English makes use of a wide-spread pattern of word class alternation known as ‘zero-derivation.’ This involves pairs of homophonous forms which are semantically related, yet differ in part-of-speech (e.g. a knot vs. to knot). Many theories have been proposed to describe the relationship between these forms, with some proposing that to knot is covertly derived from a knot in the same way as government is from govern; an alternative view is that these pairs are instead two forms of a single lexeme with no inherent word class. We explore these claims in the context of morphological processing, using three delayed priming lexical decision tasks. The results suggest that some pairs are in a covert derivational relationship, in which the derived form is morphologically more complex than the base. However, not all such pairs are related this way, as some instead behave like inflectional relatives belonging to a single, underspecified lexical entry. Together, the experiments offer support for a mixed model, in which the grammar distinguishes between different kinds of zero-related pairs based on their underlying morphological relationships – a covert distinction to which morphological processing may be sensitive.
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 211, 737–778.
Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. [URL]University of Pennsylvania: Linguistic Data Consortium. Accessed via [URL].
Balteiro, I. (2007). The directionality of conversion in English: A dia-synchronic study. Bern: Peter Lang.
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. [URL], June 2015.
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 261, 489–511.
Bozic, M., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Stamatakis, E.A., Davis, M.H., & Tyler, L.K. (2007). Differentiating morphology, form, and meaning: Neural correlates of morphological complexity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 191, 1464–1475.
Bozic, M., Szlachta, Z., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2013a). Cross-linguistic parallels in processing derivational morphology: Evidence from Polish. Brain and Language, 1271, 533–538.
Bozic, M., Tyler, L.K., Su, L., Wingfield, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2013b). Neurobiological systems for lexical representation and analysis in English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 251, 1678–1691.
Clahsen, H., Sonnenstuhl, I., & Blevins, J. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In R.H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 125–155). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Darby, J. (2015). The Processing of conversion in English: Morphological complexity and underspecification. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 211, 1098–1116.
Farrell, P. (2001). Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics, 51, 109–130.
Feldman, L.B. (2000). Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 261, 1431–444.
Feldman, L.B., & Andjelković, D. (1992). Morphological analysis in word recognition. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 343–360). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Feldman, L.B., & Prostko, B. (2002). Graded aspects of morphological processing: Task and processing time. Brain and Language, 811, 12–27.
Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?Linguistics, 391, 1041–1070.
Henderson, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, K. (1984). Morphemic structure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 211–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
JMP, Version 12. (1988–2007). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part 1 (pp. 131‑175). Dordrecht: Foris.
Kiparsky, P. (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp. 3–29). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Lieber, R. (1981). Morphological conversion within a restrictive theory of the lexicon. In M. Moortgat, H. van der Hulst, & T. Hoekstra (Eds.), The scope of lexical rules (pp. 161–200). Dordrecht: Foris.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. & Tyler, L.K. (1998). Rules, representations, and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 428–435.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L. (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: the decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 3621, 823–836.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Tyler, L.K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 1011, 3–33.
Meinzer, M., Lahiri, A., Flaisch, T., Hanneman, R., & Eulitz, C. (2009). Opaque for the reader but transparent for the brain: Neural signatures of morphological complexity. Neuropsychologia, 471, 1964–1971.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pliatsikas, C., Wheeldon, L., Lahiri, A., & Hansen, P. (2014). Processing of zero-derived words in English: an fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia, 531, 47–53.
Rastle, K., Davis, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: a time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 151, 507–537.
Rastle, K., Davis, M., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 111, 1090–1098.
Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). Nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 551, 1339–1362.
Reetz, H. & Kleinmann, A. (2003). Multi-subject hardware for experiment control and precise reaction time measurement. In M.J. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1489–1492). Barcelona.
Rubin, G., Becker, C., & Freeman, R. (1979). Morphological structure and its effect on visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 757–767.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–54). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Stanners, R.F., Neiser, J.J., Hernon, W.P., & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 399–412.
Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 638–647.
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A1, 745–765.
Ungerer, F. (2002). The conceptual function of derivational word-formation in English. Anglia, 1201, 534–567.
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.”Linguistic Inquiry, 121, 245–274.
Vannest, J., Polk, T., & Lewis, R. (2005). Dual-route processing of complex words: New fMRI evidence from derivational suffixation. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 51, 67–76.
2019. Beyond decomposition: Processing zero-derivations in English visual word recognition. Cortex 116 ► pp. 176 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.