The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint?

Mental Lexicon

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 129-181

  Berent, Iris ^a   Pinker, Steven ^a  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Compound; Inflection; Morphology; Phonology

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249157343     PISSN: 18711340     EISSN: 18711375     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/ml.2.2.03ber     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1996). Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition, 60, 65-82.
2. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Berent, I., Pinker, S., & Shimron, J. (1999). Default nominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition, 72, 1-44.
4. Berent, I., Pinker, S., & Shimron, J. (2002). The Nature of Regularity and Irregularity: Evidence from Hebrew Nominal Inflection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(5), 459-502.
5. Berent, I., Pinker, S., Tzelgov, J., Bibi, U., & Goldfarb, L. (2005). Computation of semantic number from morphological information. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 342-358.
6. Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43(2), 83-128.
7. Borer, H. (1998). Morphology and syntax. In A. Spencer, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 151-190). Oxford: Blackwell.
8. Buck-Gengler, C. J., Menn, L., & Healy, A. F. (2004). What “mice trap” tells us about the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 90, 453-64.
9. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1-61.
10. Clahsen, H. (1999) Lexical entries and rules of language: a multidisciplinary study of German inflection. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(6), 991-1013.
11. Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, J., Woest, A., & Marcus, G. F. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of the German noun plurals. Cognition, 34, 225-255.
12. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.
13. Collins, C. (1991). Notes on Dutch morphology. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, MIT.
14. di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A connectionistperspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Fabb, N. (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 527-539.
17. Francis, W N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18. Gordon, P. (1985). Level ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 21, 73-93.
19. Haskell, T. R., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 4(2), 119-163.
20. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
21. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
22. Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In I. S. Yang (Ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seoul: Hansin.
23. Kiparsky, P. (2004). Fenno-Swedish quantity: contrast in stratal OT. Unpublished manuscript.
24. Kucera, H., & W Francis (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI, Brown University Press.
25. Lieber, R. (1980). The Organization of the Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Loftus, G. H., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
27. Marcus G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: the exception that proves the rule. Cognitive psychology, 29(3), 189-256.
28. McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 465-475.
29. Nicoladis, E. (2003). Compounding is not contingent on level-ordering in acquisition. Cognitive Development, 18, 319-338.
30. Nicoladis, E., & Murphy, V. A. (2004). Level-ordering does not constrain children’s ungrammatical compounds. Brain and Language, 90, 487-94.
31. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
32. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. (2002a) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 456-463.
33. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. (2002b) Structure and combination, not gradedness, is the issue (Reply to McClelland and Patterson). Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 472-474.
34. Plunkett, K., & Nakisa, C. (1997). A connectionist model of Arabic plural system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 807-836.
35. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
36. Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1986). On learning past tense of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & T. P. R. Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2 Psychological and biological models, pp. 216-271). Cambridge MA: Bradford Book, MIT Press.
37. Selkirk, E. (1982). The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Senghas, A., Kim, J. J., & Pinker, S., (2007). Plurals-inside compounds: Morphological constraints and their implications. Unpublished manuscript, Barnard College.
39. Senghas, A., Kim, J. J., Pinker, S., & Collins, C. (1991). Plurals-inside compounds: Morphological constraints and their implications for acquisition. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, October 18-20, 1991.
40. Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. Stemberger, J. P. (1995). Phonological and lexical constraints on morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 247-267). Hillsdale, NJ.
42. Stemberger, J. P. (1998). Morphology in language production with special reference to con-nectionism. In A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp. 428-452). Oxford: Blackwell.
43. van der Lely, H. K., & Christian V. (2000). Lexical word formation in children with grammatical SLI: a grammar-specific versus an input-processing deficit? Cognition, 75, 33-63.
44. Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245-274.