Oblique word forms in visual word recognition

Günther, Hartmut

doi:10.1515/ling.1988.26.4.583

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stem variants may form morphemic units that are directly connected to their corresponding semantic concept or lemma (e.g., Smolka et al, 2007 ). Alternatively, the base stem may constitute a nucleus and other marked stems dependents (e.g., Günther, 1988 ). Stem variants have also been proposed to be derivable through morphophonological rules (e.g., Beedham, 1994Beedham, , 1995Beedham, /1996.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lukatela et al ( 1978 ) and Lukatela et al ( 1980 ) found shorter lexical decision times on nominative than on genitive and instrumental case forms, which suggested that the nominative is represented as the nucleus and the other case forms are represented as satellites. Later, the model has been extended to verbs and to other languages (e.g., Günther, 1988 ). Feldman and Fowler ( 1987 ) examined Serbo-Croatian nouns in priming experiments.…”

Section: Morphosyntax In the L1 Mental Lexiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphosyntax in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon

Krause

Bosch

Clahsen

2014

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although morphosyntax has been identifi ed as a major source of diffi culty for adult (nonnative) language learners, most previous studies have examined a limited set of largely affi x-based phenomena. Little is known about word-based morphosyntax in late bilinguals and of how morphosyntax is represented and processed in a nonnative speaker's lexicon. To address these questions, we report results from two behavioral experiments investigating stem variants of strong verbs in German (which encode features such as tense, person, and number) in groups of advanced adult learners as well as native speakers of German. Although the late bilinguals were highly proficient in German, the results of a lexical priming experiment revealed clear native-nonnative differences. We argue that lexical representation and processing relies less on morphosyntactic information in a nonnative than in a native language.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphosyntax In the L1 Mental Lexiconmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphosyntax in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon

Krause

Bosch

Clahsen

2014

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Morphologically rich languages like Finnish and Turkish may have thousands, if not millions, of forms per root (e.g. Hankamer, 1989;Koskenniemi, 1985; see next section below for Finnish). However, we might ask whether parsing complexity introduced by a decomposition model would in any sense be more economica1 (in a manner that the majority of morphologists would accept) than a model listing all the surface forms (see (ii) below).…”

Section: Downloaded By [Mcmaster University] At 14:08 17 June 2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major issue in sub-sentence level cognitive linguistics has been the decomposability of polymorphemic words, a question that has been primarily approached via English or other morphologically limited languages (for reviews, see Emmorey & Fromkin, 1988;Hankamer, 1989;Henderson, 1985;1989). In order to extend the database of psycholinguistic studies of morphology, we analysed word production and recognition in a morphologically rich language, Finnish.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive morphology in finnish: Foundations of a new model

Niemi

Laine

Tuominen

1994

Language and Cognitive Processes

127

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We summarise the main results from a series of Finnish studies dealing with single-word experiments with aphasics as well as lexical decision and eyemovement registration tests performed on normals. On the basis of our experimental results, we propose a processing model of Finnish nouns. For the input and central lexicons, this Stem Allomorph/Inflectional Decomposition (SAID) model assumes morphological decomposition of inflected (with the exception of the most frequently encountered inflected noun forms) but not derived noun forms. For the output lexicon, it predicts that both inflected and productive derived forms have decomposed representations. In the case of marked stem variation (resulting from stem formation and/or morphophonological alternation), the model assumes that the stems are represented by their allomorphs, and not by a single morph. In this respect, our model postulates more suppletion in the input/output lexicons than would be predicted on the basis of formal morphological analyses. However, among the allomorphs, the nominative singular of nouns appears to have a special status.

show abstract

“…From this the authors concluded that, apart from what seems to be a genuinely morphological phenomenon, the representation of the stem allomorphs in the visual lexicon seems to be form-based. That is, allomorphs seem to be only sort of ''entering points'' at a purely formal level of representation rather than lexical access codes in the fullest sense of tradition (see, e.g., Günther, 1988;Forster, 1999). In order to inquire further into the nature and role of the stem allomorphs as units in the mental lexicon, the present study discusses a series of four visual-visual primed lexical decision experiments employing bound stems as well as transparent and opaque case inflected Finnish nouns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%