1887
New Questions for the Next Decade
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

We propose a theory of the lexicon in which rules of grammar, encoded as declarative schemas, are lexical items containing variables. We develop a notation to encode precise relations among lexical items and show how this differs from the standard notion of inheritance. We also show how schemas can play both a generative role, acting as productive rules, and also a relational role, where they codify nonproductive but nevertheless prolific patterns within the lexicon. We then show how this theory of lexical relations can be embedded directly into a theory of lexical access and lexical processing, such that it can make direct contact with experimental findings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.3.06jac
2016-12-16
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amenta, S. , & Crepaldi, D
    (2012) Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, H
    (1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp.181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3710‑4_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3710-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R.H. , Dijkstra, T. , & Schreuder, R
    (1997) Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94–117. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2509
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2509 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R.H. , & Lieber, R
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–844. doi: 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baddeley, A
    (1986)Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berwick, R. , & Chomsky, N
    (2016)Why only us?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bien, H. , Baayen, R.H. , & Levelt, W.J.M
    (2011) Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 683–715. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.511475
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.511475 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bock, K. , & Loebell, H
    (1990) Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(90)90035‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I [Google Scholar]
  9. Booij, G
    (2010)Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. . (to appear). Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.) Default inheritance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Butterworth, B
    (1983) Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (vol. 2, pp.257–294). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, J
    (1985)Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  13. (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]
  14. (2001)Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010)Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bybee, J. , & Slobin, D
    (1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language58: 265–289. doi: 10.1353/lan.1982.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0021 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, N
    (1965)Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Clahsen, H
    (1999) Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Collins, A. , & Loftus, E
    (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.82.6.407
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins, A. , & Quillian, M
    (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 240–247. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(69)80069‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Culicover, P.W
    (1999)Syntactic nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Culicover, P.W. , & Jackendoff, R
    (2005)Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Culicover, P.W. , & Nowak, A
    (2003)Dynamical grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Daelemans, W. , De Smet, K. , & Gazdar, G
    (1992) Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18, 205–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. deJong, N
    (2002)Morphological families in the mental Lexicon. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. de Saussure, F
    (1916)Cours de linguistique générale, ed. by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye , with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger , Lausanne and Paris: Payot; trans. by W. Baskin, Course in general linguistics, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins 1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fiorentino, R. , & Poeppel, D
    (2007) Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 953–1000. doi: 10.1080/01690960701190215
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701190215 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fodor, J.D
    (1998) Learning to parse?In D. Swinney (Ed.), Anniversary Issue of Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gallistel, C.R. , & King, P.A
    (2009)Memory and the computational brain. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444310498
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310498 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A
    (1995)Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2005)Constructions at work. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hagoort, P
    2005 On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416–423. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hale, J
    (2003) The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 101–123. doi: 10.1023/A:1022492123056
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022492123056 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2011) What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science, 35, 399–443. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01145.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01145.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Halle, M. , & Marantz, A
    (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp.111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hankamer, J
    (1989) Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp.392–408). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hay, J. , & Baayen, H
    (2005) Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology, Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342–348. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hoffman, T. , & Trousdale, G
    (Eds.) (2013)The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jackendoff, R
    (1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the Lexicon, Language, 51(3), 639–671. doi: 10.2307/412891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412891 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002)Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2007) A Parallel Architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2010)Meaning and the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Jackendoff, R. , & Audring, J
    . (forthcoming). The texture of the mental Lexicon.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kapatsinski, V
    (2007) Frequency, neighborhood density, age-of-acquisition, lexicon size, neighborhood density and speed of processing: Towards a domain-general, single-mechanism account. In S. Buescher , K. Holley , E. Ashworth , C. Beckner , B. Jones , & C. Shank (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th annual High Desert Linguistics Society Conference (pp.121–140). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kuperberg, G. , & Jaeger, F
    . (2015). What do we mean by prediction in language processing?Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kuperman, V. , Bertram, R. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2008) Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132. doi: 10.1080/01690960802193688
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802193688 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lakoff, G
    (1987)Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Langacker, R
    (1987)Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Levelt, W. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Levy, R
    (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  51. Libben, G
    (2006) Why study compounds? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp.1–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Marcus, G
    (1998) Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 243–282. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0694
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0694 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2001)The algebraic mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Marr, D
    (1982)Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Marslen-Wilson, W. , & Tyler, L.K
    (1980) The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(80)90015‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3 [Google Scholar]
  56. Marslen-Wilson, W
    (1987) Functional parallelism in spoken language understanding. Cognition, 25, 71–102. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(87)90005‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9 [Google Scholar]
  57. Marslen-Wilson, W. , & Zwitserlood, P
    (1989) Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 576–585. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.15.3.576
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.576 [Google Scholar]
  58. 
Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. , Bertram, R. , Häikiö, T. , Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2004) Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1271–1278. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.30.6.1271
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1271 [Google Scholar]
  59. Murphy, G
    (2002)The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Nooteboom, S. , Weerman, F. , & Wijnen, F
    (Eds.) (2002)Storage and computation in the language faculty. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0355‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0355-1 [Google Scholar]
  61. O’Donnell, T.J
    (2015)Productivity and reuse in language: A theory of linguistic computation and storage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028844.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028844.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Oldfield, R. , & Wingfield, A
    (1965) Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–281. doi: 10.1080/17470216508416445
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445 [Google Scholar]
  63. Pinker, S
    (1999)Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Plag, I
    (2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  65. Pollard, C. , & Sag, I
    (1994)Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Radden, G. , & Panther, K.-U
    (2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.1–46). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Reifegerste, J
    (2014)Morphological processing in younger and older people: Evidence for flexible dual-route access. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Riehemann, S
    (1988) Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, 49–77. doi: 10.1023/A:1009746617055
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009746617055 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rumelhart, D
    (1980) Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro , B. Bruce , & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Rumelhart, D. , & McClelland, J
    (1986) On learning the past tense of English verbs. In J. McClelland , D. Rumelhart , & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing (vol. ii, pp.216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R.H
    (1995) Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.131–154). Hove: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Siddiqi, D
    . (to appear). Distributed Morphology. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of morphological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Smolensky, P. , & Legendre, G
    (2006)The harmonic mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Swinney, D
    (1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90355‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4 [Google Scholar]
  75. 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]
  76. Tanenhaus, M. , Leiman, J.M. , & Seidenberg, M
    (1979) Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 427–440. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90237‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90237-8 [Google Scholar]
  77. Tomasello, M
    (2003)Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ullman, M.T
    (2015) The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp.135–158). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Wittenberg, E. , & Snedeker, J
    (2014) It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 635–641. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.831918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.831918 [Google Scholar]
  80. Woods, W
    (1980) Multiple theory formation in speech and reading. In R. Spiro , B. Bruce , & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.59–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Yang, Charles
    (2016)The price of linguistic productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.3.06jac
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