Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T07:41:53.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological Convergence as on-Line Lexical Analogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Péter Rácz ,
Clay Beckner ,
Jennifer B. Hay  and
Janet B. Pierrehumbert
Péter Rácz*
Affiliation:
Central European University and University of Canterbury
Clay Beckner*
Affiliation:
University of Warwick and University of Canterbury
Jennifer B. Hay*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury
Janet B. Pierrehumbert*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford and University of Canterbury
*
[raczp@ceu.edu]
[clay.beckner@warwick.ac.uk]
[jen.hay@canterbury.ac.nz]
[janet.pierrehumbert@oerc.ox.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English past tense contains pockets of variation, where regular and irregular forms compete (e.g. learned/learnt, weaved/wove). Individuals vary considerably in the degree to which they prefer irregular forms. This article examines the degree to which individuals may converge on their regularization patterns and preferences. We report on a novel experimental methodology, using a cooperative game involving nonce verbs. Analysis of participants' postgame responses indicates that their behavior shifted in response to an automated co-player's preferences, on two dimensions. First, players regularize more after playing with peers with high regularization rates, and less after playing with peers with low regularization rates. Second, players' overall patterns of regularization are also affected by the particular distribution of (ir)regular forms produced by the peer.

We model the effects of the exposure on participants' morphological preferences, using both a rule-based model and an instance-based analogical model (Nosofsky 1988, Albright & Hayes 2003). Both models contribute separately and significantly to explaining participants' pre-exposure regularization processes. However, only the instance-based model captures the shift in preferences that arises after exposure to the peer. We argue that the results suggest an account of morphological convergence in which new word forms are stored in memory, and on-line generalizations are formed over these instances.

Keywords

morphologyconvergencecomputational modelinglanguage variation and changegeneralized context modelminimal generalization learner

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 735 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 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

Footnotes

*

This work was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (Award ID 36617) to JBP and JH, and a Royal Society of New Zealand Rutherford Discovery Fellowship (Grant No. E5909) to JH. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. The authors would like to thank Lisa Dawdy-Hesterberg, Chun Liang Chan, Robert Fromont, Adam Albright, Pat LaShell, Jacqui Nokes, Jacq Jones, Ryan Podlubny, our steadfast associate editors Linda Wheeldon and Megan Crowhurst, Marc Brysbaert, Volya Kapatsinski, and three anonymous referees. All faults remain ours.

References

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning, 58–69. DOI: 10.3115/1118647.1118654.10.3115/1118647.1118654.10.3115/1118647.1118654.10.3115/1118647.1118654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–61. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1999a. Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 41–61. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1999b. Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language 68. 347–54. DOI: 10.1006/brln.1999.2066.10.1006/brln.1999.2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Anne H., Bader, Miles, Bard, Ellen Gurman, Boyle, Elizabeth, Doherty, Gwyneth, Garrod, Simon, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jacqueline, McAllister, Jan, Miller, Jim; et al. 1991. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech 34. 351–66. DOI: 10.1177/002383099103400404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, Solomon E. 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men: Research in human relations, ed. by Guetzkow, Harold, 177–90. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
Ashby, F. Gregory, and Rosedahl, Luke. 2017. A neural interpretation of exemplar theory. Psychological Review 124. 472–82. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000064.10.1037/rev0000064CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auer, Peter, Fertig, David, Hopper, Paul J.; and Murray, Robert W.. 2015. Hermann Paul's principles of language history revisited: Translations and reflections. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110348842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and van Rijn, Hedderik. 1993. The CELEX lexical database on CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Babel, Molly. 2010. Dialect divergence and convergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society 39. 437–56. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404510000400.10.1017/S0047404510000400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babel, Molly. 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics 40. 177–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.09.001.10.1016/j.wocn.2011.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babel, Molly, and Bulatov, Dasha. 2012. The role of fundamental frequency in phonetic accommodation. Language and Speech 55. 231–48. DOI: 10.1177/0023830911417695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, David A., Pilotti, Maura; and Cortese, Michael J.. 2001. Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition 29. 639–47. DOI: 10.3758/BF03200465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bard, Ellen G., Lowe, A. J.; and Altmann, Gerry T. M.. 1989. The effect of repetition on words in recorded dictations. Eurospeech '89: Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, vol. 2, 573–76.10.21437/Eurospeech.1989-301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Rácz, Péter, Brandstetter, Jürgen, Hay, Jennifer B.; and Bartneck, Christoph. 2016. Participants conform to humans but not to humanoid robots in an English past tense formation task. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 35. 158–79. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X15584682.10.1177/0261927X15584682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, Jean. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77. DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–87. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6.10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulis, Constantinos, and Ostendorf, Mari. 2005. A quantitative analysis of lexical differences between genders in telephone conversations. Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 435–42. DOI: 10.3115/1219840.1219894.10.3115/1219840.1219894.10.3115/1219840.1219894.10.3115/1219840.1219894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandstetter, Jürgen, Beckner, Clay, Sandoval, Eduardo Benitez; and Bartneck, Christoph. 2017. Persistent lexical entrainment in HRI. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna, 63–72.Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan E., and Clark, Herbert H.. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22. 1482–29. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482.Google ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–55. DOI: 10.1080/01690969508407111.10.1080/01690969508407111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Moder, Carol Lynn. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–70. DOI: 10.2307/413574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58. 265–89. DOI: 10.2307/414099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 991–1013. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x99002228.10.1017/S0140525X99002228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G., Tamati, Terrin N.; and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2016. Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects. Journal of phonetics 58. 87–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002.10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coutanche, Marc N., and Thompson-Schill, Sharon L.. 2014. Fast mapping rapidly integrates information into existing memory networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143. 2296–2303. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crump, Matthew J. C., McDonnell;, John V. and Gureckis, Todd M.. 2013. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLOS ONE 8:e57410. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.10.1371/journal.pone.0057410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuskley, Christine F., Pugliese, Martina, Castellano, Claudio, Colaiori, Francesca, Loreto, Vittorio; and Tria, Francesca. 2014. Internal and external dynamics in language: Evidence from verb regularity in a historical corpus of English PLOS ONE 9:e102882. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102882.10.1371/journal.pone.0102882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Eisner, Frank, McQueen;, James M. and Norris, Dennis. 2010. How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. Laboratory phonology 10, ed. by Fougeron, Cécile, Kuehnert, Barbara, D'Imperio, Mariapaola, and Vallee, Nathalie, 91–112. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110224917.1.91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert, Sims, Andrea D.; and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2007. Much ado about nothing: A social network model of Russian paradigmatic gaps. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 936–43. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P07-1118.pdf.Google Scholar
Dawdy-Hesterberg, Lisa, and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2014. Learnability and generalisation of Arabic broken plural nouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29. 1268–88. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.899377.10.1080/23273798.2014.899377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, Gary. 2000. Commentary: Counting, connectionism, and lexical representation. Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon, ed. by Broe, Michael B. and Pierrehumbert, Janet B., 335–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donkin, Chris, and Nosofsky, Robert M.. 2012. A power-law model of psychological memory strength in short- and long-term recognition. Psychological Science 23. 625–34. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611430961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estival, Dominique. 1985. Syntactic priming of the passive in English. Text & Talk 5. 7–22. DOI: 10.1515/text.1.1985.5.1-2.7.Google Scholar
Fehringer, Carol. 2004. How stable are morphological doublets? A case study of /ə/~∅ variants in Dutch and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16. 285.ndash;329 DOI: 10.1017/S1470542704040425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, and Hay, Jennifer B.. 2015. The emergence of sociophonetic structure. The handbook of language emergence, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian and O'Grady, William, 292–313. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118346136.ch13.10.1002/9781118346136.ch13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B.; and Broe, Michael B.. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 179–228. DOI: 10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.785353c.10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.78535.3cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Robert C., and MacIntyre, Peter D.. 1991. An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn't effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13. 57–72. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100009724.10.1017/S0272263100009724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, Simon, and Pickering, Martin J.. 2004. Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 8–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, M. Gareth, and Dumay, Nicolas. 2003. Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition 89. 105–32. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2.10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
German, James S., Carlson, Katy; and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2013. Reassignment of consonant allophones in rapid dialect acquisition. Journal of Phonetics 41. 228–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, and Coupland, Nikolas. 1991. Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Michael H., King, Andrew P.; and West, Meredith J.. 2003. Social interaction shapes babbling: Testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100. 8030–03. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1332441100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, Stanford W. Jr., and Webster, Stephen. 1996. A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70. 1231–14. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1231.10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, Stanford W. Jr.; Webster, Stephen; and Huang, Gang. 1993. Voice pitch and amplitude convergence as a metric of quality in dyadic interviews. Language & Communication 13. 195–217. DOI: 10.1016/0271-5309(93)90026-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34. 365–99. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haber, Lyn R. 1976. Leaped and leapt: A theoretical account of linguistic variation. Foundations of Language 14. 211–38. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170054.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew L., Ferreira, Victor S.; and Mayberry, Rachel I.. 2015. Syntactic priming in American Sign Language. PLOS ONE 10:e0119611. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, Mary, and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56. 61–98. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00655-5.10.1016/0010-0277(94)00655-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrell, Frank E. 2013. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Siptár, Péter, Zuraw, Kie; and Londe, Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 822–63. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0169.10.1353/lan.0.0169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J.; and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33. 61–83. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961 [1953]. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Trans. by Francis J. Whitfield. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Horton, William S. 2007. The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 22. 1114–43. DOI: 10.1080/01690960701402933.10.1080/01690960701402933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton, William S., and Brennan, Susan E.. 2016. The role of metarepresentation in the production and resolution of referring expressions. Frontiers in Psychology 7:1111. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibarra, Alyssa, and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2016. The flexibility of conceptual pacts: Referring expressions dynamically shift to accommodate new conceptualizations. Frontiers in Psychology 7:561. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00561.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00561CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. 2010. Demographics of Mechanical Turk. Ceder 10–01 working paper. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, and Snider, Neal E.. 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127. 57–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013.10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2010. Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: Constraints on models of morphophonology. Laboratory Phonology 1. 361–93. DOI: 10.1515/labphon.2010.019.10.1515/labphon.2010.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapnoula, Efthymia C., Packard, Stephanie, Gupta, Prahlad; and McMurray, Bob. 2015. Immediate lexical integration of novel word forms. Cognition 134. 85–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.007.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krott, Andrea, Baayen, R. Harald; and Schreuder, Robert. 2001. Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39. 51–94. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2001.008.10.1515/ling.2001.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, John K. 1992. ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99. 22–44. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumaran, Dharshan, Hassabis, Demis; and McClelland, James L.. 2016. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? Complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20. 512–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.004.10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, Shane, and Gaskell, M. Gareth. 2013. Lexical integration of novel words without sleep. Journal of Experimental psychology: learning, Memory, and Cognition 39. 608–22. DOI: 10.1037/a0029243.Google ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, Shane, Sedin, Leanne M.; and Gaskell, M. Gareth. 2012. Acquiring novel words and their past tenses: Evidence from lexical effects on phonetic categorisation. Journal of Memory and Language 66. 210–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.005.10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lleras, Alejandro, and Mühlenen, Adrian Von. 2004. Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual search. Spatial Vision 17. 465–82. DOI: 10.1163/1568568041920113.Google ScholarPubMed
Maddox, W. Todd, and Ashby, F. Gregory. 1998. Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries: Comment on McKinley and Nosofsky (1996). Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 302–22. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.301.Google ScholarPubMed
Marr, David, and Poggio, Tomaso. 1976. From understanding computation to understanding neural circuitry. Neurosciences Research Program Bulletin 15. 470–88.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L., McNaughton;, Bruce L. and O'Reilly, Randall C.. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review 102. 419–57. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.419.10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, James L., and Patterson, Karalyn. 2002. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 465–72. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01993-9.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01993-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKinley, Stephen C., and Nosofsky, Robert M.. 1996. Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22. 294–317. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.22.2.294.Google ScholarPubMed
Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199207916.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moder, Carol Lynn. 1992. Productivity and categorization in morphological classes. Buffalo: State University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Nakisa, Ramin C., Plunkett, Kim; and Hahn, Ulrike. 2001. A cross-linguistic comparison of single and dual-route models of inflectional morphology. Models of language acquisition: Inductive and deductive approaches, ed. by Broeder, Peter and Murre, Jaap, 201–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1988. Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14. 54–65. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.54.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1990. Relations between exemplar-similarity and likelihood models of classification. Journal of Mathematical psychology 34. 393–418. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2496(90)90020-A.10.1016/0022-2496(90)90020-ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M., Cox, Gregory E., Cao, Rui; and Shiffrin, Richard M.. 2014. An exemplar-familiarity model predicts short-term and long-term probe recognition across diverse forms of memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40. 1524–43. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000015.Google ScholarPubMed
O'Reilly, Randall C., and Norman, Kenneth A.. 2002. Hippocampal and neocortical contributions to memory: Advances in the complementary learning systems framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 505–10. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02005-3.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02005-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pardo, Jennifer S. 2006. On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119. 2382–29. DOI: 10.1121/1.2178720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, Hermann. 1995 [1880]. Prinzipien der sprachgeschichte. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peter, Michelle S., and Rowland, Caroline F.. 2019. Aligning developmental and processing accounts of implicit and statistical learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 11. 555–72. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12396.10.1111/tops.12396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27. 169–90. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056.10.1017/S0140525X04000056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon. 2006. Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation 4. 203–28. DOI: 10.1007/s11168-006-9004-0.10.1007/s11168-006-9004-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2016. Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 33–52. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, David C., and Gonnerman, Laura M.. 2000. Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes 15. 445–85. DOI: 10.1080/01690960050119661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, Kim, and Marchman, Virginia. 1991. U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 38. 43–102. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90022-V.10.1016/0010-0277(91)90022-VCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, Kim, and Marchman, Virginia. 1993. From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48. 21–69. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90057-3.10.1016/0010-0277(93)90057-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, Sandeep, and Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56. DOI: 10.1080/01690969308406948.10.1080/01690969308406948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Péter, Rácz, Hay, Jennifer B.; and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2017. Social salience discriminates learnability of contextual cues in an artificial language. Frontiers in Psychology 8:51. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00051.Google Scholar
Ramscar, Michael. 2002. The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive psychology 45. 45–94. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00001-4.10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00001-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Gareth. 2010. An experimental study of social selection and frequency of interaction in linguistic diversity. Interaction Studies (Special issue: Experimental semiotics: A new approach for studying the emergence and the evolution of human communication, ed. by Galantucci, Bruno and Garrod, Simon) 11. 138–59. DOI: 10.1075/is.11.1.06rob.10.1075/is.11.1.06robCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, James L.. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Parallel distributed processing, vol. 2: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Psychological and biological models, ed. by Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L., and the, PDP Group, Research, 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Säily, Tanja. 2011. Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7. 119.ndash; 41. DOI: 10.1515/cllt.2011.006.10.1515/cllt.2011.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, R. Alexander, and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2017. Prior expectations in linguistic learning: A stochastic model of individual differences. Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017), 1059.Google Scholar
Schumacher, R. Alexander, Pierrehumbert, Janet B.; and LaShell, Patrick. 2014. Reconciling inconsistency in encoded morphological distinctions in an artificial language. Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2014), 2895–2900. Online: https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2014/papers/500/paper500.pdf.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S., and Plaut, David C.. 2014. Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science 38. 1190–1228. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12147.10.1111/cogs.12147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegelman, Noam, and Frost, Ram. 2015. Statistical learning as an individual ability: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 81. 105–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John M. (ed.) 1987. Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Snow, Rion, O'Connor, Brendan, Jurafsky, Daniel; and Ng, Andrew Y.. 2008. Cheap and fast—but is it good?: Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 254–63. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D08-1027.10.3115/1613715.1613751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonderegger, Morgan, Bane, Max; and Graff, Peter. 2017. The medium-term dynamics of accents on reality television. Language 93. 598–640. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0038.10.1353/lan.2017.0038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, and Almeida, Diogo. 2017. Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2:14. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.236.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul, and MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Form-oriented inflectional errors in language processing. Cognitive Psychology 18. 329–54. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90003-4.10.1016/0010-0285(86)90003-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, Neil, Ungemach, Christoph, Harris, Adam J. L., Bartels, Daniel M., Newell, Ben R., Paolacci, Gabriele; and Chandler, Jesse. 2015. The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Judgment and Decision Making 10. 479–91. Online: http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14725/jdm14725.pdf.10.1017/S1930297500005611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1. 113–50. DOI: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2012. Overabundance in Italian verb morphology and its interactions with other non-canonical phenomena. Irregularity in morphology (and beyond), ed. by Stolz, Thomas, Otsuka, Hitomi, Urdze, Aina, and van, Johan Auwera, der, 251–69. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Todd, Simon, Pierrehumbert, Janet B.; and Hay, Jennifer. 2019. Word frequency effects in sound change as a consequence of perceptual asymmetries: An exemplar-based model. Cognition 185. 1–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.004.10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, Rebecca, Seidenberg, Mark S.; and Kessler, Brett. 2015. Influences on spelling: Evidence from homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 544–54. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.952315.10.1080/23273798.2014.952315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Ahn, Luis, and Dabbish, Laura. 2004. Labeling images with a computer game. CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 319–26. DOI: 10.1145/985692.985733.10.1145/985692.985733.10.1145/985692.985733.10.1145/985692.985733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, James T. 1972. Interview synchrony: An investigation of two speech rate measures in an automated standardized interview. Studies in dyadic communication, ed. by Siegman, Aron Wolfe and Pope, Benjamin, 115–33. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Wurm, Lee H., Cano, Annmarie; and Barenboym, Diana A.. 2011. Ratings gathered online vs. in person: Different stimulus sets and different statistical conclusions. The Mental Lexicon 6. 325–50. DOI: 10.1075/ml.6.2.05wur.10.1075/ml.6.2.05wurCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yow, W. Quin, and Li, Xiaoqian. 2018. The influence of language behavior in social preferences and selective trust of monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 166. 635–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.09.019.10.1016/j.jecp.2017.09.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Rácz et al. supplementary material

Rácz et al. supplementary material
Download Rácz et al. supplementary material(File)
File 572.6 KB