Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:44:55.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Seidenberg and Hoeffner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Jeri J. Jaeger ,
Robert D. Van Valin Jr.  and
Alan H. Lockwood
Jeri J. Jaeger*
Affiliation:
SUNY Buffalo
Robert D. Van Valin Jr.*
Affiliation:
SUNY Buffalo
Alan H. Lockwood*
Affiliation:
SUNY Buffalo
*
Jeri J. Jaeger, SUNY Buffalo Robert D. VanValin, Jr., SUNY Buffalo, Alan H. Lockwood, Veterans Administration Western, New York Healthcare System, and SUNY Buffalo
Jeri J. Jaeger, SUNY Buffalo Robert D. VanValin, Jr., SUNY Buffalo, Alan H. Lockwood, Veterans Administration Western, New York Healthcare System, and SUNY Buffalo
Jeri J. Jaeger, SUNY Buffalo Robert D. VanValin, Jr., SUNY Buffalo, Alan H. Lockwood, Veterans Administration Western, New York Healthcare System, and SUNY Buffalo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Seidenberg & Hoeffner (hereafter S&H) have presented a critique of our PET study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English, and have faulted it on five main points. We will address each of these points briefly in this reply.

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 123 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Caplan, David. 1992. Language: Structure, processing and disorders. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1980. English pluralization: A testing ground for rule evaluation. Experimental linguistics: Integration of theories and applications, ed. by Prideaux, G. D., Derwing, B. L., and Baker, W. J. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Kim, John J., Pinker, Steven, Prince, Alan; and Prasada, Sandeep. 1991. Why no mere mortal has ever flown out to center field. Cognitive Science 15. 173–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep, Marcus, Gary F., Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle; and Coppola, Marie. 1994. Sensitivity of children’s inflection to grammatical structure. Journal of Child Language 21. 173–209.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F., Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard; and Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29. 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven, Pinker, Steven, Ullman, Michael, Hollander, J., Rosen, T. John; and Xu, Fei. 1992. Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57, no. 4, serial no. 228. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D., and Tyler, Lorraine K. 1997. Dissociating types of mental computation. Nature 387. 592–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penke, Martina, Weyerts, Helga, Gross, Matthais, Zander, Elke, Münte, Thomas F.; and Clahsen, Harald. 1997. How the brain processes complex words: An event-related potential study of German verb inflections. Cognitive Brain Research 6. 37–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253. 530–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28. 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17. 230–51. [Reprinted in The reality of linguistic rules, ed. by Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan; and Gregory K. Iverson, 321-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1994.]Google Scholar
Plaut, David C., McClelland, James L., Seidenberg, Mark S.; and Patterson, Karalyn E. 1996. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasiregular domains. Psychology Review 103. 56–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, Kim. 1995. Connectionist approaches to language acquisition. The handbook of child language, ed. by Fletcher, Paul and MacWhinney, Brian, 36–72. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep, and Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep, Pinker, Steven; and Snyder, William. 1990. Some evidence that irregular forms are retrieved from memory but regular forms are rule-generated. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. 1992. Connectionism without tears. Connectionism: Theory and practice, ed. by Davis, Stephen, 84–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullman, Michael T., Bergida, Ruth; and O’Craven, Kathleen. 1997a. Functional MRI study of regular and irregular past tense. Paper presented at the third international conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
O’Craven, Kathleen, Corkin, Suzanne, Coppola, Marie, Hicock, Gregory, Growdon, John H., Koroshetz, Walter J.; and Pinker, Steven. 1997b. A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9. 266–76.Google Scholar