The processing of root morphemes in Hebrew: Contrasting localist and distributed accounts

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 20, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 169-206

  Velan, Hadas ^a   Frost, Ram ^a   Deutsch, Avital ^a   Plaut, David C ^b  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE TEST; MORPHOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONEME; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 14644397914     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960444000214     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Baayen, H. (1991). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 109-149). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
2. Berman, R. A. (1978). Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv, Israel: University Publishing Projects.
3. Blau, Y. (1971). Phonology and morphology. Tel Aviv, Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Press.
4. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 2, pp. 257-294). San Diego: Academic Press.
5. Burani, C., & Laudanna, A. (1992). Units of representation of derived words in the lexicon. In I. R. Froat & L. Katz (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning (pp. 27-44). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
6. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 207-332.
7. Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in normal and aphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838.
8. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. I. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1238-1255.
9. Frauenfelder, U. H., & Schreuder, R. (1991). Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 165-183). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
10. Forster, K. I. (1987) Form priming with masked primes: The best match hypothesis. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance: XII. The psychology of reading (pp. 127-140). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
11. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680-698.
12. Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schocknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A 211-251.
13. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic and morphological factors. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1277-1288.
14. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 751-765.
15. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 829-856.
16. Henderson, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, K. (1984). Morphemic structure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X: Control of language process (pp. 211-226). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
17. Laudanna, A., Burani, C., & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes as processing units. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 295-316.
18. Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Weise, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189-256.
19. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3-33.
20. Plaut, D. C., & Frost, R. (2001). Does morphological structure in Hebrew reduce to surface structure? Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society: Orlando, November 2001.
21. Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15 415), 445-485.
22. Rueckl, J. G., Mikolinski, M., Raveh, M., Miner, C. S., & Mars, F. (1997). Morphological priming, fragment completion and connectionist networks. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 382-405.
23. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
24. Seidenberg, M. S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual words recognition: access units or orthographic redundancy? In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 244-263). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
25. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271-294.