A number of studies in different languages have shown that speakers may be sensitive to the presence of inflectional morphology in the absence of verb meaning (Caramazza et al. in Cognition 28(3):297-332, 1988; Clahsen in Behav Brain Sci 22(06):991-1013, 1999; Post et al. in Cognition 109(1):1-17, 2008). In this study, sensitivity to inflectional morphemes was tested in a purposely developed task with English-like nonwords. Native speakers of English were presented with pairs of nonwords and were asked to judge whether the two nonwords in each pair were the same or different. Each pair was composed either of the same nonword repeated twice, or of two slightly different nonwords. The nonwords were created taking advantage of a specific morphophonological property of English, which is that regular inflectional morphemes agree in voicing with the ending of the stem. Using stems ending in /l/, thus, we created: (1) nonwords ending in potential inflectional morphemes, vɔld, (2) nonwords without inflectional morphemes, vɔlt, and (3) a phonological control condition, vɔlb. Our new task endorses some strengths presented in previous work. As in Post et al. (2008) the task accounts for the importance of phonological cues to morphological processing. In addition, as in Caramazza et al. (1988) and contrary to Post et al. (2008), the task never presents bare-stems, making it unlikely that the participants would be aware of the manipulation performed. Our results are in line with Caramazza et al. (1988), Clahsen (1999) and Post et al. (2008), and offer further evidence that morphologically inflected nonwords take longer to be discriminated compared to uninflected nonwords.

Cambridge Language Sciences University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Faculty of Arts Charles University Prague Czech Republic

School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences University of Reading Reading UK

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Aronoff M. Word formation in generative grammar. Linguistic inquiry monographs Cambridge, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1976. pp. 1–134.

Baayen RH. A real experiment is a factorial experiment. The Mental Lexicon. 2010;5(1):149–157. doi: 10.1075/ml.5.1.06baa. DOI

Baayen RH, Milin P, Đurđević DF, Hendrix P, Marelli M. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review. 2011;118(3):438. doi: 10.1037/a0023851. PubMed DOI

Baayen RH, Shaoul C, Willits J, Ramscar M. Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naive discriminative learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2016;31(1):106–128. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1065336. DOI

Bacovcin HA, Davies AG, Wilder RJ, Embick D. Auditory morphological processing: Evidence from phonological priming. Cognition. 2017;164:102–106. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.011. PubMed DOI PMC

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.

Beauvillain C. Morphological structure in visual word recognition: Evidence from prefixed and suffixed words. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1994;9(3):317–339. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402122. DOI

Berko J. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word. 1958;14(2–3):150–177. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661. DOI

Blything RP, Ambridge B, Lieven EV. Children’s acquisition of the English past-tense: Evidence for a single-route account from novel verb production data. Cognitive Science. 2018;42:621–639. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12581. PubMed DOI PMC

Bowers, J. S., Damian, M. F., & Davis, C. J. (2009). A fundamental limitation of the conjunctive codes learned in PDP models of cognition: Comment on Botvinick and Plaut (2006). PubMed

Bybee JL, Slobin DI. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language. 1982;58:265–289. doi: 10.1353/lan.1982.0021. DOI

Caramazza A, Laudanna A, Romani C. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition. 1988;28(3):297–332. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0. PubMed DOI

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.

Cilibrasi, L. (2016). Word position effects in speech perception, doctoral dissertation, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Reading.

Clahsen H. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1999;22(06):991–1013. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99002228. PubMed DOI

Clahsen H, Eisenbeiss S, Sonnenstuhl-Henning I. Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words. Theoretical Linguistics. 1997;23(3):201–250. doi: 10.1515/thli.1997.23.3.201. DOI

Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. Beverley Hills: Sage; 2009.

Friederici AD. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2002;6(2):78–84. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8. PubMed DOI

Halle M. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry. 1973;4(1):3–16. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00313. DOI

Hay JB, Baayen RH. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005;9(7):342–348. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002. PubMed DOI

Jackendoff R. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language. 1975;51:639–671. doi: 10.2307/412891. DOI

Jackendoff R. X syntax: A study of phrase structure. Linguistic inquiry monographs Cambridge, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1977. pp. 1–249.

Jarvella, R. J., & Meijers, G. (1983). Recognizing morphemes in spoken words: Some evidence for a stem-organized mental lexicon. In The process of language understanding, pp. 81–112.

Joanisse MF, Seidenberg MS. Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999;96(13):7592–7597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.13.7592. PubMed DOI PMC

Kuczaj SA. The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1977;16(5):589–600. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80021-2. DOI

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). 10.18637/jss.v082.i13.

Marcus GF. The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

Marcus GF, Pinker S, Ullman M, Hollander M, Rosen TJ, Xu F, et al. Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1997;57(4):i–178. doi: 10.2307/1166115. PubMed DOI

Marslen-Wilson WD, Tyler LK. Dissociating types of mental computation. Nature. 1997;387(6633):592. doi: 10.1038/42456. PubMed DOI

Massaro DW. Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory and Language. 1988;27(2):213–234. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90074-5. DOI

McClelland JL, Patterson K. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2002;6(11):465–472. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01993-9. PubMed DOI

McQueen JM, Cutler A. Morphology in word recognition. Oxford: Blackwell; 1998. pp. 406–427.

Newman AJ, Ullman MT, Pancheva R, Waligura DL, Neville HJ. An ERP study of regular and irregular English past tense inflection. NeuroImage. 2007;34(1):435–445. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.007. PubMed DOI PMC

Pérez A, Joseph HS, Bajo T, Nation K. Evaluation and revision of inferential comprehension in narrative texts: An eye movement study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2016;31(4):549–566. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1115883. DOI

Pinker S. Rules of language. Science. 1991;253(5019):530. doi: 10.1126/science.1857983. PubMed DOI

Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1994). Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In The reality of linguistic rules (Vol. 321, p. 51).

Pinker S, Ullman MT. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2002;6(11):456–463. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3. PubMed DOI

Pisoni DB. Perceptual processing time for consonants and vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1973;53(1):369. doi: 10.1121/1.1982641. DOI

Post B, Marslen-Wilson WD, Randall B, Tyler LK. The processing of English regular inflections: Phonological cues to morphological structure. Cognition. 2008;109(1):1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.011. PubMed DOI PMC

Roelofs A. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition. 1997;64(3):249–284. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9. PubMed DOI

Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, PDP Research Group . Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1986.

Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A. E-prime: User’s guide. Sharpsburg: Psychology Software Incorporated; 2002.

Schreuder R, de Jong N, Krott A, Baayen H. Rules and rote: Beyond the linguistic either-or fallacy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1999;22(06):1038–1039. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X9947222X. DOI

Seidenberg MS. Connectionist models of word reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005;14(5):238–242. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00372.x. DOI

Seidenberg MS, Plaut DC. Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science. 2014;38(6):1190–1228. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12147. PubMed DOI

Stanners RF, Neiser JJ, Hernon WP, Hall R. Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1979;18(4):399–412. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90219-6. DOI

Stowell T. The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua. 2007;117(2):437–463. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.08.003. DOI

Taft M. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 2004;57(4):745–765. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000477. PubMed DOI

Tyler LK, Stamatakis EA, Post B, Randall B, Marslen-Wilson W. Temporal and frontal systems in speech comprehension: An fMRI study of past tense processing. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(13):1963–1974. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.03.008. PubMed DOI

Ullman MT. A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2001;2(10):717–726. doi: 10.1038/35094573. PubMed DOI

van der Lely HK, Pinker S. The biological basis of language: Insight from developmental grammatical impairments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2014;18(11):586–595. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.07.001. PubMed DOI

Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods. 2004;36(3):481–487. PubMed PMC

Reading as a Predictor of Complex Syntax. The Case of Relative Clauses