Cover not available

Article In: The Mental Lexicon: Online-First Articles

What the mental lexicon might be

A probe into the “flexicon”

 | Concordia University
 | University of Windsor
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
The nature of the mental lexicon remains one of the central controversies in cognitive science, bearing on fundamental questions concerning the representation and processing of linguistic knowledge. In this article, we examine Gary Libben’s contributions to the study of lexical representation and processing, with particular focus on the theoretical and empirical studies leading to the “flexicon” framework. We address four interrelated questions that have guided both Libben’s research program and broader debates in psycholinguistics: (a) What are the basic units of lexical representation? (b) Do morphologically complex words undergo decomposition during recognition? (c) To what extent are perceptual analyses constrained by morphological principles? And (d) does semantic information penetrate the earliest stages of lexical processing? Drawing on Libben’s theoretical writings and a selection of empirical studies spanning four decades of research, we situate his proposals within competing accounts of the mental lexicon, including symbolic, connectionist, Bayesian, and hybrid approaches. We argue that the flexicon framework represents an attempt to reconcile aspects of these traditions by combining morphemes and full-word forms, dynamic lexical representations, and usage-based influences within a system aimed at maximizing opportunities for lexical use. We review evidence from studies involving aphasia, deep dyslexia, compound processing, and morphological ambiguity in trimorphemic words, assessing the extent to which the findings support the framework’s central claims. While the flexicon provides an innovative perspective on lexical flexibility and morphological productivity, we argue that several questions remain regarding the role of constituent structure, morphological computation, and semantic information in lexical processing. We conclude by suggesting that the flexicon is best viewed as a research program that raises important questions about the relationship between lexical representations, linguistic structure, and language use.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is (in) the mental lexicon?
  • 3.Lexical codes, computations, and the flexicon
    • 3.1What are the basic units of lexical representation?
    • 3.2Are morphologically complex words decomposed during recognition?
    • 3.3Are morphological principles at work during perceptual analyses?
    • 3.4Is the lexical perceptual analysis semantically informed?
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (76)
References
Allen, M., & Badecker, W. (1999). Stem homograph inhibition and stem allomorphy: Representing and processing inflected forms in a multilevel lexical system. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 105–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 31, Article 232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrews, S., Miller, B., & Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 285–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (2018). Morphology and words: A memoir. In O. Bonami, G. Boyé, G. Dal, H. Giraudo, & F. Namer (Eds.), The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology (pp. 3–17). Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (1999). War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a noninteractive activation parallel dual-route model. Brain and Language, 68(1–2), 27–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118(3), 438–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2017). Cognitively plausible theories of concept composition. In J. A. Hampton & Y. Winter (Eds.), Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology (pp. 9–30). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchanan, L., McEwen, S., Westbury, C., & Libben, G. (2000). Semantic processing of nonwords by a deep dyslexic. Brain and Language, 74(3), 379–381.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Semantics and semantic errors: Implicit access to semantic information from words and nonwords in deep dyslexia. Brain and Language, 84(1), 65–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(6), 991–1060. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, C., Libben, G., & Segalowitz, S. (2019). Compounding matters: Event-related potential evidence for early semantic access to compound words. Cognition, 1841, 44–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G. (2018). A Fodor’s guide to cognitive science. In R. G. de Almeida & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 1–22). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., & Antal, C. (2021). How can semantics avoid the troubles with the analytic/synthetic distinction? In S. Löbner, T. Gamerschlag, T. Kalenscher, M. Schrenk, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Concepts, frames and cascades in semantics, cognition and ontology (pp. 103–120). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., Antal, C., & Salehi, K. (2026). Early morpho-orthographic and semantic effects in word recognition: Evidence from a foveal-splitting dichoptic paradigm with anaglyphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 52(7), 1108–1132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., Gallant, J., Antal, C., & Libben, G. (2025). Semantic access to ambiguous word roots cannot be stopped by affixation — Not even in sentence contexts: Evidence from eye-tracking and the maze task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 51(3), 435–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., & Lepore, E. (2018). Semantics for a module. In R. G. de Almeida & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 113–138). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Almeida, R. G., & Libben, G. (2002). Compound pre-access decomposition: Effects of constituent disruption. Folia Linguistica, 36(1–2), 97–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Changing morphological structures: The effect of sentence context on the interpretation of structurally ambiguous English trimorphemic words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 373–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. Verso.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). A theory of content I: the problem. In J. A. Fodor, A theory of content and other essays (pp. 51–87). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Lepore, E. (2001). The compositionality papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1–2), 3–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D., Nickels, S., & Schott, E. (2018). Center-embedded sentences: What’s pronounceable is comprehensible. In R. G. de Almeida & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 139–168). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In E. C. T. Walker & R. J. Wales (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). North-Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. W. W. NortonGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2005). Words and structure. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heitmeier, M., Chuang, Y.-Y., and Baayen, R. H. (2026). The Discriminative Lexicon: Theory, implementation in the Julia package JudiLing, and applications. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howes, D. H., & Solomon, R. L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(6), 401–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Mangalath, P. (2011). The construction of meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 346–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1935). The mentality of apes (2nd ed.). Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 876–895. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, G. (1987). Morpheme decomposition and the mental lexicon: Evidence from the visual recognition of compounds (Doctoral dissertation, McGill University).
(1990). Morphological representations and morphological deficits in aphasia. In J.-L. Nespoulous & P. Villiard (Eds.), Morphology, phonology and aphasia (pp. 20–31). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993a). A case of obligatory access to morphological constituents. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 16(2), 111–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993b). Are morphological structures computed during word recognition? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(5), 535–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994a). How is morphological decomposition achieved? Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(3), 369–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994b). The role of hierarchical morphological structure: A case study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 8(1), 49–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61(1), 30–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Morphological parsing and morphological structure. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 221–239). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Getting at psychological reality: On- and off-line tasks in the investigation of hierarchical morphological structure. In G. Wiebe, G. Libben, T. Priestly, R. Smyth, & H. S. Wang (Eds.), Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce L. Derwing (pp. 349–369). Crane Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Disorders of lexis. In B. Stemmer & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 147–154). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The nature of compounds: A psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31(1–2), 8–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1(1), 49–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Words as action: Consequences for the monolingual and bilingual lexicon. In A. Tsedryk & C. Doe (Eds.), The description, measurement and pedagogy of words (pp. 14–33). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). From lexicon to flexicon: The principles of morphological transcendence and lexical superstates in the characterization of words in the mind. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 41, Article 788430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2026). Nature of language: Psycholinguistic perspectives on words. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, G., Buchanan, L., & Colangelo, A. (2004). Morphology, semantics, and the mental lexicon: The failure of deactivation hypothesis. Logos and Language, 4(1), 45–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, G., Derwing, B. L., & de Almeida, R. G. (1999). Ambiguous novel compounds and models of morphological parsing. Brain and Language, 68(1–2), 378–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, G., Goral, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2018). What does constituent priming mean in the investigation of compound processing? The Mental Lexicon, 13(2), 232–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, G., Jarema, G., Derwing, B., Riccardi, A., & Perlak, D. (2016). Seeking the -ational in derivational morphology. Aphasiology, 30(11), 1304–1324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 313–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEwen, S., Westbury, C., Buchanan, L., & Libben, G. (2001). Semantic information is used by a deep dyslexic to parse compounds. Brain and Cognition, 46(1–2), 201–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morton, J. (1968). Considerations of grammar and computation in language behavior (Studies in Language and Language Behavior, Progress Report No. VI). Center for Research on Language and Language Behavior, University of Michigan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, D. (2013). Models of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(10), 517–524. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1966). Things, words and the brain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 340–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Psycholinguistic issues in the lexical representation of words. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 409–434). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 353–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shillcock, R., Roberts, B., Kreiner, H., & Obregón, M. (2010). Binocular foveation in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2184–2203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smolka, E., & Libben, G. (2017). Can you wash off the hogwash? Semantic transparency of first and second constituents in the processing of German compounds. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(4), 514–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockall, L., Manouilidou, C., Gwilliams, L., Neophytou, K., & Marantz, A. (2019). Prefix stripping re-re-revisited: MEG investigations of morphological decomposition and recomposition. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, Article 1964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veríssimo, J., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Morphological priming by itself: A study of Portuguese conjugations. Cognition, 112(1), 187–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue