scholarly journals On the Relationship between Frequency, Features, and Markedness in Inflection: Experimental Evidence from Russian Nouns

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 130
Author(s):  
Jeff Parker
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Frequency Features ◽  
Inflectional Affixes

Markedness has a long tradition in linguistics as a way to describe linguistic asymmetries. In this paper, I investigate an argument about the necessity of markedness as a tool for capturing the structural distribution of inflectional affixes and predicting the behavioral consequences of that distribution. Based on evidence from German adjectives, Clahsen et al. argue that the number of specified features of inflectional affixes (which I argue represents a type of markedness) affects reaction times in lexical access. Affixes’ features, however, overlap with how frequently they occur. Clahsen et al. investigate only three affixes in German, leaving open questions about the relationship between the two factors and whether features are necessary as a predictor of lexical processing. In this paper, I use a larger set of inflectional affixes in Russian to test the relationship between affix features and affix frequency. I find that the two traits of affixes are correlated based on frequencies from a corpus and that in a lexical decision task, affix frequency is the better predictor of response times. My results suggest that we should question the necessity of featural markedness for explaining how inflectional structure is processed and, more generally, that both corpus and experimental data suggest a surprisingly close relationship between affix features and affix frequency.

scholarly journals English compound and non-compound processing in bilingual and multilingual speakers: Effects of dominance and sequential multilingualism

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge González Alonso ◽  
Julián Villegas ◽  
María del Pilar García Mayo
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
First Language ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Taxi Driver ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Third Language ◽  
Two Factors

This article reports on a study investigating the relative influence of the first language and dominant language (L1) on second language (L2) and third language (L3) morpho-lexical processing. A lexical decision task compared the responses to English NV-er compounds (e.g. taxi driver) and non-compounds provided by a group of native speakers and three groups of learners at various levels of English proficiency: L1 Spanish – L2 English sequential bilinguals and two groups of early Spanish–Basque bilinguals with English as their L3. Crucially, the two trilingual groups differed in their first and dominant language (i.e. L1 Spanish – L2 Basque vs. L1 Basque – L2 Spanish). Our materials exploit an (a)symmetry between these languages: while Basque and English pattern together in the basic structure of (productive) NV-er compounds, Spanish presents a construction that differs in directionality as well as inflection of the verbal element (V[3SG] + N). Results show between and within group differences in accuracy and response times that may be ascribable to two factors besides proficiency: the number of languages spoken by a given participant and their dominant language. An examination of response bias reveals an influence of the participants’ first and dominant language on the processing of NV-er compounds. Our data suggest that morphological information in the non-native lexicon may extend beyond morphemic structure and that, similarly to bilingualism, there are costs to sequential multilingualism in lexical retrieval.

Lateralization of lexical processing in monolinguals and bilinguals

2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692110188
Author(s):  
Filiz Mergen ◽  
Gulmira Kuruoglu
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Brain Correlates ◽  
Orthographic Neighbors

Aims and objectives: This study aims to investigate how lexical processing (LP) is organized in early Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Methodology: We used a visual hemifield paradigm where bilingual ( n = 48) and monolingual ( n = 53) participants performed a lexical decision task. Bilingual participants performed the task in both their languages. Data and analysis: We recorded response times (RTs) and the accuracy rates (ARs) of the participants. An analysis of variance and t-test were run to analyze the bilingual and monolingual data, respectively. Findings: The results obtained from the analysis of the RTs and ARs for the Turkish and English words showed a balanced hemispheric organization in LP in bilingual speakers. The RTs for Turkish words in the monolingual group provided supportive evidence for the predominant role of the left hemisphere in LP. However, no significant difference was found in the accuracy of their answers, suggesting that the monolingual participants’ performance was not influenced by visual field of presentation of the words. Finally, the comparison of the two groups revealed that bilingual participants’ performance was inferior to monolinguals’ in speed and accuracy of processing of words presented in both visual fields. This result gives further support for the differential representation of LP in monolinguals and bilinguals. Originality: The psycholinguistic literature abounds with studies of LP in bilinguals and monolinguals from a variety of language backgrounds; however, there is much less data regarding the brain correlates of LP in Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Implications: Since Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals are underrepresented in the literature as compared to the population who speak other languages with alphabetic writing, this study provides preliminary data for future studies. Limitations: We did not control for gender or lexical factors such as orthographic neighbors when designing the word sets used as stimuli.

scholarly journals Lateralızatıon of Non-Word Processıng in Monolınguals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 185-190
Author(s):  
Filiz Mergen ◽  
Gulmira Kuruoglu
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Hemispheric Dominance ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Overwhelming Evidence

A great bulk of research in the psycholinguistic literature has been dedicated to hemispheric organization of words. An overwhelming evidence suggests that the left hemisphere is primarily responsible for lexical processing. However, non-words, which look similar to real words but lack meaningful associations, is underrepresented in the laterality literature. This study investigated the lateralization of Turkish non-words. Fifty-three Turkish monolinguals performed a lexical decision task in a visual hemifield paradigm. An analysis of their response times revealed left-hemispheric dominance for non-words, adding further support to the literature. The accuracy of their answers, however, were comparable regardless of the field of presentation. The results were discussed in light of the psycholinguistic word processing views.

The Effects of Absolute Pitch and Tone Language on Pitch Processing and Encoding in Musicians

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie A. Hutka ◽  
Claude Alain
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Absolute Pitch ◽  
Cumulative Advantage ◽  
Pitch Processing ◽  
Tone Language ◽  
Music And Language ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
The Relationship

Absolute pitch (AP) is the rare ability to identify or produce a specific pitch without a reference pitch, which appears to be more prevalent in tone-language speakers than non-tone-language speakers. Numerous studies support a close relationship between AP, music, and language. Despite this relationship, the extent to which these factors contribute to the processing and encoding of pitch has not yet been investigated. Addressing this research question would provide insights into the relationship between music and language, as well as the mechanisms of AP. To this aim, we recruited AP musicians and non-AP musicians who were either tone-language (Mandarin and Cantonese) or non-tone language speakers. Participants completed a zero- and one-back working memory task using music and non-music (control) stimuli. In general, AP participants had better accuracy and faster reaction times than participants without AP. This effect remained even after controlling for the age at which participants began formal music lessons. We did not observe a performance advantage afforded by speaking a tone language, nor a cumulative advantage afforded by having AP and being a tone-language speaker.

scholarly journals Age of Acquisition and Spoken Words: Examining Hemispheric Differences in Lexical Processing

2022 ◽  
pp. 002383092110684
Author(s):  
Julio González-Alvarez ◽  
Teresa Cervera-Crespo
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Theoretical Point ◽  
Hemispheric Differences ◽  
Objective Criterion ◽  
Adult Participants ◽  
Spoken Words

The relationship between the age of acquisition (AoA) of words and their cerebral hemispheric representation is controversial because the experimental results have been contradictory. However, most of the lexical processing experiments were performed with stimuli consisting of written words. If we want to compare the processing of words learned very early in infancy—when children cannot read—with words learned later, it seems more logical to employ spoken words as experimental stimuli. This study, based on the auditory lexical decision task, used spoken words that were classified according to an objective criterion of AoA with extremely distant means (2.88 vs. 9.28 years old). As revealed by the reaction times, both early and late words were processed more efficiently in the left hemisphere, with no AoA × Hemisphere interaction. The results are discussed from a theoretical point of view, considering that all the experiments were conducted using adult participants.

Stimulus-Response Incompatibility: Extra Processing Stages versus Response Competition

1979 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 415-419
Author(s):  
Steven P. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Processing Time ◽  
Response Competition ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Compatibility Factor ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Additive Factor Method ◽  
Time Required ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Spatial Stroop

The extra processing time required by incompatible S-R arrays has been explained in two ways: an increased number of processing stages or response competition from the compatible response. The additive factor method was employed, combining an S-R compatibility factor with a known response competition factor (a spatial Stroop task). The relationship between these two factors was shown to be an additive one, indicating that the two variables have their loci in (at least) two separate stages. This outcome is seen as persuasive evidence that longer reaction times for incompatible responses result from extra processing stages, rather than from response competition.

scholarly journals Hemispheric Organization of Visual Word Recognition in Turkish Monolinguals

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-233
Author(s):  
Filiz Mergen ◽  
Gulmira Kuruoglu
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Visual Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Visual Word ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Brain Hemispheres ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Brain

Recently obtained data from interdisciplinary research has expanded our knowledge on the relationship between language and the brain considerably. Numerous aspects of language have been the subject of research. Visual word recognition is a temporal process which starts with recognizing the physical features of words and matching them with potential candidates in the mental lexicon. Word frequency plays a significant role in this process. Other factors are the similarities in spelling and pronunciation, and whether words have meanings or are simply letter strings. The emotional load of the words is another factor that deserves a closer inspection as an overwhelming amount of evidence supports the privileged status of emotions both in verbal and nonverbal tasks. It is well-established that lexical processing is handled by the involvement of the brain hemispheres to varying degrees, and that the left hemisphere has greater involvement in verbal tasks as compared to the right hemisphere. Also, the emotional load of the verbal stimuli affects the specialized roles of the brain hemispheres in lexical processing. Despite the abundance of research on processing of words that belong to languages from a variety of language families, the number of studies that investigated Turkish, a language of Uralic-Altaic origin, is scarce. This study aims to fill the gap in the literature by reporting evidence on how Turkish words with and without emotional load are processed and represented in the brain. We employed a visual hemifield paradigm and a lexical decision task. The participants were instructed to decide if the letter strings presented either from the right or the left of the computer screen were real words or non-words. Their response times and accuracy of their answers were recorded. We obtained shorter response times and higher accuracy rates for real words than non-words as reported in the majority of studies in the literature. We also found that the emotional load modulated the recognition of words, supporting the results in the literature. Finally, our results are in line with the view of left hemispheric superiority in lexical processing in monolingual speakers.

Auditory Lexical Decisions in Children and Adults

1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 996-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Edwards ◽  
Margaret Lahey
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Real Word ◽  
Response Factors ◽  
Lexical Decisions ◽  
Age Related

This study examined the influence of nonlexical response factors on the speed of auditory lexical decisions in children and adults. Two groups of children (6- and 7-year-olds, 8- and 9-year-olds) and adults participated in three tasks: a real-word lexical decision task in which subjects were asked to say "yes" as quickly as possible to real words; a nonword lexical decision task in which subjects were asked to say "no" as quickly as possible to nonwords; and an auditory-vocal reaction time task in which subjects were asked to say "yes" or "no" to a tone. Response times on all tasks decreased with age. However, the age-related differences on the real-word lexical decision task disappeared when differences in auditory-vocal reaction times were taken into account. This result suggests that a large part of developmental differences in the speed of lexical processing may be due to nonlexical response factors.

Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
TON DIJKSTRA ◽  
HENK VAN JAARSVELD ◽  
SJOERD TEN BRINKE
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Stimulus List ◽  
Task Requirements ◽  
Series Of Experiments ◽  
Interlingual Homographs

A series of three lexical decision experiments showed that interlingual homographs may be recognized faster than, slower than, or as fast as monolingual control words depending on task requirements and language intermixing. In Experiment 1, Dutch bilingual participants performed an English lexical decision task including English/Dutch homographs, cognates, and purely English control words. Reaction times to interlingual homographs were unaffected by the frequency of the Dutch reading and did not differ from monolingual controls. In contrast, cognates were recognized faster than controls. In Experiment 2, Dutch participants again performed an English lexical decision task on homographs, but, apart from nonwords, Dutch words were included which required a “no” reaction. Strong inhibition effects were obtained which depended on the relative frequency difference of the two readings of the homograph. These turned into frequency-dependent facilitation effects in Experiment 3, where participants performed a general lexical decision task, responding “yes” if a word of either language was presented. It is argued that bilingual word recognition models can only account for the series of experiments if they explain how lexical processing is affected by task demands and stimulus list composition.

scholarly journals Task Context Effects in Bilingual Nonword Processing

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Lemhöfer ◽  
Ralph Radach
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Lexical Decision Task ◽  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Context Effects ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Task Context ◽  
Nonword Processing

To investigate the language-specific or language-integrated nature of bilingual lexical processing in different task contexts, we studied how bilinguals process nonwords that differ in their relative resemblance to the bilinguals’ two languages in different versions of the lexical decision task. Unbalanced German-English bilinguals performed a pure-German, a pure-English, and a mixed lexical decision task on the same set of nonwords that were either very English-like or very German-like. Rejection latencies for these two nonword categories were reversed in the pure-English and pure-German conditions: Nonwords that were more similar to the current target language were rejected more slowly. In the mixed task, reaction times were generally slower, and nonwords resembling the participants’ subdominant language (English) were harder to reject. The results suggest that task context substantially alters the criteria for the word/nonword decision in bilinguals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document