Semantics and phonology constrain compound formation

Mental Lexicon

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 287-312

  Seidenberg, Mark S ^a   MacDonald, Maryellen C ^a   Haskell, Todd R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Compound; Inflection; Morphology; Phonology

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249143325     PISSN: 18711340     EISSN: 18711375     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/ml.2.3.02sei     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allen, J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 115-151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 234-254.
3. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R., 2006. Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290-313.
4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Yap, J. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283-316.
5. Berent, I., & Pinker, S. (2007). The Dislike of Regular Plurals in Compounds: Phonological or Morphological. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 129-181.
6. Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production. Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). San Diego: Academic Press.
7. Boersma, P (1998). Functional Phonology [LOT International Series 11]. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
8. Booij, G. E. (1989). Complex verbs and the theory of level ordering. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1989 (pp. 21-30). Foris, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
9. Booij, G. E. (1993). Against split morphology. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993 (pp. 27-50). Foris, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
10. Bresnan, J. (in press). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425-455.
12. Cassidy, K. W., Kelly, M. H., & Sharoni, L. J. (1999). Inferring gender from name phonology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 362-381.
13. Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263-284.
14. Gordon, P. (1985). Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 21, 73-93.
15. Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106, 491-528.
16. Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
17. Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 760-778.
18. Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2005). Constituent structure and linear order in language production: Evidence from subject verb agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 891-904.
19. Haskell, T. R., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 119-163.
20. Hay, J. (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. New York: Routledge.
21. Joanisse, M. F., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 7592-7597.
22. Kelly, M. H. (1992). Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review, 99, 349-364.
23. Kelly, M. H. (2004). Word onset patterns and lexical stress in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 231-244.
24. Kim, J. J., Pinker, S., Prince A., & Prasada, S. (1991). Why no mere mortal has ever flown out to center field. Cognitive Science, 15, 173-218.
25. Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In I. S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seoul: Hansin.
26. Lardiere, D. (1995). L2 acquisition of English synthetic compounding is not constrained by level-ordering (and neither, probably, is L1). Second language research, 11, 20-56.
27. Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
28. MacDonald, M. C. (1997). Lexical representations and sentence processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 121-136.
29. MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. MacWhinney, B., & Leinbach, A. J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition, 40, 121-157.
31. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313-330.
32. McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. E. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465-472.
33. Mirkovic, J., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). Where does gender come from? Evidence from a complex inflectional system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 139-168.
34. Nicoladis, E. (2003). Compounding is not contingent on level-ordering in acquisition. Cognitive Development, 18, 319-338.
35. Nicoladis, E. (2004). Level-ordering does not constrain children’s ungrammatical compounds. Brain and Language, 90, 487-494.
36. Nicoladis, E. (2005). When level-ordering is not used in the formation of English compounds. First Language, 25, 331-346.
37. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow & Co.
38. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
39. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
40. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456-463.
41. Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.
42. Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 1-56.
43. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, E., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-74.
44. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP research group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume II. (pp. 216-271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Sandak, R., Mencl, W E., Frost, S. J., Rueckl, J. G., Katz, L., Moore, D., Mason, S. M., Fulbright, R. K., Constable, R. T., & Pugh, K. R. (2004). The neurobiology of adaptive learning in reading: A contrast of different training conditions. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 67-88.
46. Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569-588.
47. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
48. Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353-361.
49. Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2006). Progress in understanding word reading: Data fitting versus theory building. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 25-49). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
50. Seidenberg, M. S. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme-monitoring, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 546-554.
51. Siegel, D. 1974, Topics in English Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
52. Sproat, R. (1992). Morphology and computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740-759.
54. Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Memory and Language, 124, 107-136.
55. Zimmer, B. (2007). Astronaut drives 900 miles wearing… Language Log. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/˜myl/languagelog/archives/004200.html.
56. Zurow, K. (2000). Exceptions and regularities in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA department of linguistics, Los Angeles.