Compound formation is constrained by morphology: A reply to Seidenberg, MacDonald & Haskell

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Compound formation is constrained by morphology: A reply to Seidenberg, MacDonald & Haskell

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Compound formation is constrained by morphology: A reply to Seidenberg, MacDonald & Haskell
Author: Berent, Iris; Pinker, Steven

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Berent, Iris, and Steven Pinker. 2008. Compound formation is constrained by morphology: A reply to Seidenberg, MacDonald & Haskell. The Mental Lexicon 3(2): 176-187.
Access Status: Full text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time (“dark deposit”). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Why do compounds containing regular plurals, such as rats-infested, sound so much worse than corresponding compounds containing irregular plurals, such as mice-infested? Berent and Pinker (2007) reported five experiments showing that this theoretically important effect hinges on the morphological structure of the plurals, not their phonological properties, as had been claimed by Haskell, MacDonald, and Seidenberg (2003). In this note we reply to a critique by these authors. We show that the connectionist model they invoke to explain the data has nothing to do with compounding but exploits fortuitous properties of adjectives, and that our experimental results disconfirm explicit predictions the authors had made. We also present new analyses which answer the authors' methodological objections. We conclude that the interaction of compounding with regularity is a robust effect, unconfounded with phonology or semantics.
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ml.3.2.02ber
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2643015
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters