Processing inflectional and derivational morphology

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

“…That is, recognition of R2 is impaired because of the inhibitory effect produced in the course of recognizing R1 on all orthographically (or phonologically) similar 3 lexical entries. This interpretation finds independent support in findings relative to lexical processing of orthographic neighbors (e.g., Colombo, 1986;Grainger et al, 4 1989) and stem homographs (Laudanna et al, 1989(Laudanna et al, , 1992. These studies show that negative activation (inhibition) occurs under conditions in which lexical forms compete for selection.…”

“…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).…”

Rule-Based versus Associative Processes in Derivational Morphology

“…This contrasts with irregular inflections, which are found to be stored as whole words. Several studies have found that base forms are activated when either regularly inflected or derived words are processed, but not when irregular inflections are processed (Stanners, Neiser, Hernon, & Hall, 1979;Laudanna, Badecker, & Caramazza, 1992;Cole, Beauvillain, & Segui, 1989). However, such results do not distinguish between Pinker's (1991) dual model and single-network models.…”

The Mass/Count Distinction: Evidence from On-Line Psycholinguistic Performance

“…Psycholinguistic investigations of the mental lexicon have, thus far, shown that an increased processing load, either of grammatical features encoded in the representation or of morphological operations, can affect reaction times (RTs) during word recognition in on-line psycholinguistic experiments (Taft & Forster, 1975;Laudanna et al, 1992;Niemi et al, 1994;Kehayia & Jarema, 1994). Little is known about the role of grammatical features in online word recognition; even less is known about such features as mass for nouns, though neurolinguistic findings have shown dissociations in the performance of patients on different noun classes, including mass and count nouns.…”