The unbounded productivity of (sign) language
Evidence from the Stroop task
Unbounded productivity is a hallmark of linguistic competence. Here, we asked whether this capacity automatically applies to signs. Participants saw video-clips of novel signs in American Sign Language (ASL) produced by a signer whose body appeared in a monochromatic color, and they quickly identified the signs’ color. The critical manipulation compared reduplicative (αα) signs to non-reduplicative (αβ) controls. Past research has shown that reduplication is frequent in ASL, and frequent structures elicit stronger Stroop interference. If signers automatically generalize the reduplication function, then αα signs should elicit stronger color-naming interference. Results showed no effect of reduplication for signs whose base (α) consisted of native ASL features (possibly, due to the similarity of α items to color names). Remarkably, signers were highly sensitive to reduplication when the base (α) included novel features. These results demonstrate that signers can freely extend their linguistic knowledge to novel forms, and they do so automatically. Unbounded productivity thus defines all languages, irrespective of input modality.
Article outline
- Introduction
- The scope of linguistic generalizations
- Gauging the scope of phonological generalizations
- Do signers extend phonological generalizations automatically?
- Experiment 1
- Methods
- Participants
- Materials
- Reduplication materials
- Color-sign interference materials
- Procedure
- Results and discussion
- The color-sign interference
- The reduplication effect
- Experiment 2
- Methods
- Participants
- Materials and procedure
- Results and discussion
- The color-sign interference
- The reduplication effect
- General discussion
- The origins of the reduplication cost for nonnative signs
- Why are signers indifferent to the reduplication of native signs?
- The scope of linguistic generalizations in sign language
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (94)
Albright, A., & Hayes, B.
(
2003)
Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study.
Cognition, 901, 119–161.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baus, C., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Quer, J., & Carreiras, M.
(
2008)
Lexical access in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production.
Cognition, 1081, 856–865.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baus, C., Gutiérrez, E., & Carreiras, M.
(
2014)
The role of syllables in sign language production.
Frontiers In Psychology, 51.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., & Shimron, J.
(
1997)
The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle.
Cognition, 641, 39–72.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Shimron, J., & Vaknin, V.
(
2001)
Phonological constraints on reading: Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle.
Journal of Memory and Language, 441, 644–665.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I.
(
2002)
Identity avoidance in the Hebrew lexicon: implications for symbolic accounts of word formation.
Brain and Language, 811, 326–341.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Marcus, G. F., Shimron, J., & Gafos, A. I.
(
2002)
The scope of linguistic generalizations: evidence from Hebrew word formation.
Cognition, 831, 113–139.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., & Shimron, J.
(
2003)
Co-occurrence restrictions on identical consonants in the Hebrew lexicon: Are they due to similarity? Journal of Linguistics, 391, 31–55.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Vaknin, V., & Shimron, J.
(
2004)
Does a theory of language need a grammar? Evidence from Hebrew root structure.
Brain and Language, 901, 170–182.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., & Marom, M.
(
2005)
The skeletal structure of printed words: Evidence from the Stroop task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 311, 328–338.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Pinker, S., Tzelgov, J., Bibi, U., & Goldfarb, L.
(
2005)
Computation of semantic number from morphological information.
Journal of Memory and Language, 531, 342–358.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Bibi, U., & Tzelgov, J.
Berent, I., Vaknin, V., & Marcus, G.
(
2007)
Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew.
Cognition, 1041, 254–286.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Wilson, C., Marcus, G., & Bemis, D.
(
2012)
On the role of variables in phonology: Remarks on Hayes and Wilson.
Linguistic Inquiry, 431, 97–119.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D.
(
2013)
Amodal aspects of linguistic design.
Plos One, 81.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D.
(
2014)
Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule.
Frontiers in Language Sciences, 51, 560.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bosworth, R. G., & Emmorey, K.
(
2010)
Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in american sign language.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 361, 1573–1581.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D.
(
2001)
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.
Psychological Review, 1081, 624–652.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brentari, D.
(
1998)
A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
(
2012)
When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gestures, signers and homesigners.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 301.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. L.
(
2005)
Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition.
Linguistic Review, 221, 381–410.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L.
(
2008)
Linguistic universals and language change. In
J. Good (Ed.),
Linguistic universals and language change (pp. 108–121). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Caselli, N. K., & Pyers, J. E.
(
2017)
The Road to Language Learning Is Not Entirely Iconic: Iconicity, Neighborhood Density, and Frequency Facilitate Acquisition of Sign Language.
Psychological Science, 281, 979–987.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N.
(
1957)
Syntactic structures. Gravenhage: Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M.
(
1968)
The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N.
(
1972)
Language and mind (Enl. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N.
(
2005)
Three factors in language design.
Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 1–22.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corina, D. P., & Knapp, H.
(
2006)
Sign language processing and the mirror neuron system.
Cortex, 421, 529–539.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dalrymple-Alford, E.
(
1972)
Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task.
Perception & Psychophysics, 111, 274–276.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dupuis, A., & Berent, I.
(
2015)
Lexical access to signs is automatic.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 111, 1–6.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eimas, P., & Seidenberg, M.
(
1997)
Do Infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics? Science, 2841, 433.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Elman, J.
(
1993)
Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small.
Cognition, 481, 71–99.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K.
(
1996)
Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge: MIT press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Elman, J. L.
(
2005)
Connectionist models of cognitive development: where next? Trends Cogn Sci, 91, 111–117.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Emmorey, K., Lane, H. L., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. S.
(
2000)
The signs of language revisited: an anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., et al.
(
2004)
Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming.
Brain and Language, 891, 27–37.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Entel, O., Tzelgov, J., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Shahar, N.
(
2015)
Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task.
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action, 791, 913–927.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Flemming, E.
(
2001)
Scalar and Categorical Phenomena in a Unified Model of Phonetics and Phonology.
Phonology, 181, 7–44.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z.
(
1988)
Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis.
Cognition, 281, 3–71.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, J. A.
(
1975)
The language of thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frisch, S. A., Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Broe, M. B.
(
2004)
Similarity avoidance and the OCP.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 221, 197–228.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gervain, J., Macagno, F., Cogoi, S., Peña, M., & Mehler, J.
(
2008)
The neonate brain detects speech structure.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1051, 14222–14227.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gervain, J., Berent, I., & Werker, J.
(
2012)
Binding at birth: Newborns detect identity relations and sequential position in speech.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 241, 564–574.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenberg, J. H.
(
1950)
The patterning of morphemes in Semitic.
Word, 61, 162–181.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haskell, T. R., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S.
(
2003)
Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research.
Cognitive Psychology, 41, 119–163.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hayes, B., & Wilson, C.
(
2008)
A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning.
Linguistic Inquiry 391, 379–440.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hildebrandt, U., & Corina, D.
(
2002)
Phonological Similarity in American Sign Language.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 171, 593–612.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacoby, L., Lindsay, D., & Hessels, S.
(
2003)
Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 101, 638–644.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Joanisse, M. F., & McClelland, J. L.
(
2015)
Connectionist perspectives on language learning, representation and processing.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 61, 235–247.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leben, W.
(
1973)
Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J.
(
2016)
Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm.
Acta psychologica, 1641, 39.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liddell, S., & Johnson, R.
(
1986)
American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 41, 445–513.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Logan, G.
(
1980)
Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.
Cognitive Psychology, 121, 523–553.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacLeod, C. M.
(
1991)
Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrate review.
Psychological Bulletin, 1091.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marcus, G.
(
2001)
The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marcus, G. F.
(
1998)
Rethinking eliminative connectionism.
Cognitive Psychology, 371, 243–282.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., & Vishton, P. M.
(
1999)
Rule learning by seven-month-old infants.
Science, 2831, 77–80.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marcus, G. F., Fernandes, K. J., & Johnson, S. P.
(
2007)
Infant rule learning facilitated by speech.
Psychol Sci, 181, 387–391.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marom, M., & Berent, I.
(
2010)
Phonological constraints on the assembly of skeletal structure in reading.
Journal of Psycholinguistic research, 391, 67–88.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marschark, M., & Shroyer, E. H.
(
1993)
Hearing Status and Language Fluency as Predictors of Automatic Word and Sign Recognition.
American Annals of the Deaf, 1381, 370–375.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, J.
(
1986)
OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination.
Linguistic Inquiry, 171, 207–263.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, J. J.
(
1989)
Linear order in phonological representation.
Linguistic Inquiry, 201, 71–99.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K.
(
2002)
Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? Trends Cogn Sci, 61, 465–472.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McClelland, J. L.
(
2009)
Phonology and perception: A cognitive scientist’s perspective. In
P. Boersma &
S. Hamann (Eds.),
Phonology in perception (pp. 293–314). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McClelland, J. L., Botvinick, M. M., Noelle, D. C., Plaut, D. C., Rogers, T. T., Seidenberg, M. S., et al.
(
2010)
Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 141, 348–356.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ormel, E., Knoors, H., Hermans, D., & Verhoeven, L.
(
2009)
The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: The case of deaf children.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 141, 436–448.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oudeyer, P. -Y.
(
2001)
The Origins Of Syllable Systems: an Operational Model. In
J. Moore &
K. Stenning (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science society, COGSCI’2001 (pp. 744–749): Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Petitto, L. A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L. E., & Ostry, D.
(
2001)
Language rhythms in baby hand movements.
Nature, 4131, 35–36.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pierrehumbert, J.
(
1993)
Dissimilarity in Arabic verbal roots. Paper presented at the Proceedings of NELS 23, GLSA, Departments of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Pinker, S., & Prince, A.
(
1988)
On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition.
Cognition, 281, 73–193.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pinker, S.
(
1997a)
Words and rules in the human brain.
Nature, 3871, 547–548.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pinker, S.
(
1997b)
How the mind works. New York: Norton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P.
(
1993/2004)
Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Proctor, R. W.
(
1978)
Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task.
Perception & Psychophysics, 231, 413–419.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rabagliati, H., Senghas, A., Johnson, S., & Marcus, G. F.
(
2012)
Infant rule learning: Advantage language, or advantage speech? Plos One, 71.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ramscar, M., & Dye, M.
(
2011)
Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can’t explain noun compounding.
Cognitive Psychology, 621, 1–40.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L.
(
1986)
On learning past tense of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? In
D. Rumelhart,
E. J. McClelland, L & T. P. R. Group (Eds.),
Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 21, pp. 216–271). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. C.
(
2006)
Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Padden, C.
(
2011)
The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 291, 505–543.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Seidenberg, M., & McClelland, J.
(
1989)
A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.
Psychological Review, 961, 523–568.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Seidenberg, M.
(
1997)
Language acquistion and use: Learning and applying probabilistic contraints.
Science, 2751, 1599–1603.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Seidenberg, M. S., & Jeffery, L. E.
(
1999)
Do infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics.
Science, 2841, 433.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M., & Mathis, D.
(
2014)
Optimization and Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition.
Cognitive Science, 381, 1102–1138.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stokoe, W. C., Jr.
(
1960)
Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 101, 3–37.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stroop, J. R.
(
1935)
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 181, 643–662.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Supalla, T., & Newport, E.
(
1978)
How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In
P. Siple (Ed.),
Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. (pp. 91–132). New-York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G.
(
2009)
The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 351, 550–557.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G.
(
2010)
The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 361, 1017–1027.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B., & Vigliocco, G.
(
2012)
The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British sign language.
Psychological Science, 231, 1443–1448.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J.
(
1992)
Controlling Stroop effect by manipulating expectation for color related stimuli.
Memory & Cognition, 201, 727–735.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tzelgov, J.
(
1997)
Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: A theoretical note.
Consciousness And Cognition, 61, 441–451.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Westermann, G.
(
2016)
Experience-Dependent Brain Development as a Key to Understanding the Language System.
Topics In Cognitive Science.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilbur, R. B.
(
1973)
The phonology of reduplication. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ann Arbor.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilbur, R. B.
(
2009)
Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language.
Language Sciences, 311, 325–342.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Naranjo-Zeledón, Luis, Mario Chacón-Rivas, Jesús Peral & Antonio Ferrández
2020.
Phonological Proximity in Costa Rican Sign Language.
Electronics 9:8
► pp. 1302 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 june 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.