1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 12, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Unbounded productivity is a hallmark of linguistic competence. Here, we asked whether this capacity automatically applies to signs. Participants saw video-clips of novel signs in American Sign Language (ASL) produced by a signer whose body appeared in a monochromatic color, and they quickly identified the signs’ color. The critical manipulation compared reduplicative (αα) signs to non-reduplicative (αβ) controls. Past research has shown that reduplication is frequent in ASL, and frequent structures elicit stronger Stroop interference. If signers automatically generalize the reduplication function, then αα signs should elicit stronger color-naming interference. Results showed no effect of reduplication for signs whose base (α) consisted of native ASL features (possibly, due to the similarity of α items to color names). Remarkably, signers were highly sensitive to reduplication when the base (α) included novel features. These results demonstrate that signers can freely extend their linguistic knowledge to novel forms, and they do so automatically. Unbounded productivity thus defines all languages, irrespective of input modality.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
2018-03-16
2024-10-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albright, A. , & Hayes, B.
    (2003) Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00146‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X [Google Scholar]
  2. Baus, C. , Gutiérrez-Sigut, E. , Quer, J. , & Carreiras, M.
    (2008) Lexical access in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production. Cognition, 108, 856–865. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baus, C. , Gutiérrez, E. , & Carreiras, M.
    (2014) The role of syllables in sign language production. Frontiers In Psychology, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01254
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01254 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berent, I. , & Shimron, J.
    (1997) The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle. Cognition, 64, 39–72. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(97)00016‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00016-4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berent, I. , Shimron, J. , & Vaknin, V.
    (2001) Phonological constraints on reading: Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 644–665. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2760
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2760 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berent, I.
    (2002) Identity avoidance in the Hebrew lexicon: implications for symbolic accounts of word formation. Brain and Language, 81, 326–341. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2528
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2528 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berent, I. , Marcus, G. F. , Shimron, J. , & Gafos, A. I.
    (2002) The scope of linguistic generalizations: evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition, 83, 113–139. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(01)00167‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00167-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berent, I. , & Shimron, J.
    (2003) Co-occurrence restrictions on identical consonants in the Hebrew lexicon: Are they due to similarity?Journal of Linguistics, 39, 31–55. doi: 10.1017/S0022226702001949
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001949 [Google Scholar]
  9. Berent, I. , Vaknin, V. , & Shimron, J.
    (2004) Does a theory of language need a grammar? Evidence from Hebrew root structure. Brain and Language, 90, 170–182. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00430‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00430-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berent, I. , & Marom, M.
    (2005) The skeletal structure of printed words: Evidence from the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 328–338.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Berent, I. , Pinker, S. , Tzelgov, J. , Bibi, U. , & Goldfarb, L.
    (2005) Computation of semantic number from morphological information. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 342–358. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Berent, I. , Bibi, U. , & Tzelgov, J.
    (2006) The autonomous computation of linguistic structure in reading: Evidence from the Stroop task. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 201–230. doi: 10.1075/ml.1.2.03ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.2.03ber [Google Scholar]
  13. Berent, I. , Vaknin, V. , & Marcus, G.
    (2007) Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew. Cognition, 104, 254–286. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Berent, I. , Wilson, C. , Marcus, G. , & Bemis, D.
    (2012) On the role of variables in phonology: Remarks on Hayes and Wilson. Linguistic Inquiry, 43, 97–119. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00075
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00075 [Google Scholar]
  15. Berent, I. , Dupuis, A. , & Brentari, D.
    (2013) Amodal aspects of linguistic design. Plos One, 8. doi: 10.1371/annotation/935f97a6‑67f9‑4331‑a998‑f94a62826194
     https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/935f97a6-67f9-4331-a998-f94a62826194 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 5, 560.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bosworth, R. G. , & Emmorey, K.
    (2010) Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in american sign language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1573–1581. doi: 10.1037/a0020934
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020934 [Google Scholar]
  18. Botvinick, M. M. , Braver, T. S. , Barch, D. M. , Carter, C. S. , & Cohen, J. D.
    (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.108.3.624
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brentari, D.
    (1998) A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brentari, D. , Coppola, M. , Mazzoni, L. , & Goldin-Meadow, S.
    (2012) When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gestures, signers and homesigners. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9145‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bybee, J. , & McClelland, J. L.
    (2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. Linguistic Review, 22, 381–410. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bybee, J. L.
    (2008) Linguistic universals and language change. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (pp.108–121). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Caselli, N. K. , & Pyers, J. E.
    (2017) The Road to Language Learning Is Not Entirely Iconic: Iconicity, Neighborhood Density, and Frequency Facilitate Acquisition of Sign Language. Psychological Science, 28, 979–987.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. Gravenhage: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky, N. , & Halle, M.
    (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chomsky, N.
    (1972) Language and mind (Enl. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. doi: 10.1162/0024389052993655
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  28. Corina, D. P. , & Knapp, H.
    (2006) Sign language processing and the mirror neuron system. Cortex, 42, 529–539. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑9452(08)70393‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70393-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dalrymple-Alford, E.
    (1972) Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task. Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 274–276. doi: 10.3758/BF03210377
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210377 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dupuis, A. , & Berent, I.
    (2015) Lexical access to signs is automatic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 11, 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Eimas, P. , & Seidenberg, M.
    (1997) Do Infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics?Science, 284, 433.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Elman, J.
    (1993) Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(93)90058‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90058-4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Elman, J. L. , Bates, E. A. , Johnson, M. H. , Karmiloff-Smith, A. , Parisi, D. , & Plunkett, K.
    (1996) Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge: MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Elman, J. L.
    (2005) Connectionist models of cognitive development: where next?Trends Cogn Sci, 9, 111–117. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Emmorey, K. , Lane, H. L. , Bellugi, U. , & Klima, E. S.
    (2000) The signs of language revisited: an anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Emmorey, K. , Grabowski, T. , McCullough, S. , Damasio, H. , Ponto, L. , Hichwa, R. , et al.
    (2004) Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89, 27–37. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00309‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00309-2 [Google Scholar]
  37. Entel, O. , Tzelgov, J. , Bereby-Meyer, Y. , & Shahar, N.
    (2015) Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task. An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action, 79, 913–927.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Flemming, E.
    (2001) Scalar and Categorical Phenomena in a Unified Model of Phonetics and Phonology. Phonology, 18, 7–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Fodor, J. , & Pylyshyn, Z.
    (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90031‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fodor, J. A.
    (1975) The language of thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Frisch, S. A. , Pierrehumbert, J. B. , & Broe, M. B.
    (2004) Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 197–228. doi: 10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.78535.3c
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.78535.3c [Google Scholar]
  42. Gervain, J. , Macagno, F. , Cogoi, S. , Peña, M. , & Mehler, J.
    (2008) The neonate brain detects speech structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 105, 14222–14227. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806530105
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806530105 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gervain, J. , Berent, I. , & Werker, J.
    (2012) Binding at birth: Newborns detect identity relations and sequential position in speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 564–574. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00157
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00157 [Google Scholar]
  44. Greenberg, J. H.
    (1950) The patterning of morphemes in Semitic. Word, 6, 162–181. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1950.11659378
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1950.11659378 [Google Scholar]
  45. Haskell, T. R. , MacDonald, M. C. , & Seidenberg, M. S.
    (2003) Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 119–163. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00007‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00007-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hayes, B. , & Wilson, C.
    (2008) A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry39, 379–440. doi: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hildebrandt, U. , & Corina, D.
    (2002) Phonological Similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 593–612. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000371
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000371 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jacoby, L. , Lindsay, D. , & Hessels, S.
    (2003) Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638–644. doi: 10.3758/BF03196526
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196526 [Google Scholar]
  49. Joanisse, M. F. , & McClelland, J. L.
    (2015) Connectionist perspectives on language learning, representation and processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 6, 235–247. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1340
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1340 [Google Scholar]
  50. Leben, W.
    (1973) Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Levin, Y. , & Tzelgov, J.
    (2016) Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm. Acta psychologica, 164, 39. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  52. Liddell, S. , & Johnson, R.
    (1986) American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4, 445–513. doi: 10.1007/BF00134470
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134470 [Google Scholar]
  53. Logan, G.
    (1980) Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(80)90019‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  54. MacLeod, C. M.
    (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrate review. Psychological Bulletin, 109. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.109.2.163
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  55. Marcus, G.
    (2001) The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Marcus, G. F.
    (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]
  57. Marcus, G. F. , Vijayan, S. , Bandi Rao, S. , & Vishton, P. M.
    (1999) Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283, 77–80. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5398.77
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5398.77 [Google Scholar]
  58. Marcus, G. F. , Fernandes, K. J. , & Johnson, S. P.
    (2007) Infant rule learning facilitated by speech. Psychol Sci, 18, 387–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2007.01910.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01910.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Marom, M. , & Berent, I.
    (2010) Phonological constraints on the assembly of skeletal structure in reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic research, 39, 67–88. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑009‑9126‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9126-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Marschark, M. , & Shroyer, E. H.
    (1993) Hearing Status and Language Fluency as Predictors of Automatic Word and Sign Recognition. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 370–375. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0381
     https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0381 [Google Scholar]
  61. McCarthy, J.
    (1986) OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 207–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. McCarthy, J. J.
    (1989) Linear order in phonological representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 71–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. McClelland, J. L. , & Patterson, K.
    (2002) Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out?Trends Cogn Sci, 6, 465–472. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01993‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01993-9 [Google Scholar]
  64. McClelland, J. L.
    (2009) Phonology and perception: A cognitive scientist’s perspective. In P. Boersma & S. Hamann (Eds.), Phonology in perception (pp.293–314). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. McClelland, J. L. , Botvinick, M. M. , Noelle, D. C. , Plaut, D. C. , Rogers, T. T. , Seidenberg, M. S. , et al.
    (2010) Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 348–356. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ormel, E. , Knoors, H. , Hermans, D. , & Verhoeven, L.
    (2009) The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: The case of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 436–448. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enp021
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp021 [Google Scholar]
  67. Oudeyer, P. -Y.
    (2001) The Origins Of Syllable Systems: an Operational Model. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science society, COGSCI’2001 (pp.744–749): Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Petitto, L. A. , Holowka, S. , Sergio, L. E. , & Ostry, D.
    (2001) Language rhythms in baby hand movements. Nature, 413, 35–36. doi: 10.1038/35092613
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35092613 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pierrehumbert, J.
    (1993) Dissimilarity in Arabic verbal roots. Paper presented atthe Proceedings of NELS 23, GLSA, Departments of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Pinker, S. , & Prince, A.
    (1988) On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90032‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7 [Google Scholar]
  71. Pinker, S.
    (1997a) Words and rules in the human brain. Nature, 387, 547–548. doi: 10.1038/42347
     https://doi.org/10.1038/42347 [Google Scholar]
  72. (1997b) How the mind works. New York: Norton.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Prince, A. , & Smolensky, P.
    (1993/2004) Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Proctor, R. W.
    (1978) Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task. Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 413–419. doi: 10.3758/BF03204145
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204145 [Google Scholar]
  75. Rabagliati, H. , Senghas, A. , Johnson, S. , & Marcus, G. F.
    (2012) Infant rule learning: Advantage language, or advantage speech?Plos One, 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040517
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040517 [Google Scholar]
  76. Ramscar, M. , & Dye, M.
    (2011) Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can’t explain noun compounding. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 1–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Rumelhart, D. E. , & McClelland, J. L.
    (1986) On learning past tense of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing?In D. Rumelhart , E. J. McClelland , L & T. P. R. Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol.2, pp.216–271). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Sandler, W. , & Lillo-Martin, D. C.
    (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sandler, W. , Aronoff, M. , Meir, I. , & Padden, C.
    (2011) The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 505–543. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9128‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9128-2 [Google Scholar]
  80. Seidenberg, M. , & McClelland, J.
    (1989) A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.96.4.523
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523 [Google Scholar]
  81. Seidenberg, M.
    (1997) Language acquistion and use: Learning and applying probabilistic contraints. Science, 275, 1599–1603. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5306.1599
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1599 [Google Scholar]
  82. Seidenberg, M. S. , & Jeffery, L. E.
    (1999) Do infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics. Science, 284, 433. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5413.433f
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5413.433f [Google Scholar]
  83. Smolensky, P. , Goldrick, M. , & Mathis, D.
    (2014) Optimization and Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition. Cognitive Science, 38, 1102–1138. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12047
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12047 [Google Scholar]
  84. Stokoe, W. C., Jr.
    (1960) Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 3–37. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni001 [Google Scholar]
  85. Stroop, J. R.
    (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 [Google Scholar]
  86. Supalla, T. , & Newport, E.
    (1978) How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. (pp.91–132). New-York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Thompson, R. L. , Vinson, D. P. , & Vigliocco, G.
    (2009) The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 550–557.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. (2010) The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1017–1027.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Thompson, R. L. , Vinson, D. P. , Woll, B. , & Vigliocco, G.
    (2012) The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British sign language. Psychological Science, 23, 1443–1448. doi: 10.1177/0956797612459763
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459763 [Google Scholar]
  90. Tzelgov, J. , Henik, A. , & Berger, J.
    (1992) Controlling Stroop effect by manipulating expectation for color related stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727–735. doi: 10.3758/BF03202722
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202722 [Google Scholar]
  91. Tzelgov, J.
    (1997) Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: A theoretical note. Consciousness And Cognition, 6, 441–451. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1997.0303
     https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1997.0303 [Google Scholar]
  92. Westermann, G.
    (2016) Experience-Dependent Brain Development as a Key to Understanding the Language System. Topics In Cognitive Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Wilbur, R. B.
    (1973) The phonology of reduplication. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ann Arbor.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. (2009) Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences, 31, 325–342. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.017 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
Loading
The unbounded productivity of (sign) language
The Mental Lexicon 12, 309 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): rules; sign language; stroop

Most Cited

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