The processing of singular and plural nouns in English, French, and Dutch: New insights from megastudies.

Gimenes, Manuel; Brysbaert, Marc; New, Boris

doi:10.1037/cep0000074

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To sum up, while our data point to full listing storage of the German -n plural in the production lexicon, further evidence is needed to support this strong hypothesis since we did not take into account varying frequency within a singular or plural-dominance group, it might well be possible that low-frequency singular-and plural-dominant plural items might be stored decompositionally (see also Gimenes, Brysbaert, & New, 2016).…”

Section: How Can Our Findings Advance Theoretical Framework Of Spokementioning

confidence: 82%

Production of German –n plurals in aphasia: Effects of dominance and predictability

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In picture naming, both unimpaired and impaired speakers are usually better in naming singular than plural forms of the same noun, such as cat/ cats. This singularadvantage is especially present in the case of singular-dominant nouns (e.g., table has higher surface frequency compared to its corresponding plural tables). However, for pluraldominant items (e.g., eyes has a higher surface frequency compared to eye) such singular advantage disappears. Thus, the lexical representation/ processing of singular-dominant and plural-dominant nouns seem to differ but the exact underlying source for this dominance effect is still a matter of debate. While most of the available data stem from English experiments, less data are available from German.Aim: This study examines the effect of plural dominance for the German -n plural, a plural form, which can be predictable or non-predictable on the basis of the ending of the singular word form and its grammatical gender. Hence, this study examines the role of dominance and predictability of plural production in aphasia. Our data will enrich the development of materials for the assessment of morpho-lexical impairments in aphasia. Methods & Procedures:In a case-series design, five people with aphasia with severe wordfinding difficulties participated in two picture naming tasks with single-and multipledepictions of objects. Materials included nouns of the German -n plural type. Exp. 1 tested for effects of number and plural dominance in naming fully predictable -n plurals and their corresponding singulars. Exp. 2 tested for effects of number and predictability, using subsets of fully predictable and non-predictable -n plurals, and their corresponding singulars.Results: Exp. 1 revealed a significant plural dominance effect in spoken picture naming across five German speakers with aphasia: a singular advantage was observed for singular-Production of German -n Plurals in Aphasia 3 dominant nouns, but plural-dominant singular and plural nouns did not differ. Further, in Exp. 2, no effect of predictability for the German plural affix -n was found, but an overall singular advantage across both groups. Conclusions:We interpret the dominance pattern of Exp.1 as manifestation in the links between concept and lemma level for singular-and plural-dominant nouns. Exp. 2, confirmed the singular advantage for singular-dominant nouns for both -n plural groups, indicating that both -n plural groups follow one plural production mechanism, however, we cannot be confident about the type of mechanism that caused the plural disadvantage in Exp. 2 as both full listing or decomposition at word form level are plausible explanations.

show abstract

Section: How Can Our Findings Advance Theoretical Framework Of Spokementioning

confidence: 82%

Production of German –n plurals in aphasia: Effects of dominance and predictability

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is the case of (1) semantic variables (such as imageability, sensory experience ratings, concreteness, number of semantic features, and number of associates, to name a few; e.g., Balota et al, 2004;Bonin et al, 2015;Ferrand et al, 2011;Juhasz & Yap, 2013;Juhasz, Yap, Dicke, Taylor, & Gullick, 2011); (2) morphological variables (such as morphological family size, plural word forms, etc. ; e.g., Baayen et al, 2006;Gimenes, Brysbaert, & New, 2016); and (3) affective variables (such as valence and arousal; e.g., Kuperman, Estes, Brysbaert, & Warriner, 2014).…”

Section: Factors Influencing Visual and Auditory Lexical Decision Permentioning

confidence: 99%

MEGALEX: A megastudy of visual and auditory word recognition

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the megastudy approach, we report a new database (MEGALEX) of visual and auditory lexical decision times and accuracy rates for tens of thousands of words. We collected visual lexical decision data for 28,466 French words and the same number of pseudowords, and auditory lexical decision data for 17,876 French words and the same number of pseudowords (synthesized tokens were used for the auditory modality). This constitutes the first large-scale database for auditory lexical decision, and the first database to enable a direct comparison of word recognition in different modalities. Different regression analyses were conducted to illustrate potential ways to exploit this megastudy database. First, we compared the proportions of variance accounted for by five word frequency measures. Second, we conducted item-level regression analyses to examine the relative importance of the lexical variables influencing performance in the different modalities (visual and auditory). Finally, we compared the similarities and differences between the two modalities. All data are freely available on our website ( https://sedufau.shinyapps.io/megalex/ ) and are searchable at www.lexique.org , inside the Open Lexique search engine.

show abstract

“…One is the lemma frequency measure, defined as the sum of frequencies of all inflected forms of a word (e.g., Brysbaert & New, 2009). Although most previous research failed to find an advantage of lemma frequencies over wordform frequencies in predicting lexical processing (e.g., Baayen, Wurm, & Aycock, 2007;Brysbaert, Buchmeier, et al, 2011;Brysbaert & New, 2009), some recent studies had observed stronger predictive power of lemma frequencies (Gimenes, Brysbaert, & New, 2016;. Another alternative is the contextual diversity measure, referring to the number of documents or texts in a corpus containing a given word (McDonald & Shillcock, 2001).…”

Section: Predictive Validity Of Corpus-based Frequency Norms In L1mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the predictive validity of various corpus-based frequency norms in L2 English lexical processing

Chen

Dong

2018

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The predictive validity of various corpus-based frequency norms in first-language lexical processing has been intensively investigated in previous research, but less attention has been paid to this issue in second-language (L2) processing. To bridge the gap, in the present study we took English as a case in point and compared the predictive power of a large set of corpus-based frequency norms for the performance of an L2 English visual lexical decision task (LDT). Our results showed that, in general, the frequency norms from SUBTLEX-US and WorldLex-Blog tended to predict L2 performance better in reaction times, whereas the frequency norms from corpora with a mixture of written and spoken genres (CELEX, WorldLex-Blog, BNC, ANC, and COCA) tended to predict L2 accuracy better. Although replicated in both low- and high-proficiency L2 English learners, these patterns were not exactly the same as those found in LDT data from native English speakers. In addition, we only observed some limited advantages of the lemma frequency and contextual diversity measures over the wordform frequency measure in predicting L2 lexical processing. The results of the present study, especially the detailed comparisons among the different corpora, provide methodological implications for future L2 lexical research.

show abstract

The processing of singular and plural nouns in English, French, and Dutch: New insights from megastudies.

Cited by 11 publications

References 45 publications

Production of German –n plurals in aphasia: Effects of dominance and predictability

Production of German –n plurals in aphasia: Effects of dominance and predictability

MEGALEX: A megastudy of visual and auditory word recognition

On the predictive validity of various corpus-based frequency norms in L2 English lexical processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About