1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 18, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Form predictability has long been known to influence speaker behaviour in language learning and use. However, this observation has largely remained dissociated from the question of the most apt theoretical framing of the effects observed. We set out to seek evidence that speakers’ relationship to form predictability is best characterised in paradigmatic terms: in an experimental task comparable to prediction of one word form from a related one, speakers appear sensitive to the probabilistic, implicative relations that make up a morphological paradigm. We find this effect to be omnidirectional, from any paradigm cell to any paradigm cell. Form predictability does not impact speaker behaviour in a vacuum, but instead works together with aspects of memory and learning to organise the mental lexicon and inform language use. In a corpus study, we map out the complex relationships that exist between paradigmatic form predictability, lexeme frequency and cell frequency in the context of naturalistic language use. Speakers appear to exploit all available probabilistic relationships between the word forms of a language in a way that is predicted by Word and Paradigm theories of morphology, with memory and predictive processing playing a mediating role in all aspects of language use.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22020.cop
2023-11-28
2024-10-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.22020.cop
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R.
    (2009) Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. (Cit. on pp.3, 8). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R.
    (2013) Morphological organization: the low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 891, 429–464 (cit. onp.7). 10.1353/lan.2013.0054
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0054 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albright, A.C.
    (2003) A Quantitative Study of Spanish Paradigm Gaps. WCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (cit. on pp.7, 20, 26).
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Albright, A. C.
    (2002) The Identification of Bases in Morphological Paradigms (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles. (Cit. on pp.2, 8, 11, 24, 26).
  5. Albright, A. C., & Hayes, B. P.
    (2003) Rules vs. Analogy in English Past Tenses: A Computational/Experimental Study. Cognition, 901, 119–161 (cit. on pp.3, 6, 26). 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00146‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
    (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 67–82 (cit. on p.11). 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Aronoff, M.
    (1994) Morphology by itself. MIT Press. (Cit. on p.3).
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baayen, R.H.
    (2011) Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 111, 295–328 (cit. on p.7). 10.1590/S1984‑63982011000200003
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982011000200003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E., & Blevins, J. P.
    (2019) The discriminative lexicon: A unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de) composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 2019 (cit. on p.7). 10.1155/2019/4895891
     https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4895891 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R.
    (2006) Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 290–313 (cit. on p.28). 10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Baayen, R.H., Hendrix, P., & Ramscar, M.
    (2013) Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: an explanation of n-gram frequency effects based on naive discriminative learning. Language and Speech, 56(Pt 3), 329–47 (cit. on p.11). 10.1177/0023830913484896
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913484896 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
    (2013) Oxford Reference Guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. (Cit. on p.3). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beniamine, S.
    (2018) Typologie quantitative des systèmes de classes flexionnelles (Doctoral dissertation). Université Paris Diderot. (Cit. on pp.7, 13).
  14. (2021) One lexeme, many classes: Inflection class systems as lattices. InB. Crysmann & M. Sailer (Eds.), One-to-many relations in morphology, syntax and semantics (pp.23–51). Language Science Press. (Cit. on p.28).
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Beniamine, S., Bonami, O., & Luís, A. R.
    (2021) The fine implicative structure of European Portuguese conjugation. Isogloss, 7 (1–35) (cit. on pp.7, 9). 10.5565/rev/isogloss.109
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.109 [Google Scholar]
  16. Beniamine, S., Coavoux, M., & Bonami, O.
    (2022) French verbal frequencies in the Open Subtitles corpus [ ]. (Cit. on p.24). 10.5281/zenodo.6412876
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6412876 [Google Scholar]
  17. Berko Gleason, J.
    (1958) The Child’s Learning of English Morphology. Word, 141 (cit. on pp.3, 8).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Blevins, J. P., Milin, P., & Ramscar, M.
    (2017) The Zipfian Paradigm Cell Filling Problem. Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory (cit. on p.21). 10.1163/9789004342934_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004342934_008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Blevins, J. P.
    (2016) Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford University Press. (Cit. on pp.3, 4). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bonami, O., & Beniamine, S.
    (2016) Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure, 9 (2), 156–182 (cit. on pp.7, 12). 10.3366/word.2016.0092
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2016.0092 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bonami, O., & Boyé, G.
    (2014) De formes en thèmes. InF. Villoing, S. Leroy, & S. David (Eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques. Etudes en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux (pp.17–45). Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. (Cit. on pp.11, 12).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bonami, O., Caron, G., & Plancq, C.
    (2014) Construction d’un lexique flexionnel phonétisé libre du français. Quatrième Congrès mondial de linguistique française (cit. on pp.13, 14, 22). 10.1051/shsconf/20140801223
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801223 [Google Scholar]
  23. Bonami, O., & Strnadová, J.
    (2019) Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology, 291 (cit. on p.3). 10.1007/s11525‑018‑9322‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9322-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Boye, G., & Schalchli, G.
    (2016) The status of paradigms. InA. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (pp.206–234). Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on p.3). 10.1017/9781139814720.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Brooks, M. E., Kristensen, K., van Benthem, K. J., Magnusson, A., Berg, C. W., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H. J., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. M.
    (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal, 9 (2), 378–400. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2017/RJ-2017-066/index.html (cit. on pp.14, 23) 10.32614/RJ‑2017‑066
     https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bybee, J. L.
    (1991) Natural morphology: the organization of paradigms and language acquisition (cit. on pp.20, 25). 10.1075/lald.2.08byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.2.08byb [Google Scholar]
  27. (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (cit. on p. 3). 10.1075/tsl.9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press. (Cit. on p.3).
     [Google Scholar]
  29. del Prado Martín, F. M., Kostić, A., & Baayen, H. R.
    (2004) Putting the bits together: an information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94(1), 1–18 (cit. on pp.26, 28, 29). 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  30. de Marneffe, M.-C., Manning, C. D., Nivre, J., & Zeman, D.
    (2021) Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics, 47 (2), 255–308 (cit. on p.24). 10.1162/coli_a_00402
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00402 [Google Scholar]
  31. Filipović Durđević, D., & Milin, P.
    (2019) Information and learning in processing adjective inflection [Structure in words: the present and future of morphologicalical processing in a multidisciplinary perspective]. Cortex, 1161, 209–227 (cit. on p.8).
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G.
    (2015) The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 1401, 1–11 (cit. on p.18). 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. Guzmán Naranjo, M.
    (2020) Analogy, complexity and predictability in the Russian nominal inflection system. Morphology, 30(3), 219–262 (cit. on p.7). 10.1007/s11525‑020‑09367‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09367-1 [Google Scholar]
  34. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D.
    (2010) Understanding Morphology. Arnold. (Cit. on pp.20, 25).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hathout, N., Sajous, F., & Calderone, B.
    (2014) GLÀFF, a large versatile French lexicon. Proceedings of LREC 2014 (cit. on p.22).
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hockett, C. F.
    (1967) The Yawelmani basic verb. Language, 431, 208–222 (cit. on p.4). 10.2307/411395
     https://doi.org/10.2307/411395 [Google Scholar]
  37. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on p.3). 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jun, J., & Albright, A.
    (2016) Speakers’ Knowledge of Alternations Is Asymmetrical: Evidence from Seoul Korean Verb Paradigms. Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on pp.9–11, 17, 19, 30).
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior research methods, 421, 627–33 (cit. on p.13). 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kiefer, F.
    (2000) Regularity. InMorphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/Morphology: An international Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. (Cit. on pp.20, 25). 10.1515/9783110111286.1.4.296
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110111286.1.4.296 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A.
    (1984) Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 3071, 161–163 (cit. on p.18). 10.1038/307161a0
     https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0 [Google Scholar]
  42. Le, H., Vial, L., Frej, J., Segonne, V., Coavoux, M., Lecouteux, B., Allauzen, A., Crabbé, B., Besacier, L., & Schwab, D.
    (2020) FlauBERT: Unsupervised language model pre-training for French. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2479–2490. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.302 (cit. on p.24)
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lévèque, D., & Pellard, T.
    (2023) The implicative structure of Asama verb paradigms. Morphology, 331 (cit. on p.7). 10.1007/s11525‑023‑09410‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-023-09410-x [Google Scholar]
  44. Lieberman, E., Michel, J.-B., Jackson, J., Tang, T., & Nowak, M. A.
    (2007) Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature, 449 (7163), 713–716 (cit. on pp.7, 20). 10.1038/nature06137
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06137 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lison, P., & Tiedemann, J.
    (2016) OpenSubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and TV subtitles. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), 923–929. https://aclanthology.org/L16-1147 (cit. on p.24)
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., & Baayen, H.
    (2018) Whole-word frequency and inflectional paradigm size facilitate Estonian case-inflected noun processing. Cognition, 1751, 20–25 (cit. on pp.10, 28). 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B., & Baayen, H.
    (2018) Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects. Morphology, 281 (cit. on pp.10, 28). 10.1007/s11525‑017‑9318‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9318-7 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lukatela, G., Gligorijević, B., Kostić, A., & Turvey, M. T.
    (1980) Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon. Memory & Cognition, 81, 415–423 (cit. on p.8). 10.3758/BF03211138
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211138 [Google Scholar]
  49. Maiden, M.
    (1995) A Linguistic History of Italian. Longman. https://books.google.fr/books?id=GRhdAAAAMAAJ. (Cit. on p.20)
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Malouf, R.
    (2017) Abstractive morphological learning with a recurrent neural network. Morphology, 271, 431–458 (cit. on p.7). 10.1007/s11525‑017‑9307‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  51. Mansfield, J.
    (2016) Intersecting formatives and inflectional predictability: How do speakers and learners predict the correct form of Murrinhpatha verbs?Word Structure, 91, 183–214 (cit. on p.7). 10.3366/word.2016.0093
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2016.0093 [Google Scholar]
  52. Marcus, G. F.
    (2001) The Algebraic Mind: Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science. The MIT Press. (Cit. on p.8). 10.7551/mitpress/1187.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1187.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., Xu, F., & Clahsen, H.
    (1992) Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (4), i–178. RetrievedSeptember 23, 2022, fromwww.jstor.org/stable/1166115 (cit. on p.21) 10.2307/1166115
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1166115 [Google Scholar]
  54. Marzi, C., Ferro, M., & Pirrelli, V.
    (2019) A Processing-Oriented Investigation of Inflectional Complexity. Frontiers in Communication, 41 (cit. on p.21). 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00048
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00048 [Google Scholar]
  55. Matthews, P. H.
    (1965) The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 11, 139–171 (cit. on p.3). 10.1017/S0022226700001146
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001146 [Google Scholar]
  56. (1972) Inflectional Morphology. A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on p.4).
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (1991) Morphology (2nd). Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on p.3). 10.1017/CBO9781139166485
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166485 [Google Scholar]
  58. Milin, P., & Blevins, J. P.
    (2020) Paradigms in morphology. InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. (Cit. on p.3). 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.551
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.551 [Google Scholar]
  59. Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, H.
    (2009) Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation (cit. on pp.10, 28). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  60. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2004) Putting the bits together: an information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 941, 1–18 (cit. on p.10). 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  61. Pellegrini, M.
    (2021) Patterns of interpredictability and principal parts in Latin verb paradigms: An entropy-based approach. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 20(1) (cit. on p.7).
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pinker, S.
    (1999) Words and Rules: The Ingredients Of Language. Basic Books. https://books.google.fr/books?id=2cEuBgAAQBAJ. (Cit. on p.21)
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Pinker, S., & Prince, A.
    (1988) On language and connectionism: Analysis ofa parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28(1), 73193 (cit. on p.8). 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90032‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7 [Google Scholar]
  64. Prasada, S., & Pinker, S.
    (1993) Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 81, 1–56 (cit. on p.3). 10.1080/01690969308406948
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406948 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ramscar, M.
    (2021) A discriminative account of the learning, representation and processing of inflection systems. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience (cit. on p.7).
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E.
    (2004) The Effects of Frequency and Predictability on Eye Fixations in Reading: Implications for the E-Z Reader Model. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 301, 720–32 (cit. on p.18). 10.1037/0096‑1523.30.4.720
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.720 [Google Scholar]
  67. Robins, R. H.
    (1959) In defense of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society, 581, 116–144 (cit. on p.4). 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1959.tb00301.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1959.tb00301.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L.
    (1986) On Learning the Past Tenses of English Verbs. InParallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models (pp.216–271). MIT Press. (Cit. on pp.7, 8). 10.7551/mitpress/5236.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5236.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  69. Schafer, R.
    (2015) Processing and Querying Large Web Corpora with the COW14 architecture. Proceedings of Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora, 28–34 (cit. on pp.23, 24).
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Seyfarth, S., Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R.
    (2014) Implicative organization facilitates morphological learning. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–494 (cit. on p.9). 10.3765/bls.v40i0.3154
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v40i0.3154 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sims, A. D.
    (2015) Inflectional defectiveness. Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on pp.7, 20). 10.1017/CBO9781107053854
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107053854 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sims, A. D., & Parker, J.
    (2016) How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Word Structure, 91, 215–239 (cit. on p.7). 10.3366/word.2016.0094
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2016.0094 [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith, N. J., & Levy, R.
    (2011) Cloze but no cigar: The complex relationship between cloze, corpus, and subjective probabilities in language processing. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 331 (cit. on p.18).
     [Google Scholar]
  74. (2013) The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319 (cit. on p.18). 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  75. Štekauer, P.
    (2014) Derivational Paradigms. InR. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (pp.354–369). Oxford University Press. (Cit. on p. 3).
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Stump, G. T.
    (2001) Inflectional Morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on p.7). 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  77. Stump, G. T., & Finkel, R.
    (2013) Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press. (Cit. on pp.3, 9). 10.1017/CBO9781139248860
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139248860 [Google Scholar]
  78. Thymé, A., Ackerman, F., & Elman, J.
    (1994) Finnish Nominal Inflection: Paradigmatic Patterns and Token Analogy. InS. D. Lima, R. Corrigan, & G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The Reality of Linguistic Rules. John Benjamins. (Cit. on pp.7, 8). 10.1075/slcs.26.25thy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.26.25thy [Google Scholar]
  79. Ullman, M.
    (2001) A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 21, 717–26 (cit. on p.8). 10.1038/35094573
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35094573 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wilmoth, S., & Mansfield, J.
    (2021) Inflectional predictability and prosodic morphology in Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara. Morphology (cit. on p.7). 10.1007/s11525‑021‑09380‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-021-09380-y [Google Scholar]
  81. Wu, S., Cotterell, R., & O’Donnell, T. J.
    (2019) Morphological Irregularity Correlates with Frequency. CoRR, abs/1906.11483. arxiv.org/abs/1906.11483 (cit. on pp.7, 11, 21, 22, 25) 10.18653/v1/P19‑1505
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1505 [Google Scholar]
  82. Wunderlich, D., & Fabri, R.
    (1995) Minimalist Morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14(2), 236–294 (cit. onp.3). 10.1515/zfsw.1995.14.2.236
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1995.14.2.236 [Google Scholar]
  83. Wurzel, W. U.
    (1984) Flexionsmorphologie und NatÃŒdichkeit: Ein beitrag zur mor-phologischen theoriebildung. Akademie Verlag. (Cit. on p.4).
     [Google Scholar]
  84. (1989) Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness (cit. on p.4).
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Yang, C.
    (2016) The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of LanguageHow Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. (Cit. on p.21).
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Zehr, J., & Schwarz, F.
    (2018) PennController for Internet Based Experiments (cit. on p.14).
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22020.cop
Loading
Behavioural evidence for implicative paradigmatic relations
The Mental Lexicon 18, 177 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.22020.cop
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22020.cop
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.22020.cop
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acceptability judgement experiment; corpus study; frequency; irregularity; memory; predictability; word-and-paradigm morphology

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