Regular morphology and the lexicon

Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language

“…For example, what exactly is it about increasing the size of the alternating verb class that increases generalization? One possibility is that what is important is the overall frequency of alternation; however, it may be that the critical factor is the number of verbs in that class (this concurs with the notion of 'type' frequency, a factor known to be associated with productivity, see Bybee 1995;Goldberg, 1995; 2007-though here we are concerned with the type frequency of a shared distributional pattern, rather than of a particular linguistic structure). There are situations in which these two possible explanations could lead to very different behaviors, for example if a language contained just one very-high frequency alternating verb.…”

How the brain processes complex words: an event-related potential study of German verb inflections

“…7B the isovoltage maps and Fig. 7C the current source density maps for the difference between correct and incorrect 3 ERPs to nonce words had to be excluded from Fig. 5, as these were independently shown to produce an N400 component.…”

Abstracting Suffixes: A Morphophonemic Approach to Polish Morphological Analysis

“…While there is a lot to be said for the relationship between these basic models and the reality of Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/10/18 11:25 PM morphological representations in the human brain, it must be clearly stated that we are concerned here only with the computational aspects of these models (and a fortiori only with models which are computationally implementable). As it is in fact difficult to believe that the brain has such clear cut distinctions and operates so neatly, studies in recent years have suggested substantially more complicated architectures (see e. g., Bybee 1995). Criticism has been raised in particular with regard to the inability of the above models to account for the effects of type and token frequency on morphological productivity (i. e. widespread morphs exerting analogical pressure on infrequent items, and retention of irregularities in frequent items), the relationship between semantic and morphological markedness, and other phenomena (see Bybee 1988Bybee , 1995, but these will not be discussed here.…”

“…As it is in fact difficult to believe that the brain has such clear cut distinctions and operates so neatly, studies in recent years have suggested substantially more complicated architectures (see e. g., Bybee 1995). Criticism has been raised in particular with regard to the inability of the above models to account for the effects of type and token frequency on morphological productivity (i. e. widespread morphs exerting analogical pressure on infrequent items, and retention of irregularities in frequent items), the relationship between semantic and morphological markedness, and other phenomena (see Bybee 1988Bybee , 1995, but these will not be discussed here. We will however be concerned with some of the implications of these models in the context of processing less idealized natural language, and especially with morphological productivity, as it implies difficulties for listing all possible stems and their forms, as well as for certainty in the associations between each stem and particular suffixes.…”