Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations

Feldman, Laurie Beth

doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1021

Cited by 75 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Czech, Smolìk (2010) also found more consistent effects for verbal inflections than for nominal ones. Finally, Feldman (1994) obtained priming effects for derivational and inflectional affixes in Serbian, contrary to the predictions for English. Inflectional affixes provided a significantly greater facilitation effect, which was interpreted as evidence of a "more transparent" morphemic structure.…”

contrasting

confidence: 86%

Suffix interference in Russian

Comstock

2018

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The phenomenon of "suffix interference" has been used as evidence for a distinction between inflectional and derivational processes (e.g. Pinker & Prince, 1988;Pinker, 1999;Pinker & Ullman, 2002). Yet much of the work on affix priming exists in English, a morphologically poor language, and suffix interference appears inconsistently in cross-linguistic data. The greater reliance on morphological complexity in Russian, and its use of an infinitival suffix and aspectual affixes that may bridge the distinction between traditional definitions of inflectional and derivational word forms, call into question how generalizable the original findings on suffix interference may be for morphologically-complex languages. Investigating these questions, this paper provides unexpected findings: suffix interference is absent in Russian, inflectional suffixes reveal significantly more robust priming effects, and the infinitival suffix is best considered a special case of affix priming, failing to pattern with either inflectional or derivational suffixes. Thus, Russian appears to defy the assumption that inflections are "stripped" during morphological parsing; instead, verbal inflections prove the greatest facilitators of morphological priming. A linear mixed effects model indicates these effects cannot be explained by frequency alone.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 86%

Suffix interference in Russian

Comstock

2018

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, studying the inflected form ofa target (e.g., managedvs. manage) produces about as much lexical decision priming as does studying the target itself (see, e.g., Feldman, 1994;Feldman & Fowler, 1987;Fowler, Napps, & Feldman, 1985;Napps, 1989). Typically, the target-target condition is slightly faster than the inflection-target condition, but statistically they do not differ.…”

Section: Long-term Morphological Primingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews research relevant to the question of whether words are identified through the use of abstract lexical representations, specific episodic representations, or both. Several lines of evidence indicate that specific episodes participate in word identification. First, pure abstractionist theories can explain short-term but not long-term repetition priming. Second, long-term repetition priming is sensitive to changes in surface features or episodic context between presentations of a word. Finally,long-term priming for pseudowords is also difficult for pure abstractionist theories to explain. Alternative approaches to word identification are discussed, including both pure episodic theories and theories in which both episodes and abstract representations playa role.Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that word identification is facilitated on the second presentation of a word. This phenomenon, known as repetition priming (or savings), occurs in a variety of tasks believed to involve word identification processes. I Repetition speeds lexical decisions (e.g., Scarborough, Cortese, & Scarborough, 1977), word naming (e.g., Durso & Johnson, 1979), and the reading of sentences (e.g., Kolers & Ostry, 1974) and longer text (e.g., Kolers, 1976). Repeated words are also more likely to be correctly identified on a perceptual identification test, in which a word is shown for a very brief duration before being masked (e.g., Jacoby & Dallas, 1981).There has been considerable disagreement about the nature of repetition priming in word identification tasks. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether the effect ofrepetition on word identification is mediated by abstract representations, by specific episodic representations, or both. The goal of this paper is to provide a critical review of the evidence relevant to this question.Distinctions between general and specific information have provoked lively discussions throughout the field of cognitive psychology. General and specific knowledge are often assumed to be used for different purposes and to be very different in nature as well. Two types of distinctions between general and specific information have been made. First, general knowledge of facts and skills Preparation of this paper was partially supported by a Summer Research Stipend from Loyola University of Chicago. I thank Kim Kirsner, Betty Ann Levy, 1. W. Whitlow, and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful reviews. I am especially grateful to Jim Neely for numerous valuable comments. I also thank Gordon Logan for helpful e-mail discussions. Finally, thanks to Ed Shoben for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Correspondence should be addressed to P. L. Tenpenny, Department of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60626 (e-mail: ptenpen@luc.edu).has been distinguished from specific knowledge of episodes in which those facts and skills are learned or used. Tulving (1972), for example, proposed that semantic and episodic information are stored ...

show abstract

“…Many studies in which morphologicallycomplex words have been examined have shown evidence to indicate that across a number of different languages, morphological processing is involved in the early stages of word identification (e.g., Deustch, Frost, & Forster, 1998;Drews & Zwisterlood, 1995;Feldman, 1994;Frost, Forster, & Deutsch, 1997;Giraudo & Grainger, 2000;Grainger, Cole, & Segui, 1991;Laudanna, Badecker, & Caramazza, 1989;Marslen-Wilson, Tyler, Waksler, & Older, 1994). However, the majority of the research on morphological processing has focused on studies of isolated words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Parafoveal processing of prefixed words during eye fixations in reading: Evidence against morphological influences on parafoveal preprocessing

Kambe

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations

Cited by 75 publications

References 46 publications

Suffix interference in Russian

Suffix interference in Russian

Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification

Parafoveal processing of prefixed words during eye fixations in reading: Evidence against morphological influences on parafoveal preprocessing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About