Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon.

Marslen–Wilson, William D.; Tyler, Lorraine K.; Waksler, Rachelle; Older, Lianne

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.1.3

Cited by 737 publications

(831 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

732

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Positive activation is the result of activation from the input stimulus, such that the strength of activation of any lexical representation is directly proportional to its similarity to the input stimulus (Morton, 1979;McClelland and Rumelhart, 1981;Rumelhart and McClelland, 1981), as well as the result of excitatory connections among lexical forms at a lexicon-internal level, as in the case of morphologically related items (e.g., Murrell and Morton, 1974;Stanners et al, 1979;Fowler et al, 1985;Caramazza et al, 1988;Marslen-Wilson et al, 1994). Negative activation has been shown to occur under conditions in which lexical items compete for selection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Negative activation has been shown to occur under conditions in which lexical items compete for selection. Such inhibition may occur among orthographically similar lexical forms (Colombo, 1986;Grainger et al, 1989;Grainger, 1990;Grainger and Segui, 1990;Segui and Grainger, 1990;Snodgrass and Mintzer, 1993; but see Grainger et al, 1992) as well as between stem homographs (Laudanna et al, 1989(Laudanna et al, , 1992 and competing suffixes (Caramazza et al, 1988;Marslen-Wilson et al, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Chialant

Caramazza

1997

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Chialant

Caramazza

1997

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some argue that the cross-modal priming task is preferable to the forward masked priming task because it minimizes the influence of form similarity for native speakers (Marslen-Wilson et al, 1993, Marslen-Wilson, Tyler, Waksler, & Older, 1994, as well as for non-native speakers (Feldman, Kostić & Pastizzo, under review). However, there is evidence that the cross-modal priming procedure is not fully immune to form-based effects.…”

Section: Single Processing Mechanism Account: Semantic Density and Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Monolingual and bilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Sensitivity to form similarity varies with first language experience

Basnight-Brown

Chen

Shu

et al. 2007

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used a cross-modal priming procedure to explore the processing of irregular and regular English verb forms in both monolinguals and bilinguals (Serbian-English, Chinese-English). Materials included irregular nested stem (drawn-DRAW), irregular change stem (ran-RUN), and regular past tense-present tense verb pairs that were either low (guided-GUIDE) or high (pushed-PUSH) in resonance, a measure of semantic richness. Overall, semantic richness of irregular verbs (nested and irregular change) and of regular verbs (high and low resonance) was matched. Native speakers of English revealed comparable facilitation across regularity and greater facilitation for nested than change stem irregulars. Like native speakers, Serbian, but not Chinese bilinguals matched for proficiency, showed facilitation due to form overlap between irregular past and present tense forms with a nested stem. Unlike native speakers, neither group showed reliable facilitation to stem change irregulars. Results demonstrate the influence of first language on inflectional processing in a second language.Keywords semantic density; language transfer; morphological facilitation; cross modal priming; regular past tense formations; irregular past tense formations; mastery of inflection in a second language There is a long-standing debate in the word recognition literature as to whether native speakers of a language process irregular (e.g., ran-run) and regular (e.g., walked-walk) verb forms by common (single) or different (dual-route) mechanisms. Those who advocate a single processing system argue that processing of all words benefits from the extent to which words that are similar in form tend to be similar in meaning (

show abstract

“…Furthermore, of those words that are not compounds or derived words, roughly a third carries an inflectional ending. The full-form approach of Shortlist B to morphological processing sets this model apart from theories assuming obligatory decomposition (see, e.g., Rastle and Davis (2008), for visual comprehension and Marslen-Wilson, Tyler, Waksler, and Older (1994), for auditory comprehension).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words

Balling

Baayen

2012

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two auditory lexical decision experiments document for morphologically complex words two points at which the probability of a target word given the evidence shifts dramatically. The first point is reached when morphologically unrelated competitors are no longer compatible with the evidence. Adapting terminology from Marslen-Wilson (1984), we refer to this as the word's initial uniqueness point (UP1). The second point is the complex uniqueness point (CUP) introduced by Balling and Baayen (2008), at which morphologically related competitors become incompatible with the input. Later initial as well as complex uniqueness points predict longer response latencies. We argue that the effects of these uniqueness points arise due to the large surprisal (Levy, 2008) carried by the phonemes at these uniqueness points, and provide independent evidence that how cumulative surprisal builds up in the course of the word co-determines response latencies. The presence of effects of surprisal, both at the initial uniqueness point of complex words, and cumulatively throughout the word, challenges the Shortlist B model of Norris and McQueen (2008), and suggests that a Bayesian approach to auditory comprehension requires complementation from information theory in order to do justice to the cognitive cost of updating probability distributions over lexical candidates.Keywords: spoken word recognition; Shortlist B; morphological processing; uniqueness points; neighbourhood measures; (cumulative) surprisal; Kullback-Leibler divergence; morphological family size. The Shortlist B model proposed by Norris and McQueen (2008) is the most comprehensive computational theory of auditory comprehension available to date. The model computes that sequence of words that is most likely to represent the lexical parse of the utterance heard, given the input, a stream of phonemes coming in over time. For instance, given the Dutch sequence of spoken words kar personen, the final state of the model is one in which kar ('cart') and personen ('persons') have probability 1, whereas competitors such as karper ('carp') and persoon ('persons') have probability 0.

show abstract

Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon.

Cited by 737 publications

References 57 publications

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Monolingual and bilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Sensitivity to form similarity varies with first language experience

Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About