Cover not available
Part of
Polylogues on The Mental Lexicon: An exploration of fundamental issues and directions
Edited by Gary Libben, Gonia Jarema and Victor Kuperman
[Not in series 238] 2021
► pp. 187–220

Chapter 7
Morphological schemas

Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues

| Tufts University | MIT
ORCID logo | Leiden University
Article outline
  • Thesis
  • Commentaries on Jackendoff and Audring thesis
    • James Myers commentary on Jackendoff and Audring thesis
    • Dorit Ravid commentary on Jackendoff and Audring thesis
    • Russell Richie commentary on Jackendoff and Audring thesis
    • Benjamin Tucker commentary on Jackendoff and Audring thesis
    • Chris Westbury commentary on Jackendoff and Audring thesis
  • The Article
    • 1.Overall goals
    • 2.Representations in relational morphology
      • 2.1Rules, reconceived as schemas, are in the lexicon
      • 2.2Two functions of schemas
      • 2.3Inheritance: Spelling out the relational function
      • 2.4Summary so far and prospectus
    • 3.Acquisition of productive schemas relies on the relational function
    • 4.Theory of processing: Basic assumptions
    • 5.Schemas in processing
    • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.238.07jac
References
Amenta, S., and Crepaldi, D.
(2012) Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological efffecs in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., and Schreuder, R.
(1997) Singulars and Plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a Parallel Dual-Route Model, Journal of Memory and Language 37, 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: a corpus-based study. Linguistics 29, 801–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A.
(1986) Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R., and Chomsky, N.
(2016) Why Only Us? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bien, H., Baayen, R. H., and Levelt, W. J. M.
(2011) Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 683–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., and Loebell, H.
(1990) Framing sentences. Cognition 35, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017) Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In Nikolas Gisborne and Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Default inheritance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B.
(1983) Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production: Vol. 2, 257–294. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1985) Morphology: a Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., and D. Slobin
(1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58: 265–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H.
(1999) Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., and Loftus, E.
(1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82, 407–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., and Quillian, M.
(1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9, 240–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W.
(1999) Syntactic Nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Nowak, A.
(2003) Dynamical Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daelemans, W., De Smet, K., and Gazdar, G.
(1992) Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics 18, 205–218.Google Scholar
deJong, N.
(2002) Morphological Families in the Mental Lexicon. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F.
(1916) Cours de linguistique générale, ed. C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger, Lausanne and Paris: Payot; trans. W. Baskin, Course in General Linguistics, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins 1977.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, R. and Poeppel, D.
(2007) Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 953–1000. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D.
(1998) Learning to parse? In D. Swinney (ed.) Anniversary issue of Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27.2, 285–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallistel, C. R., and King, P. A.
(2009) Memory and the Computational Brain. Malden, MA; Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
(2005) Constructions at work, Oxford University Press, New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P.
(2005) On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 416–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, J.
(2003) 2003. The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32, 101–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science 35, 399–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.
(1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J.
(1989) Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (ed.), Lexical Representation and Process, 392–408. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hay, J., and Baayen, H.
(2005) Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology, Trends in Cognitive Science 9.7, 342–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, T. and Trousdale, G.
(eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1975) Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon, Language 51.3, 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) A Parallel Architecture Perspective on Language Processing, Brain Research 1146, 2–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Meaning and the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. and Audring, J.
(2020) The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V.
(2007) Frequency, neighborhood density, age-of-acquisition, lexicon size, neighborhood density and speed of processing: Towards a domain-general, single-mechanism account. In S. Buescher, K. Holley, E. Ashworth, C. Beckner, B. Jones, and C. Shank. Proceedings of the 6th Annual High Desert Linguistics Society Conference, 121–40. Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G., and Jaeger, F.
(2016) What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 31: 32–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. and Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Morphological Dynamics in Compound Processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Levelt, W., Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A.
(1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 1–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, R.
(2008) Expectation-Based Syntactic Comprehension. Cognition 106(3):1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G.
(2006) Why study compounds? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema, (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words. Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
Marcus, G.
(1998) Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology 37, 243–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) The Algebraic Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marr, D.
(1982) Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K.
(1980) The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8, 1–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.
(1987) Functional parallelism in spoken language understanding. Cognition 25, 71–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., and Zwitserlood, P.
(1989) Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15, 576–585.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.
(2002) The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, S., Weeman, F., and Wijnen, F.
(eds.) (2002) Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, T. J.
(2015) Productivity and Reuse in Language: A Theory of Linguistic Computation and Storage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, R., and Wingfield, A.
(1965) Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 17, 273–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1999) Words and rules, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Plag, I.
(2003) Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. and Sag, I.
(1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Radden, G., and Panther, K.-U.
(2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden and K.-U. Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 1–46. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reifegerste, J.
(2014) Morphological Processing in Younger and Older People: Evidence for Flexible Dual-Route Access. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S.
(1988) Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 49–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D.
(1980) Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer, Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D., and McClelland, J.
(1986) On learning the past tense of English verbs. In J. McClelland, D. Rumelhart, and the PDP Research Group, Parallel Distributed Processing, vol. ii, 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., and R. H. Baayen
(1995) Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 131–154. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, D.
(2019) Distributed Morphology. In J. Audring and F. Masini (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 143–165.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., and Legendre, G.
(2006) The Harmonic Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Swinney, D.
(1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 645–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M.
(2004) Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J. M., Seidenberg, M.
(1979) Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 427–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T.
(2015) The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 135–158.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, E. and Snedeker, J.
(2014) It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29.5, 635–641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, W.
(1980) Multiple theory formation in speech and reading. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer, Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: 59–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles
(2016) The Price of Linguistic Productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar