Selection of freestanding and bound gender-marking morphemes in speech production: a review

Jescheniak, Jörg D.; Schriefers, Herbert; Lemhöfer, Kristin

doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.654645

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that effects of gender-congruent distractors are not robust in picture-word studies. Although there is published evidence for such effects in Germanic languages (see Jescheniak et al, 2014, for an overview), there are also published reports of failures to replicate (e.g., Pechmann and Zerbst, 2004; Schiller, 2013). It might be that we did not use the most appropriate SOA to obtain overall gender-congruency effects, but we did observe interactions that showed an impact of the constituents' gender and of gender congruency of distractors during noun-noun compound production.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantically Transparent and Opaque Compounds in German Noun-Phrase Production: Evidence for Morphemes in Speaking

Lorenz

Zwitserlood

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the lexical representation and processing of noun-noun compounds and their grammatical gender during speech production in German, a language that codes for grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, and neuter). Using a picture-word interference paradigm, participants produced determiner-compound noun phrases in response to pictures, while ignoring written distractor words. Compound targets were either semantically transparent (e.g., birdhouse) or opaque (e.g., hotdog), and their constituent nouns either had the same or a different gender (internal gender match). Effects of gender-congruent but otherwise unrelated distractor nouns, and of two morphologically related distractors corresponding to the first or second constituent were assessed relative to a completely unrelated, gender-incongruent distractor baseline. Both constituent distractors strongly facilitated compound naming, and these effects were independent of the targets' semantic transparency. This supports retrieval of constituent morphemes for semantically transparent and opaque compounds during speech production. Furthermore, gender congruency between compounds and distractors did not speed up naming in general, but interacted with gender match of the compounds' constituent nouns, and their semantic transparency. A significant gender-congruency effect was obtained with semantically transparent compounds, consisting of two constituent nouns of the same gender, only. In principle, this pattern is compatible with a multiple lemma representation account for semantically transparent, but not for opaque compounds. The data also fit with a more parsimonious, holistic representation for all compounds at the lemma level, when differences in co-activation patterns for semantically transparent and opaque compounds are considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantically Transparent and Opaque Compounds in German Noun-Phrase Production: Evidence for Morphemes in Speaking

Lorenz

Zwitserlood

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The gender congruency effect was then interpreted as reflecting the competition in the selection of determiner forms, i.e., the determiner selection interference hypothesis (DSIH) (see also Schiller and Caramazza, 2006). These findings suggest that the selection of grammatical gender can be bypassed if its information is not necessary to determine the phonological form of the to-be-produced speech (see Jescheniak et al, 2014 for a detailed review over the selection of gender-marked morphemes in speech production). However, these results do not answer directly whether or not the grammatical gender feature is automatically activated when it does not have any phonological consequences.…”

Section: Behavioral Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been heated debates over the underlying mechanism of the selection of freestanding and bound gender-marking morphemes in speech production (see Jescheniak et al, 2014 for a thorough review). Jescheniak et al (2014) reviewed empirical evidence and concluded that both gender-marked freestanding morphemes like determiners and bound morphemes like adjectival inflections are selected by competition at the phonological level in speech production (but see, Schiller and Costa, 2006). Compared to the review by Jescheniak et al (2014), which focuses on the gender-marked morphemes, our review focuses on the activation and selection of the abstract gender features of the noun during speech production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jescheniak et al (2014) reviewed empirical evidence and concluded that both gender-marked freestanding morphemes like determiners and bound morphemes like adjectival inflections are selected by competition at the phonological level in speech production (but see, Schiller and Costa, 2006). Compared to the review by Jescheniak et al (2014), which focuses on the gender-marked morphemes, our review focuses on the activation and selection of the abstract gender features of the noun during speech production. Two major questions arise from the assumptions of the three most prominent language production models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review on Grammatical Gender Agreement in Speech Production

Wang

Schiller

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grammatical gender agreement has been well addressed in language comprehension but less so in language production. The present article discusses the arguments derived from the most prominent language production models on the representation and processing of the grammatical gender of nouns in language production and then reviews recent empirical studies that provide some answers to these arguments.

show abstract

“…In contrast, when the two words each call for a different form, the two forms 9 will receive some activation. The production of the latter sequences will be delayed in time, either because 10 the activation level required for production is reached later, or because of a competition mechanism in 11 which both determiner forms receive activation and, thus, compete (see Janssen, Schiller, & Alario, 2012;Schriefers, & Lemhöfer, 2012 for discussions related to the competitive versus non-competitive …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%