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

Abstract

Current theoretical approaches to inflectional morphology make extensive use of the two concepts of abstract feature decomposition and underspecification. Psycholinguistic models of inflection, in contrast, generally lack such more differentiated morphological analyses. This paper reports a series of behavioral experiments that investigate the processing of grammatical gender of nouns in German. The results of these experiments support the idea that elements in the mental lexicon may be underspecified with regard to their grammatical features. However, contrary to all established morphological and psycholinguistic approaches, we provide evidence that even the lexical representation of bare noun stems is characterized by underspecified gender information. The observation that the domain of underspecification of grammatical features extends from inflectional markers to noun stems, supports the idea that underspecification is a more general characteristic of the mental lexicon. We conclude that this finding is mainly driven by economical reasons: a feature (or feature value) that is never used for grammatical operations (e.g., inflectional marking or evaluation of agreement) is not needed in the language system at all.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.2.03opi
2016-07-18
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blevins, J
    (1995) Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 113–152. doi: 10.1007/BF00985214
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985214 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bordag, D. , & Pechmann, Th
    (2008) Grammatical gender in speech production: Evidence from Czech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 69–85. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑007‑9060‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-007-9060-0 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, J
    (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  5. Caramazza, A. , Laudanna, A. , & Romani, C
    (1988) Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clahsen, H. , Eisenbeiss, S. , Hadler, M. , & Sonnenstuhl, I
    (2001) The mental representation of inflected words: An experimental study of adjectives and verbs in German. Language, 77, 510–543. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0140
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0140 [Google Scholar]
  7. Corbett, G. , & Fraser, N
    (1993) Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 113–142. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700000074
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000074 [Google Scholar]
  8. De Martino, M. , Bracco, G. , & Laudanna, A
    (2011) The activation of grammatical gender information in processing Italian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 745–776. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.491977
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.491977 [Google Scholar]
  9. Friederici, A.D. , & Jacobson, Th
    (1999) Processing grammatical gender during language comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 467–484. doi: 10.1023/A:1023264209610
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023264209610 [Google Scholar]
  10. Frisson, St. , & Pickering, M.J
    (1999) The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366–1383. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.25.6.1366
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1366 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grimshaw, J
    (2001) Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in romance clitic systems. In G. Legendre , J.Grimshaw , & S.Vikner (Eds.), Optimal theoretic syntax (pp.205–240). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halle, M. , & Marantz, A
    (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K.Hale & S.J.Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Vol. 24 of current studies in linguistics (pp.111–176). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1994) Some key features of distributed morphology. In H.H.Andrew Carnie & T.Bures (Eds.), MITWPL: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Vol. 21 (pp.275–288). Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Holmes, V.M. , & Segui, J
    (2004) Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 425–457. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑004‑2665‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-004-2665-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Janssen, U. , & Penke, M
    (2002) How are inflectional affixes organized in the mental lexicon? Evidence from the investigation of agreement errors in agrammatic aphasics. Brain and Language, 81, 180–191. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2516
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2516 [Google Scholar]
  16. Köpcke, K.-M
    (1982) Untersuchungen zum Genussystem der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111676562
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676562 [Google Scholar]
  17. Krifka, M
    (2009) Case syncretism in German feminines: Typological, functional and structural aspects. In P.Steinkrüger & M.Krifka (Eds.), On inflection (pp.141–172). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198973
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198973 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lahiri, A. , & Reetz, H
    (2002) Underspecified recognition. Labphon, 7, 637–676.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010) Distinctive features: phonological under-specification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 44–59. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Levelt, W.J.M. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A.S
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lukatela, G. , Gligorijević, B. , Kostić, A. , & Turvey, M.T
    (1980) Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon. Memory and Cognition, 8, 415–423. doi: 10.3758/BF03211138
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211138 [Google Scholar]
  22. Meunier, F. , Seigneuric, A. , & Spinelli, E
    (2008) The morpheme gender effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 88–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Opitz, A. , Regel, St. , Müller, G. , & Friederici, A.D
    (2013) Neurophysiological evidence for morphological underspecification in German strong adjective inflection. Language, 89, 231–264. doi: 10.1353/lan.2013.0033
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0033 [Google Scholar]
  24. Penke, M
    (2006) Flexion im mentalen Lexikon. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110891706
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110891706 [Google Scholar]
  25. Penke, M. , Janssen, U. , & Eisenbeiss, S
    (2004) Psycholinguistic evidence for the underspecification of morphosyntactic features. Brain and Language, 90, 423–433. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00453‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00453-X [Google Scholar]
  26. Pickering, M.J. , & Frisson, St
    (2001) Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 556–573. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.27.2.556
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.556 [Google Scholar]
  27. Rumelhart, D.E. , & McClelland, J.L
    (1982) An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60–94. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.89.1.60
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.60 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schriefers, H
    (1993) Syntactic processes in the production of noun phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 841–850. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.19.4.841
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.841 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schiller, N.O. , & Caramazza, A
    (2003) Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 169–194. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00508‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00508-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Seidenberg, M.S. , & Gonnerman, L.M
    (2000) Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01515‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01515-1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Stockall, L. , & Marantz, A
    (2006) A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 85–123. doi: 10.1075/ml.1.1.07sto
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.1.07sto [Google Scholar]
  32. Stump, G
    (2001) Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  33. Trommer, J
    (2006) Person and number agreement in Dumi. Linguistics, 44, 1011–1057. doi: 10.1515/LING.2006.033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.033 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wegera, Kl.-P
    (1997) Das Genus: Ein Beitrag zur Didaktik des DaF-Unterrichts. Munich: Iudicum-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wunderlich, D
    (1996) Minimalist morphology: The role of paradigms. In G.Booij & J.van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995 (pp. 93–114). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3716‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_6 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.2.03opi
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): German , grammatical gender and underspecification
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