Cover not available

In:Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 117–133

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Priming paradigmatic gaps

 | University of Bergen
 | University of Bergen
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.64.06vea
We present an experimental study on paradigmatic gaps in the neuter gender of Norwegian adjectives. The formation of neuter gender forms is typically not complicated, and yet people hesitate to use a predictable set of adjectives. We investigate the effect of priming in order to determine if the missing neuter forms will facilitate lexical decisions for their common gender form, possibly through lemma activation. A clear difference was found between regular and problematic adjectives. This shows that the intuition of speakers is reflected in detectable differences in processing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experimental materials
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Design
      • Two kinds of baselines
    • 3.2Participants and procedure
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
  • Appendix
References (27)
References
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., & Brown, D. (Eds.). (2010). Defective paradigms. Missing forms and what they tell us. Oxford: Oxford University Press & British Academy. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533–581.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14(2-3):150–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., & Westfall, P. (2010). Multiple comparisons using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., & Féry, C. (2002). Ineffability in grammar. In Resolving conflicts in grammars: Optimality Theory in syntax, morphology, and phonology (pp. 265–397). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984a). The density constraint on form-priming in the naming task: Interference effects from a masked prime. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984b). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 680–698.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknech, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(2), 211–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Nunes, J. (2014). Minimalism and control. In A. Carnie, D. Siddiqi, & Y. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of syntax (pp. 239–263). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenset, G. B., & Johansson, C. (2013). Lexical fillers influence the dative alternation: Estimating constructional saliency using web document frequencies. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 20(1), 13–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, C. (1999). Learning what cannot be by failing expectations. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22, 61–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). How is grammatical gender processed? In T. Gaustad (Ed.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2002 (pp. 65–76). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). A word or two? In V. Rosén & K. De Smedt (Eds.), The very model of a modern linguist — in honor of Helge Dyvik (pp. 112–126). Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies, 8(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, C., & Torkildsen, J. C. (2005). Reaktionstider för genuskongruens: Hur processeras genus? [Reaction times for gender congruence: How is gender processed?]. In S. Lie, G. Nedrelid, & H. Omdal (Eds.), MONS 10: Utvalde artiklar frå det tiande Møte om norsk språk i Kristiansand 2003 (pp. 157–167). Kristiansand: HøyskoleForlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knudsen, R. L., & Fjeld, R. V. (2013). A balanced; annotated national corpus for Norwegian Bokmål. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Lexical Semantic Resources for NLP at NODALIDA (NEALT Proceedings Series 19). Tartu: DSpace at Tartu National Library.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(23), 13464–13471. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowenadler, J. (2010). Relative acceptability of missing adjective forms in Swedish. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, & D. Brown (Eds.), Defective Paradigms. Missing forms and what they tell us (pp. 69–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press & British Academy. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89(5), 573–594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pettersson, T. (1990). Varför barnet inte kan vara latt [Why the child cannot be lazy]. In E. Andersson & M. Sundman (Eds.), Svenskans Beskrivning, 17, 293–302. Åbo: Åbo Academy Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, R. (2004). Absolute ill-formedness and other morphophonological effects. Phonology, 21(1), 91–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, C. (2007). Gaps and repairs at the phonology-morphology interface. Journal of Linguistics, 43(1), 197–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Meyer, D. E. (1973). Retrieval and comparison processes in semantic memory. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 395–409). New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2015). Negative knowledge from positive evidence. Language, 91(4), 938–953. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Sims, Andrea D.
2023. Defectiveness. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nikolaev, Alexandre & Neil Bermel
2022. Explaining uncertainty and defectivity of inflectional paradigms. Cognitive Linguistics 33:3 ► pp. 585 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue