Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:16:14.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing of Spanish Preterite Regular and Irregular Verbs: The Role of Neighborhood Density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Eva Rodríguez-González
Eva Rodríguez-González*
Affiliation:
Miami University (USA)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eva Rodríguez-González, Ph.D. 244 Irvin Hall, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Miami University. Oxford. OH 45056 (USA). E-mail: gonzaler@muohio.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research into lexical processes shows that frequency and phonological similarity (neighborhood density) affect word processing and retrieval. Previous studies on inflectional morphology have examined the influence of frequency of occurrence in speech production on the inflectional verb paradigm in English. Limited work has been done to examine the influence of phonological similarity in languages with a more complex morphological system than English. The present study examined the influence of neighborhood density on the processing of Spanish Preterite regular and irregular verbs as produced by thirty native speakers of Spanish. The results of a naming task showed that regular verbs were processed faster and more accurately than irregular ones. Similar to what has been observed in English, a facilitative effect of neighborhood density for –ir verbs was observed in both regular and irregular verbs, such that –ir verbs with dense neighborhoods were produced faster and more accurately than –ir verbs with sparse neighborhoods. However, no neighborhood density effects were observed for –ar verbs (regular and irregular) in reaction times and accuracy rates. Thus, the activation of a specific –ir verb was facilitated by similar sounding verbs regardless of being regular and irregular. Implications for models of morphology language processing are discussed.

De acuerdo a investigación llevada a cabo en torno a procesos léxicos, la frecuencia y la similitud fonológica (vecindario de densidad) afectan al acceso y procesamiento de palabras. Estudios previos sobre morfología flexiva han examinado la influencia de la frecuencia de aparición en actos de producción de habla en el paradigma verbal flexivo del inglés. No existen muchos estudios que examinen la influencia de la similitud fonológica en lenguas con un sistema morfológico más complejo que el que presenta el inglés. En este estudio se ha examinado la influencia de la densidad de vecindario en el procesamiento de verbos regulares e irregulares del español en formas de pretérito por parte de treinta nativo hablantes del español. Los resultados en una tarea de naming mostraron que los verbos regulares se procesaron más rápida y correctamente que los irregulares. Al igual que se ha observado en el inglés, se ha encontrado un efecto facilitador de densidad de vecindario en el caso de los verbos –ir, tanto en sus formas regulares como irregulares, de tal forma que los verbos –ir pertenecientes a un vecindario denso se produjeron más rápida y correctamente que los verbos –ir en vecindarios ermitaños. No obstante, no se han observado efectos de vecindario léxico en los verbos –ar (regulares e irregulares) en cuanto a tiempos de reacción e indices de precisión. Así pues, verbos similares en pronunciación facilitaron la activación de un verbo –ir específico independientemente si el verbo era regular o irregular. Se plantean implicaciones en los modelos de procesamiento morfológico.

Keywords

neighborhood densitylanguage processingSpanishdensidad de vecindarioprocesamiento del lenguajeespañol
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 35 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Acha, J., & Perea, M. (2008). The effect of neighborhood frequency in reading: Evidence with transposed-letter neighbors. Cognition, 108, 290–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2008.02.006Google Scholar
Albright, A. (2002). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language, 78, 684–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353%2Flan.2003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, A. & Hayes, Jr., (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0010-0277%2803%2900146-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, S. (1996) Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 775–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmla.1996.0040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Schreuder, R., De Jong, N. H., & Krott, A. (2002). Dutch inflection: The rules that prove the exception. In Nooteboom, S., Weerman, F., & Wijnen, F. (Eds.), Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp. 61–92). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M (2008). Neighborhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 866–888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F01690960801962372Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1991). Natural morphology: The organization of paradigms and language acquisition. In Ferguson, C. & Huebner, T. (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 67–91). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Moder, C. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F413574Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Wöst, A., & Marcus, G. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition, 45, 225–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0277%2892%2990018-DCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., Sonnenstuhl, I., & Blevins, J. P. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In Baayen, H.R. & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 125–155). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cluff, M., & Luce, P. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: Retroactive effects on multiple activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 551–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0096-1523.16.3.551Google ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, M., Jonasson, J., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In Dornic, S., (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 6, pp. 535–555). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, C., Perea, M., & Acha, J. (2009). Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1550–1570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0014253Google Scholar
Dell, G. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0033-295X.93.3.283Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, U., Baayen, R., Hellwig, F., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Neighborhood density and frequency across languages and modalities. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 781–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmla.1993.1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K., & Forster, J. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2FBF03195503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, S., Luce, P., & Pisoni, D. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0749-596X%2889%2990009-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, J. K. (2000). Aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and elicited contexts. Montreal, Canada: McGill University.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. K. (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language, 82, 113–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0093-934X%2802%2900001-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harley, T. (1993). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 291–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F01690969308406957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, T., & Bown, H. (1998). What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighborhood effects in speech production. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 151–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8295.1998.tb02677.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. E., & Burke, D. H. (2000). Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the-tongue experiences in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1378–1391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.26.6.1378Google ScholarPubMed
Landauer, T., & Streeter, L. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 119–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0022-5371%2873%2980001-5Google Scholar
Ling, Ch., & Marinov, M. (1993). Answering the connectionist challenge: a symbolic model of learning the past tenses of English verbs. Cognition, 49, 235–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0277%2893%2990006-HCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, P., & Pisoni, D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2F00003446-199802000-00001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchman, V. (1993). Constraints on plasticity in a connectionist model of the English past tense. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5(2), 215–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162%2Fjocn.1993.5.2.215Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1995). Children's overregularization of English plurals: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Child Language, 22 (2), 447–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0305000900009879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G.F. (1998). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37(3): 243–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fcogp.1998.0694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Weise, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fcogp.1995.1015Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. (1989). Access and integration: Projecting sound onto meaning. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matcovich, P. F. (2000). Regular inflection in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Italian. In Simonsen, H.G. & Endresen, R.T. (Eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and constructional perspectives. Berlin - New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McClelland, J., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0285%2886%2990015-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002a). Words or rules cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions: A reply to Pinker and Ullman. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 464–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02012-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002b). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1364-6613%2802%2901993-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, D., McQueen, J., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0140525X00003241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orsolini, M., Fanari, R., & Bowles, H. (1998). Acquiring regular and irregular inflection in a language with verb classes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 425–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F016909698386456Google Scholar
Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2006a). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a prelexical phonological level? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1600–1613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F17470210500298880Google Scholar
Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2006b). Do transposed-letter effects occur across lexeme boundaries? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 418–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2FBF03193863Google Scholar
Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2006c). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a syllable level? Experimental Psychology, 53, 308–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027%2F1618-3169.53.4.308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Transposed-letter priming effects for close versus distant transpositions. Experimental Psychology, 55, 384–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027%2F1618-3169.55.6.384Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1991). Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17, 230–251.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1364-6613%2802%2901990-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisoni, D., Nusbaum, H., Luce, P., & Slowiacek, L. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition, and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication, 4, 75–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0167-6393%2885%2990037-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, K. and Marchman, V. (1996). Learning from a connectionist model of the acquisition of the English past tense. Cognition, 61, 299–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0010-0277%2896%2900721-4Google Scholar
Plunkett, K., & Nakisa, R. C. (1997). A connectionist model of the Arabic plural system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 807–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F016909697386691Google Scholar
Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 1–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microestructure of cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 216–271) Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M., Carreiras, M., & Cuetos, F. (2000). Lexesp. Léxico informatizado del español [Computerized Spanish Lexicon]. CD-ROM. Barcelona, Spain: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25, 425–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2FBF03201119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skousen, R. (1989). Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (1999). Acceptability ratings of regular and irregular past tense forms: evidence for a dual-system model of language from word frequency and phonological neighborhood effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 47–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016909699386374Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. (1997). The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech, 40, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 735–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735Google ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 9, 325–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00064Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F14769670400027332Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31, 491–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2FBF03196091CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language & Cognitive Processes, 21, 760–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960500287196Google Scholar