In a recent note, Marcus (1995) suggests that the rate
of overregularization of English irregular plural nouns is
not substantively different
from that of English irregular past tense verbs. This
finding is claimed
to be in conflict with the predictions of connectionist
models (Plunkett & Marchman, 1991, 1993) which are said
to depend solely on the
dominance of regular over irregular forms in determining
overregulation errors. However, these conclusions may be
premature given that Marcus
averaged overregulation rates across irregular nominal
forms that varied
in token frequency and across samples representing a broad
range of children's ages. A connectionist view would
predict an interplay between
type frequency and other item level factors, e.g. token
frequency, as well
as differences in the developmental trajectories of the
acquisition of nouns and verbs. In this response, we briefly
review longitudinal parental report data (N=26) which
indicate that children are significantly more likely to
produce noun overregularizations than verb
overregularizations across a prescribed age period (1;5 to 2;6).
At the same time, these data also show that children are
familiar with proportionately more irregular nouns than
irregular verbs. These findings
are consistent with the predictions of Plunkett &
Marchman (1991, 1993) in that the larger regular class
affects the frequency of noun errors
but also that familiarity with individual irregular nouns
tends to reduce
the likelihood of overregularizations. In contrast to the
conclusion of
Marcus (1995), the connectionist approach to English inflectional
morphology provides a plausible explanation of the phenomenon of
overregularization in both the English plural and past
tense systems.