Chapter published in:
Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 117–133

Priming paradigmatic gaps

| University of Bergen
| University of Bergen
We present an experimental study on paradigmatic gaps in the neuter gender of Norwegian adjectives. The formation of neuter gender forms is typically not complicated, and yet people hesitate to use a predictable set of adjectives. We investigate the effect of priming in order to determine if the missing neuter forms will facilitate lexical decisions for their common gender form, possibly through lemma activation. A clear difference was found between regular and problematic adjectives. This shows that the intuition of speakers is reflected in detectable differences in processing.
Keywords: masked priming, paradigmatic gaps, pseudowords
Published online: 21 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.64.06vea
References

References

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M.
(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., & Brown, D.
(Eds.) (2010) Defective paradigms. Missing forms and what they tell us. Oxford: Oxford University Press & British Academy. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L.
(1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533–581.Google Scholar
Berko, J.
(1958) The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14(2-3):150–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., & Westfall, P.
(2010) Multiple comparisons using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., & Féry, C.
(2002) Ineffability in grammar. In Resolving conflicts in grammars: Optimality Theory in syntax, morphology, and phonology (pp. 265–397). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C.
(1984a) The density constraint on form-priming in the naming task: Interference effects from a masked prime. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984b) Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 680–698.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknech, C., & Carter, R.
(1987) Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(2), 211–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Nunes, J.
(2014) Minimalism and control. In A. Carnie, D. Siddiqi, & Y. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of syntax (pp. 239–263). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenset, G. B., & Johansson, C.
(2013) Lexical fillers influence the dative alternation: Estimating constructional saliency using web document frequencies. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 20(1), 13–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, C.
(1999) Learning what cannot be by failing expectations. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22, 61–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) How is grammatical gender processed? In T. Gaustad (Ed.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2002 (pp. 65–76). Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) A word or two? In V. Rosén & K. De Smedt (Eds.), The very model of a modern linguist — in honor of Helge Dyvik (pp. 112–126). Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies, 8(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, C., & Torkildsen, J. C.
(2005) Reaktionstider för genuskongruens: Hur processeras genus? [Reaction times for gender congruence: How is gender processed?]. In S. Lie, G. Nedrelid, & H. Omdal (Eds.), MONS 10: Utvalde artiklar frå det tiande Møte om norsk språk i Kristiansand 2003 (pp. 157–167). Kristiansand: HøyskoleForlaget.Google Scholar
Knudsen, R. L., & Fjeld, R. V.
(2013) A balanced; annotated national corpus for Norwegian Bokmål. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Lexical Semantic Resources for NLP at NODALIDA (NEALT Proceedings Series 19). Tartu: DSpace at Tartu National Library.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
(2016) lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-32.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(2001) Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(23), 13464–13471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S.
(1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowenadler, J.
(2010) Relative acceptability of missing adjective forms in Swedish. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, & D. Brown (Eds.), Defective Paradigms. Missing forms and what they tell us (pp. 69–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press & British Academy. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W.
(1982) An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89(5), 573–594. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pettersson, T.
(1990) Varför barnet inte kan vara latt [Why the child cannot be lazy]. In E. Andersson & M. Sundman (Eds.), Svenskans Beskrivning, 17, 293–302. Åbo: Åbo Academy Press.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, R.
(2004) Absolute ill-formedness and other morphophonological effects. Phonology, 21(1), 91–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rice, C.
(2007) Gaps and repairs at the phonology-morphology interface. Journal of Linguistics, 43(1), 197–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Meyer, D. E.
(1973) Retrieval and comparison processes in semantic memory. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 395–409). New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C.
(2015) Negative knowledge from positive evidence. Language, 91(4), 938–953. CrossrefGoogle Scholar