: 10.3758/CABN.5.1.67
    https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.5.1.67 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.2.02dar
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error