Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Editor-in-Chief: Plank, Frans / Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria

3 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.304

CiteScore 2016: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.629
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.234

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 20, Issue 3 (Dec 2016)

Issues

Contributions of linguistic typology to psycholinguistics

Harald Clahsen
  • Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism, Universität Potsdam, Campus Golm, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24–25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-12-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0031

Abstract

This article first outlines different ways of how psycholinguists have dealt with linguistic diversity and illustrates these approaches with three familiar cases from research on language processing, language acquisition, and language disorders. The second part focuses on the role of morphology and morphological variability across languages for psycholinguistic research. The specific phenomena to be examined are to do with stem-formation morphology and inflectional classes; they illustrate how experimental research that is informed by linguistic typology can lead to new insights.

References

  • Albright, Adam. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78. 684–709.Google Scholar

  • Albright, Adam & Bruce Hayes. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–161.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Berent, Iris, Vered Vaknin & Gary F. Marcus. 2007. Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew. Cognition 104. 254–286.Google Scholar

  • Berman, Ruth A. 2014. Cross-linguistic comparisons in child language research. Journal of Child Language 41(S1). 26–37.Google Scholar

  • Bick, Atira S., Gadi Goelman & Ram Frost. 2011. Hebrew brain vs. English brain: Language modulates the way it is processed. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23. 2280–2290.Google Scholar

  • Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2015. Structure, form, and meaning in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Arabic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 955–992.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–270.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Clahsen, Harald. 1986. Verb inflections in German child language: Acquisition of agreement markings and the functions they encode. Linguistics 24. 79–122.Google Scholar

  • Clahsen, Harald, Fraibet Aveledo & Iggy Roca. 2002. The development of regular and irregular verb inflection in Spanish child language. Journal of Child Language 29. 591–622.Google Scholar

  • Clahsen, Harald & Martina Penke. 1992. The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone-Corpus. In Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition, 181–223. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • De Diego Balaguer, Ruth, Nuria Sebastián-Gallés, Begoña Díaz & Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells. 2005. Morphological processing in early bilinguals: An ERP study of regular and irregular verb processing. Cognitive Brain Research 25. 312–327.Google Scholar

  • Farhy, Yael, João Veríssimo & Harald Clahsen. 2016. Universal and particular in morphological processing: Evidence from Hebrew. Unpublished manuscript, Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar

  • Field, John. 2004. Psycholinguistics: The key concepts. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Frost, Ram, Avital Deutsch, Orna Gilboa, Michal Tannenbaum & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2000. Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory & Cognition 28. 1277–1288.Google Scholar

  • Gor, Kira & Svetlana Cook. 2010. Nonnative processing of verbal morphology: In search of regularity. Language Learning 60. 88–126.Google Scholar

  • Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1990. Theoretical perspectives on language deficits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Joanisse, Marc F. & Mark S. Seidenberg. 1999. Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96. 7592–7597.Google Scholar

  • Marcus, Gary F., Ursula Brinkmann, Harald Clahsen, Richard Wiese & Steven Pinker. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29. 189–256.Google Scholar

  • Marcus, Gary F., Steven Pinker, Michael Ullman, Michelle Hollander, T. John Rosen, Fei Xu & Harald Clahsen. 1992. Overregularization in language acquisition (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 228). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Marslen-Wilson, William D., Lorraine K. Tyler, Rachelle Waksler & Lianne Older. 1994. Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review 101. 3–33.Google Scholar

  • McClelland, James L. & Karalyn Patterson. 2002. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 465–472.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2016. Morphology in linguistic typology. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Orsolini, Margherira, Rachele Fanari & Hugo Bowles. 1998. Acquiring regular and irregular inflection in a language with verb classes. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 425–464.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven & Michael T. Ullman. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 456–463.Google Scholar

  • Prasada, Sandeep & Steven Pinker. 1993. Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56.Google Scholar

  • Rumelhart, David E. & James L. McClelland. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In David E. Rumelhart, James L. McClelland & The PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 2, 216–271. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Say, Tessa & Harald Clahsen. 2002. Words, rules and stems in the Italian mental lexicon. In Sieb Nooteboom, Fred Weerman & Frank Wijnen (eds.), Storage and computation in the language faculty, 93–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Slobin, Dan I. & Thomas G. Bever. 1982. Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12. 229–265.Google Scholar

  • Stanners, Robert F., James J. Neiser, William P. Hernon & Roger Hall. 1979. Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 399–412.Google Scholar

  • Stavrakaki, Stavroula & Harald Clahsen. 2009. The perfective past tense in Greek child language. Journal of Child Language 36. 113–142.Google Scholar

  • Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Townsend, David J. & Thomas G. Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Ullman, Michael T., Roumyana Pancheva, Tracy Love, Eiling Yee, David Swinney & Gregory Hickok. 2005. Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language 93. 185–238.Google Scholar

  • Veríssimo, João & Harald Clahsen. 2009. Morphological priming by itself: A study of Portuguese conjugations. Cognition 112. 187–194.Google Scholar

  • Veríssimo, João & Harald Clahsen. 2014. Variables and similarity in linguistic generalization: Evidence from inflectional classes in Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language 76. 61–79.Google Scholar

  • Villalva, Alina. 2000. Estruturas morfológicas: Unidades e hierarquias nas palavras do português. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian & Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-08-30

Revised: 2016-09-25

Published Online: 2016-12-23

Published in Print: 2016-12-01


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0031.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in