Article published In:
The Mental LexiconVol. 10:1 (2015) ► pp.53–87
Morphology constrains native and non-native word formation in different ways
Evidence from plurals inside compounds
The role of morphological and syntactic information in non-native second language (L2) comprehension is controversial. Some have argued that late bilinguals rapidly integrate grammatical cues with other information sources during reading or listening in the same way as native speakers. Others claim that structural cues are underused in L2 processing. We examined different kinds of modifiers inside compounds (e.g. singulars vs. plurals, *rat eater vs. rats eater) with respect to this controversy, which are subject to both structural and non-structural constraints. Two offline and two online (eye-movement) experiments were performed examining the role of these constraints in spoken language comprehension of English and German, testing 77 advanced L2 learners. We also compared the L2 groups to corresponding groups of native speakers. Our results suggest that despite native-like sensitivity to the compounding constraints, late bilinguals rely more on non-structural constraints and are less able to revise their initial interpretations than L1 comprehenders.
References (58)
Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1996). Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition, 601, 65–82. 
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J.M., Rowland, C.F., & Young, C.R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 1061, 87–129.
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baayen, R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412.
Banga, A., Hanssen, E., Neijt, A., & Schreuder, R. (2013). Plurals as modifiers in Dutch and English noun-noun compounds express plurality in production. The Mental Lexicon, 81, 53–74.
Bates, D., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: linear mixed effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999999-0).
Berent, I., & Pinker, S. (2007). The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint? The Mental Lexicon, 21, 129–181.
Binder, K., Duffy S., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 441, 297–324.
Borer, H. (1988). On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1988 (pp. 45–66). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Buck-Gengler, C., Menn, L., & Healy, A. (2004). What “mice trap” tells us about the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 901, 453–464.
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 101, 161–174.
Clahsen, H. (1995). German plurals in adult second language development: Evidence for a dual-mechanism model of inflection. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), The Current State of Interlanguage (pp. 123–137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clahsen, H., & Almazan, M. (2001). Compounding and inflection in language impairment: Evidence from Williams Syndrome (and SLI). Lingua, 1111, 729–757.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 271, 3–42.
. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 101, 564–570.
Clahsen, H., Marcus, G., Bartke, S., & Wiese, R. (1996). Compounding and inflection in German child language. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995 (pp. 115–142). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cunnings, I., & Clahsen, H. (2007). The time-course of morphological constraints: Evidence from eye-movements during reading. Cognition, 1041, 476–494.
Dell, G., Burger, L.K., & Svec, W.R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 1041, 123–147.
Di Sciullo, A., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 331, 571–603.
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 341, 67–98.
Fernald, A., Zangl, R., Portillo, A.L., & Marchman, V.A. (2008). Looking while listening: Using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children. In I.A. Sekerina, E.M. Fernandez, & H. Clahsen (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: Online methods in children’s language processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fiorentino R., Bost, J., Abel, A.D., & Zuccarelli, J. (2012). The recruitment of knowledge regarding plurality and compound formation during language comprehension. The Mental Lexicon, 71, 34–57.
García Mayo, M.P (2006). Synthetic compounding in the English interlanguage of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Multilingualism, 31, 231–257.
Gordon, P. (1985). Level ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 211, 73–93.
Greenberg, J.H. (1966). Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Tunstall, S. (2002). Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 461, 267–295.
Haskell, T.R., MacDonald, M.C., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 119–163.
Heister, J., Würzner, K.-M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A., & Kliegl, R. (2011). dlexDB – Eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 621, 10–20.
Jacob, G., & Felser, C. (in press). Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Jaensch, C., Heyer, V., Gordon, P., & Clahsen, H. (2014). What plurals and compounds reveal about constraints in word formation. Language Acquisition, 211, 319–338.
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations (part 1). Dordrecht: Foris.
Lardiere, D. (1995a). L2 acquisition of English synthetic compounding is not constrained by level-ordering (and neither, probably, is L1). Second Language Research, 111, 20–56.
. (1995b). ‘Differential’ treatment of regular vs. irregular inflection in compounds as nonevidence for level-ordering. Second Language Research, 111, 267–269.
Levelt, W.J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 221, 1–38.
McDonald, J. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 551, 381–401.
Marcus, G. (1995). L2 learners treat regular and irregular inflection differently in compounding. Second Language Research, 111, 88–89.
Mirman, D., Dixon, J.A., & Magnuson, J.S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 475–494.
Murphy, V. (2000). Compounding and the representation of L2 inflectional morphology. Language Learning, 501, 153–197.
Murphy, V.A., & Hayes, J. (2010). Processing English compounds in the first and second language: The influence of the middle morpheme. Language Learning, 601, 194–220.
Oetting, J.B., & Rice, M.L. (1993). Plural acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 361, 1236–1248.
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Phoenix.
R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (URL [URL]).
Ramscar, M., & Dye, M. (2010). Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can’t explain noun compounding. Cognitive Psychology, 621, 1–40.
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 321, 299–331.
Sabourin, L.L., & Haverkort, M. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R.J. Towell (Eds.), The Lexicon-Syntax Interface in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Seidenberg, M.S., MacDonald, M.C., & Haskell, T.R. (2007). Semantics and phonology constrain compound formation. The Mental Lexicon, 21, 287–312.
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Senghas, A., Kim, J.J., Pinker, S., & Collins, C. (2005). The plurals-in-compounds effect. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Barnard College.
Silva R., Gerth, S., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Morphological constraints in children’s spoken language comprehension: A visual world study of plurals inside compounds in English. Cognition, 1291, 457–469.
Spivey, M.J., Tanenhaus, M.K., Eberhard, K.M., & Sedivy, J.C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 451, 447–481.
Townsend, D.J., & Bever, T.G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trueswell, J.C. (2008). Using eye movements as a developmental measure within psycholinguistics. In I.A. Sekerina, E.M. Fernández, & H. Clahsen (Eds.), Developmental Psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A. (2010). Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 631, 64–82.
van der Lely, H.K.J., & Christian, V. (2000). Lexical word formation in children with grammatical SLI: A grammar-specific versus input-processing deficit? Cognition, 751, 33–63.
Wiese, R. (1996). Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 271, 183–193.
Zukowski, A. (2005). Knowledge of constraints on compounding in children and adolescents with Williams syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 481, 79–92.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Chung, Eun Seon & Jeong-Ah Shin
2023. Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity. Second Language Research 39:3 ► pp. 785 ff. 
Maeng, Junghwan
2023. Lexicon over Syntax: L2 Structural Processing of Chinese Separable Verbs. Languages 8:3 ► pp. 192 ff.
Song, Yoonsang, Youngah Do, Arthur L. Thompson, Eileen R. Waegemaekers & Jongbong Lee
2020. SECOND LANGUAGE USERS EXHIBIT SHALLOW MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42:5 ► pp. 1121 ff.
Clahsen, Harald & Claudia Felser
2018. SOME NOTES ON THE SHALLOW STRUCTURE HYPOTHESIS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:3 ► pp. 693 ff.
FARHY, YAEL, JOÃO VERÍSSIMO & HARALD CLAHSEN
2018. Do late bilinguals access pure morphology during word recognition? A masked-priming study on Hebrew as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21:5 ► pp. 945 ff.
Heyer, Vera & Dana Kornishova
2018. Semantic transparency affects morphological priming . . . eventually. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71:5 ► pp. 1112 ff.
Jessen, Anna, João Veríssimo & Harald Clahsen
2018. Variability and consistency in late bilinguals’ morphology. The Mental Lexicon 13:2 ► pp. 186 ff.
VERÍSSIMO, JOÃO
2016. Extending a Gradient Symbolic approach to the native versus non-native contrast: The case of plurals in compounds. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19:5 ► pp. 900 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. 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.