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. 216–241

Gender Features in German

Evidence for Underspecification

| Leipzig University
| Leipzig University
Current theoretical approaches to inflectional morphology make extensive use of the two concepts of abstract feature decomposition and underspecification. Psycholinguistic models of inflection, in contrast, generally lack such more differentiated morphological analyses. This paper reports a series of behavioral experiments that investigate the processing of grammatical gender of nouns in German. The results of these experiments support the idea that elements in the mental lexicon may be underspecified with regard to their grammatical features. However, contrary to all established morphological and psycholinguistic approaches, we provide evidence that even the lexical representation of bare noun stems is characterized by underspecified gender information. The observation that the domain of underspecification of grammatical features extends from inflectional markers to noun stems, supports the idea that underspecification is a more general characteristic of the mental lexicon. We conclude that this finding is mainly driven by economical reasons: a feature (or feature value) that is never used for grammatical operations (e.g., inflectional marking or evaluation of agreement) is not needed in the language system at all.
Keywords: grammatical gender, underspecification, German
Published online: 28 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.03opi
References (35)
Blevins, J. (1995). Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 181, 113–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bordag, D., & Pechmann, Th. (2008). Grammatical gender in speech production: Evidence from Czech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 371, 69–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 101, 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 281, 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., Hadler, M., & Sonnenstuhl, I. (2001). The mental representation of inflected words: An experimental study of adjectives and verbs in German. Language, 771, 510–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G., & Fraser, N. (1993). Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics, 291, 113–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Martino, M., Bracco, G., & Laudanna, A. (2011). The activation of grammatical gender information in processing Italian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 261, 745–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A.D., & Jacobson, Th. (1999). Processing grammatical gender during language comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 281, 467–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, St., & Pickering, M.J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 251, 1366–1383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2001). Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in romance clitic systems. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Optimal theoretic syntax (pp. 205–240). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Vol. 24 of current studies in linguistics (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (1994). Some key features of distributed morphology. In H.H. Andrew Carnie & T. Bures (Eds.), MITWPL: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Vol. 211 (pp. 275–288). Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Holmes, V.M., & Segui, J. (2004). Sublexical and lexical influences on gender assignment in French. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 331, 425–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janssen, U., & Penke, M. (2002). How are inflectional affixes organized in the mental lexicon? Evidence from the investigation of agreement errors in agrammatic aphasics. Brain and Language, 811, 180–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. (1982). Untersuchungen zum Genussystem der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (2009). Case syncretism in German feminines: Typological, functional and structural aspects. In P. Steinkrüger & M. Krifka (Eds.), On inflection (pp. 141–172). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. Labphon, 71, 637–676.Google Scholar
. (2010). Distinctive features: phonological under-specification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics, 381, 44–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 221, 1–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, G., Gligorijević, B., Kostić, A., & Turvey, M.T. (1980). Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon. Memory and Cognition, 81, 415–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., Seigneuric, A., & Spinelli, E. (2008). The morpheme gender effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 581, 88–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Opitz, A., Regel, St., Müller, G., & Friederici, A.D. (2013). Neurophysiological evidence for morphological underspecification in German strong adjective inflection. Language, 891, 231–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penke, M. (2006). Flexion im mentalen Lexikon. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penke, M., Janssen, U., & Eisenbeiss, S. (2004). Psycholinguistic evidence for the underspecification of morphosyntactic features. Brain and Language, 901, 423–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M.J., & Frisson, St. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 271, 556–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 891, 60–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H. (1993). Syntactic processes in the production of noun phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 191, 841–850. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiller, N.O., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 481, 169–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M.S., & Gonnerman, L.M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 41, 353–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockall, L., & Marantz, A. (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 85–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trommer, J. (2006). Person and number agreement in Dumi. Linguistics, 441, 1011–1057. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegera, Kl.-P. (1997). Das Genus: Ein Beitrag zur Didaktik des DaF-Unterrichts. Munich: Iudicum-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (1996). Minimalist morphology: The role of paradigms. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995 (pp. 93–114). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Klassen, Rachel, Björn Lundquist & Marit Westergaard
2023. L1 Grammatical Gender Variation through the Representation in the Lexicon. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52:2 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Seyboth, Margret & Frank Domahs
2023. Why do He and She Disagree: The Role of Binary Morphological Features in Grammatical Gender Agreement in German. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52:3 ► pp. 923 ff. DOI logo
Kupisch, Tanja, Miriam Geiss, Natalia Mitrofanova & Marit Westergaard
2022. Structural and phonological cues for gender assignment in monolingual and bilingual children acquiring German. Experiments with real and nonce words. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7:1 DOI logo
Pinta, Justin
2022. Gender Agreement in Correntino Spanish. Journal of Language Contact 14:3 ► pp. 609 ff. DOI logo
Lohndal, Terje & Marit Westergaard
2021. Grammatical Gender: Acquisition, Attrition, and Change. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Ruberg, Tobias
2021. Gender agreement in SLI: A study on production and inflection of articles in German. Language Acquisition 28:2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
BORDAG, DENISA, AMIT KIRSCHENBAUM, MARIA ROGAHN, ANDREAS OPITZ & ERWIN TSCHIRNER
2019. Misbehaved masculines: Incidental acquisition of grammatical gender in L2 German during reading. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Kimball, Amelia E., Kailen Shantz, Christopher Eager & Joseph Roy
2019. Confronting Quasi-Separation in Logistic Mixed Effects for Linguistic Data: A Bayesian Approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 26:3 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

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.