Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:29:07.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neurolinguistic Evidence for Rule-Based Nominal Suffixation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Hiroko Hagiwara ,
Takane Ito ,
Yoko Sugioka ,
Mitsuru Kawamura  and
Jun-ichi Shiota
Hiroko Hagiwara*
Affiliation:
Tokyo Metropolitan University
Takane Ito*
Affiliation:
University of Tokyo
Yoko Sugioka*
Affiliation:
Keio University
Mitsuru Kawamura
Affiliation:
Showa University
Jun-ichi Shiota
Affiliation:
Ushioda General Hospital
*
Hagiwara, Dept. of English, Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1-1 Minami-Osawa, Hachioji, Tokyo, 192-0397 Japan [hagiwara@bcomp.metro-u.ac.jp]
[ito@boz.cu-tokyo.ac.jp]
[sugioka@sfc.keio.ac.jp]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a new set of experimental data from brain-damaged aphasic patients as well as from normals on the processing of two nominal suffixes in Japanese, i.e. -sa and -mi. Their difference with respect to productivity, as confirmed by the experiment on normal adults, provides evidence for the existence of a productive rule-like process in derivational morphology and supports the validity of the dual-mechanism model by integrating derivational morphology in its scope. The experiment on aphasic patients revealed a dissociation, which demonstrates that the two suffixation processes involve two different neurological mechanisms, and provides crucial evidence for the claim that the difference in the productivity of these two suffixes is of a qualitative nature and not a matter of degree.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 739 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1998. Rule based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Poster presented at the first international Conference on the Mental Lexicon, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1992. A-morphous morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anshen, Frank, and Aronoff, Mark. 1988. Producing morphologically complex words. Linguistics 26. 641–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, and Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1988. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. Yearbook of Morphology 1988.45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5).425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I. 1982 Rules and schemes in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58. 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald, and Rothweiler, Monica. 1993. Inflectional rules in children's grammars: Evidence from German participles. Yearbook of Morphology 1992.1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald, Rothweiler, Monica, Woest, Andreas; and Marcus, Gary F. 1992. Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 45. 225–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, Anne. 1980. Productivity in word formation. Chicago Linguistic Society 16. 45–51.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R., and Damasio, Hanna. 1992. Brain and language. Scientific American 267. 89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damasio, Hanna, Grabowski, Thomas J., Tranel, Daniel, Hichwa, Richard D.; and Damasio, Antonio R. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380. 499–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daugherty, Kim G., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1994. Beyond rules and exceptions: A connectionist approach to inflectional morphology. In Lima, et al., 353–88.Google Scholar
DiSciullo, Anna-Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friedmann, Na'ama, and Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1997. Tense and agreement in agrammatic production: Pruning the syntactic tree. Brain and Language 56. 397–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukuda, Suzy E., and Fukuda, Shinji. 1994. Developmental language impairment in Japanese: A linguistic investigation. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 150–77.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1986. Language deficits and the theory of syntax. Brain and Language 27. 135–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1990. Theoretical perspectives on language deficits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1995. A restrictive theory of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language 50. 27–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagiwara, Hiroko. 1993a. The breakdown of Japanese passives and theta-role assignment principle by Broca's aphasics. Brain and Language 45. 318–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagiwara, Hiroko. 1993b. Nonagentive predicates and agrammatic comprehension. Metropolitan Linguistics 13. 127–42.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, Hiroko. 1995. The breakdown of functional categories and the economy of derivation. Brain and Language 50. 92–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodges, John R., Patterson, Karalyn, Oxbury, Susan; and Funnell, Elaine. 1992. Semantic dementia: Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. Brain 115. 1783–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, Takane, Sugioka, Yoko; and Hagiwara, Hiroko. 1996. Psychological status of rules in derivational morphology: Evidence from Japanese nominal suffixation. Metropolitan Linguistics 16. 10–40.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J., Lockwood, Alan H., Kemmerer, David L., Van Valin, Robert D., Murphy, Brian W.; and Khalak, Hanif G. 1996. A positron emission tomographic study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English. Language 72. 451–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Kasukabe: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981, ed. by Society, Linguistic Korea, of, 3–91. Seoul: Hansin.Google Scholar
Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L.; and Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.) 1994. The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüders, H., Lesser, R. P., Hahn, J., Dinner, D. S., Morris, D. H., Resor, S.; and Harrison, M. 1986. Basal temporal language area demonstrated by electrical stimulation. Neurology 36. 505–10.Google ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, Brian. 1975. Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formation by Hungarian children. Journal of Child Language 2. 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, and Leinbach, Jared. 1991. Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40. 121–57.CrossRefGoogle 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
Mauner, Gail, Fromkin, Victoria A.; and Cornell, Thomas L. 1993. Comprehension and acceptability judgements in agrammatism: Disruptions in the syntax of referential dependency. Brain and Language 45. 340–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel, Hagiwara, Hiroko; and Hildebrandt, Nancy. 1985. Neurolinguistic aspects of the Japanese writing system. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penke, Martina. 1998. Die Grammatik des Agrammatismus: Eine linguistische Untersuchung zu Wortstellung und Flexion bei Broca-Aphasie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penke, Martina, Krause, Marion; and Janssen, Ulrike. 1998. The representation of inflectional morphology: Evidence from German agrammatism. Paper presented at the first international Conference on the Mental Lexicon, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Penke, Martina, Weyerts, Helga, Gross, Matthias, Zander, Elke, Münte, Thomas F.; and Clahsen, Harald. 1997. How the brain processes complex words: An ERP-study of German verb inflections. Cognitive Brain Research 6. 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1997. Words and rules in the human brain. Nature 387. 547–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17. 230–51. [Reprinted in Lima et al., 321–51.]Google Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep, and Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, Jay L. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2, Psychological and biological models, ed. by McClelland, Jay L., Rumelhart, David E., and the PDP research group, 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lewis P., Gordon, B., Hack, H.; and Killackey, J. 1993. Verb-argument structure processing in complex sentences in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language 45. 423–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1994. Rule-less morphology at the phonology-lexicon interface. In Lima, et al., 147–69.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul, and MacWhinney, Brian. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? Theoretical mophology, ed. by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 101–116. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stromswold, Karin, Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel; and Rauch, Scott. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52. 452–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugioka, Yoko. 1984. Interaction of derivational morphology and syntax in Japanese and English. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation. [Published 1986, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Sugioka, Yoko. 1992. On the role of argument structure in nominalization. Language Communication and Culture 10. 53–80. Keio University.Google Scholar
Swinney, David, Zurif, Edgar, Prather, Penny; and Love, Tracy. 1996. Neurological distribution of processing resources underlying language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 8. 174–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanabe, Hirotaka, Ikeda, Manabu, Nakagawa, Yoshitsugu, Yamamoto, Haruko, Ikejiri, Yoshitaka, Kazui, Hiroaki, Hashikawa, Kazuo; and Harada, Koushi. 1992. Gogi shitsugo to imi-kioku shogai [Gogi (word meaning) aphasia and semantic memory for words]. Shitsugosho Kenkyu [Higher Brain Function Research] 12 (2). 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Michael, Corkin, Suzanne, Coppola, Marie, Hickok, Gregory, Growdon, John H., Koroshetz, Walter J.; and Pinker, Steven. 1997. 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 (2).288–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weyerts, Helga, Penke, Martina, Clahsen, Harald; and Münte, Thomas F. 1997. Brain potentials indicate differences between regular and irregular German noun plurals. Neuroreport 8. 957–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar