Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T04:20:42.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DECOMPOSITION OF INFLECTED WORDS IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

An Experimental Study of German Participles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Kathleen Neubauer  and
Harald Clahsen
Kathleen Neubauer
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Harald Clahsen*
Affiliation:
University of Essex
*
*Address correspondence to: Harald Clahsen, Department of Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester, C04 3SQ, UK; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

German participles offer a distinction between regular forms that are suffixed with –t and do not exhibit any stem changes and irregular forms that all have the ending –n and sometimes undergo (largely unpredictable) stem changes. This article reports the results from a series of psycholinguistic experiments (acceptability judgments, lexical decision, and masked priming) that investigate regular and irregular participle forms in adult native speakers of German in comparison to advanced adult second language (L2) learners of German with Polish as their first language (L1). The most striking L1-L2 contrasts were found for regular participles. Although the L1 group’s performance was influenced by the combinatorial structure of regular participle forms, this was not the case for the L2 group. These findings suggest that adult L2 learners are less sensitive to morphological structure than native speakers and rely more on lexical storage than on morphological parsing during processing.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 403 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bandi-Rao, S. (2002). Inflecting denominal verbs: The role of semantics. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., & Do, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 48–59). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bandi-Rao, S., & Murphy, G. (2007). The role of meaning in past-tense inflection: Evidence from polysemy and denominal derivation. Cognition, 104, 150–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basnight-Brown, D. M., Chen, L., Hua, S., Kostić, A., & Feldmann, L. (2007). Monolingual and bilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Sensitivity to form similarity varies with first language experience. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, N., Nagengast, J., & Klaas, G. (1993). New experimental setup (NESU). Unpublished manuscript, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Beck, M.-L. (1997). Regular verbs, past tense and frequency: Tracking down a potential source of NS/NNS competence differences. Second Language Research, 13, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1997). The representation of participles in the German mental lexicon: Evidence for the dual-mechanism model. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 73–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multi-disciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Almazan, M. (1998). Syntax and morphology in Williams syndrome. Cognition, 68, 167–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Sonnenstuhl, I. (1997). Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words. Theoretical Linguistics, 23, 201–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., Hadler, M., & Weyerts, H. (2004). Speeded production of inflected words in children and adults. Journal of Child Language, 31, 683–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., Ring, M., & Temple, C. (2004). Lexical and morphological skills in English-speaking children with Williams syndrome. In Bartke, S. & Siegmueller, J. (Eds.), Williams syndrome across languages (pp. 221–244). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Rothweiler, M. (1993). Inflectional rules in children’s grammars: Evidence from German participles. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 1–34). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H., van Casteren, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2003). Frequency effects in processing inflected Dutch nouns: A distributed connectionist account. In Baayen, H. R. & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 427–462). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldstein, R. F. (2001). A concise Polish grammar. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from Indiana University, Slavic and East European Language Resource Center Web site: http://www.seelrc.org/Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 680–698.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P., & Miozzo, M. (2008). Can word formation be understood or understanded by semantics alone? Cognitive Psychology, 56, 30–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, A., Mueller, J. L., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioral and event-related brain potential evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y., & Pinker, S. (2008). Lexical semantics and irregular inflection. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, J., Bertram, R., & Niemi, J. (2006). Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 394–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. J., Marcus, G. F., Hollander, M., & Pinker, S. (1991). Children’s inflection is sensitive to morphological structure. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 30, 39–46.Google Scholar
Kim, J. J., Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Coppola, M. (1994). Sensitivity of children’s inflection to grammatical structure. Journal of Child Language, 21, 173–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lalleman, J. A., van Santen, A. J., & van Heuven, V. J. (1997). L2 processing of Dutch regular and irregular verbs. Review of Applied Linguistics, 115/116, 1–26.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In Gaskel, G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Levels of representation in masked priming: Morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neubauer, K., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Inflection and derivation in a second language. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 48, 61–73.Google Scholar
Oetting, J. B., & Horohov, J. E. (1997). Past-tense marking by children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 40, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perani, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2005). The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 202–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 45–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 1090–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Zwitserlood, P., & Rösler, F. (2007). Stem access in regular and irregular inflection: Evidence from German participles. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnenstuhl, I., Eisenbeiss, S., & Clahsen, H. (1999). Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition, 72, 203–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonnenstuhl, I., & Huth, A. (2002). Processing and representation of German -n plurals: A dual mechanism approach. Brain and Language, 81, 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T., Babcock, L., Stowe, J., & Brovetto, C. (2008). Frequency effects, age of arrival and amount of exposure in second language learning: A study of English past-tense production. Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (1986). Probleme der Wortstruktur [Problems of word structure]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 5, 209–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D., & Fabri, R. (1995). Minimalist morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14, 236–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar