Experimental study of first and second language morphological processing

Gor, Kira

doi:10.1075/hcp.18.23gor

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was formulated based on a series of studies comparing real and nonce verb generation by L1 and L2 speakers of Russian. These studies demonstrated a lack of categorical distinction between regular and irregular morphological processing for Russian, either as an L1 or L2 (Gor, 2003, 2004, 2007; Gor & Chernigovskaya, 2001, 2005). Instead, first, the Russian data highlighted the role of two factors in L1 and L2 morphological processing: (a) morphological complexity, or the degree and predictability of the allomorphy, and (b) type frequency, or the frequency of a declensional pattern (i.e., the size of a class of words with the same declensional paradigm).…”

Section: First and Second Language Processing Of Inflectional Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonnative Processing of Verbal Morphology: In Search of Regularity

Gor

Cook

2010

Language Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is little agreement on the mechanisms involved in second language (L2) processing of regular and irregular inflectional morphology and on the exact role of age, amount, and type of exposure to L2 resulting in differences in L2 input and use. The article contributes to the ongoing debates by reporting the results of two experiments on Russian verb generation and recognition in a lexical decision task (LDT) with priming by highly proficient late L2 learners, early interrupted (heritage) learners, and adult native speakers of Russian. Inflected verbs varying in regularity, type, and token (lemma) frequency were used. The experiments document the role of obligatory decomposition and complex allomorphy involved in (de)composition and mapping as well as type and token frequency in L1 and L2 verb generation and lexical access, with no sharp division between regular and irregular verbs. The results are inconsistent with either the dualsystem or the single-system approach to morphological processing, and are compatible with "hybrid" theories combining rule-based decomposition and input-frequency-based probabilistic mechanisms. All of the verb types showed priming effects, both in native and nonnative lexical access. However, the degree of facilitation depended on decomposition costs for different verb types only in nonnative participants. The study also shows differences in early (heritage) and late L2 learners. In the production task, heritage speakers outperformed L2 learners in real, but not novel, verb generation and in the use of the regular default pattern, whereas L2 learners showed an advantage in This research was made possible with support from the Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland as part of a larger project on Linguistic Correlates of Proficiency. The authors are deeply indebted to Michael Long for guidance and helpful comments and our colleagues, Scott Jackson, Jennifer Koran, Tatyana Vdovina, and Vera Malyushenkova, for help with data collection and analysis. We also wanted to thank the anonymous reviewers of Nonnative Processing of Verbal Morphology the use of the cue-based complex morphological pattern. In the priming task, heritage speakers were faster than late L2 learners and insensitive to morphological complexity, whereas L2 learners showed longer latencies in response to the verbs with complex inflectional morphology. These differences are associated with the differences in their respective language learning backgrounds. It is tentatively suggested that these two groups of learners may rely on different processing mechanisms and, possibly, neural paths.

show abstract

Section: First and Second Language Processing Of Inflectional Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonnative Processing of Verbal Morphology: In Search of Regularity

Gor

Cook

2010

Language Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For English and Dutch, the regular past tense inflection is more frequent than the irregular ones. The combination verb+regular inflection -ed in English is more likely to be applied to new lexical items (e.g., blog-blogged ; see Gor, 2007) than an irregular verb inflection. Similarly, in Dutch, new lexical verbs generally take the suffix de or te, rather than take an irregular inflection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past tense productivity in Dutch children with and without SLI: the role of morphophonology and frequency

Rispens

Bree

2013

J. Child Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on morphophonology and frequency in past tense production. It was assessed whether Dutch five- and seven-year-old typically developing (TD) children and eight-year-old children with specific language impairment (SLI) produce the correct allomorph in regular, irregular, and novel past tense formation. Type frequency of the allomorph, token frequency and phonotactic probability (PP) of the novel verb form are considered. The results showed all groups were sensitive to the phonological cue. PP did not contribute to past tense inflection of novel verbs in any of the groups, but type frequency did in all three groups. Only the seven-year-old typically developing children relied on token frequency for inflection of regulars. The findings point to an important role of phonology and frequency in past tense acquisition for both TD children and children with SLI. We discuss how the SLI performance pattern relates to theories on SLI.

show abstract

“…This vacillation is attested in dictionaries (e.g., Ožegov andŠvedova 2005, Zaliznjak 2003), and has been studied from a number of theoretical and empirical perspectives (cf. e.g., Andersen 1980;Comrie, Stone andPolinsky 1996, Gagarina 2003;Gor 2007;Gor andChernigovskaya 2004 andGorbačevič 1978, Graudina et al 2001, Janda, Nesset and Baayen 2010Kiebzak-Mandera et al 1997;Krysin 1974;Nesset 2008Nesset , 2010aNesset and Janda 2010;Svistunova 2008; Tkachenko and Chernigovskaya 2010 and references therein). However, there is also a diachronic side to sufix shift.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%