Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Perspectives on Morphological Processing
Edited by Harald Clahsen, Vera Heyer and Jana Reifegerste
[The Mental Lexicon 11:2] 2016
► pp. 186–215

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

Covert morphological structure and the processing of zero-derived words

 | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
 | University of Oxford
Published online: 28 July 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.02dar
English makes use of a wide-spread pattern of word class alternation known as ‘zero-derivation.’ This involves pairs of homophonous forms which are semantically related, yet differ in part-of-speech (e.g. a knot vs. to knot). Many theories have been proposed to describe the relationship between these forms, with some proposing that to knot is covertly derived from a knot in the same way as government is from govern; an alternative view is that these pairs are instead two forms of a single lexeme with no inherent word class. We explore these claims in the context of morphological processing, using three delayed priming lexical decision tasks. The results suggest that some pairs are in a covert derivational relationship, in which the derived form is morphologically more complex than the base. However, not all such pairs are related this way, as some instead behave like inflectional relatives belonging to a single, underspecified lexical entry. Together, the experiments offer support for a mixed model, in which the grammar distinguishes between different kinds of zero-related pairs based on their underlying morphological relationships – a covert distinction to which morphological processing may be sensitive.
References (43)
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 211, 737–778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. [URL]University of Pennsylvania: Linguistic Data Consortium. Accessed via [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balteiro, I. (2007). The directionality of conversion in English: A dia-synchronic study. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. [URL], June 2015.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 261, 489–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bozic, M., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Stamatakis, E.A., Davis, M.H., & Tyler, L.K. (2007). Differentiating morphology, form, and meaning: Neural correlates of morphological complexity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 191, 1464–1475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bozic, M., Szlachta, Z., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2013a). Cross-linguistic parallels in processing derivational morphology: Evidence from Polish. Brain and Language, 1271, 533–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bozic, M., Tyler, L.K., Su, L., Wingfield, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2013b). Neurobiological systems for lexical representation and analysis in English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 251, 1678–1691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Sonnenstuhl, I., & Blevins, J. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In R.H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 125–155). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Darby, J. (2015). The Processing of conversion in English: Morphological complexity and underspecification. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 211, 1098–1116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farrell, P. (2001). Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics, 51, 109–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, L.B. (2000). Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 261, 1431–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, L.B., & Andjelković, D. (1992). Morphological analysis in word recognition. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 343–360). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, L.B., & Prostko, B. (2002). Graded aspects of morphological processing: Task and processing time. Brain and Language, 811, 12–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 391, 1041–1070. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henderson, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, K. (1984). Morphemic structure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 211–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
JMP, Version 12. (1988–2007). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part 1 (pp. 131‑175). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp. 3–29). Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). Morphological conversion within a restrictive theory of the lexicon. In M. Moortgat, H. van der Hulst, & T. Hoekstra (Eds.), The scope of lexical rules (pp. 161–200). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. & Tyler, L.K. (1998). Rules, representations, and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 428–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L. (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: the decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 3621, 823–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Tyler, L.K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 1011, 3–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meinzer, M., Lahiri, A., Flaisch, T., Hanneman, R., & Eulitz, C. (2009). Opaque for the reader but transparent for the brain: Neural signatures of morphological complexity. Neuropsychologia, 471, 1964–1971. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., Wheeldon, L., Lahiri, A., & Hansen, P. (2014). Processing of zero-derived words in English: an fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia, 531, 47–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: a time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 151, 507–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 111, 1090–1098. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). Nonwords: The ARC nonword database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 551, 1339–1362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reetz, H. & Kleinmann, A. (2003). Multi-subject hardware for experiment control and precise reaction time measurement. In M.J. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1489–1492). Barcelona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubin, G., Becker, C., & Freeman, R. (1979). Morphological structure and its effect on visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 757–767. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–54). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanners, R.F., Neiser, J.J., Hernon, W.P., & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 399–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 638–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A1, 745–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, F. (2002). The conceptual function of derivational word-formation in English. Anglia, 1201, 534–567.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.” Linguistic Inquiry, 121, 245–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vannest, J., Polk, T., & Lewis, R. (2005). Dual-route processing of complex words: New fMRI evidence from derivational suffixation. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 51, 67–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Wynne, Hilary S.Z., Beinan Zhou, Sandra Kotzor & Aditi Lahiri
2025. The effect of orthography on the visual processing of affixed words: Evidence from Bengali. Cognition 264 ► pp. 106196 ff. DOI logo
Barbu Mititelu, Verginica, Svetlozara Leseva & Ivelina Stoyanova
2023. Semantic analysis of verb – noun zero derivation in Princeton WordNet. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:1 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Chiara Melloni
2023. Zero affixes in derivational morphology: Introduction. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bordag, Denisa & Andreas Opitz
2022. REPRESENTATION AND PROCESSING OF OVERTLY IDENTICAL COMPLEX FORMS IN L1 AND L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:2 ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
Wheeldon, Linda, Swetlana Schuster, Christos Pliatsikas, Debra Malpass & Aditi Lahiri
2019. Beyond decomposition: Processing zero-derivations in English visual word recognition. Cortex 116 ► pp. 176 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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