Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 16:2/3 (2021) ► pp.397–421

Learning beyond words

Morphology and the encoding of hierarchical categories

 | University of Haifa
 | University of Haifa
 | University of Haifa
Learning multimorphemic words involves the simultaneous learning of two hierarchically organized categories. In such words, sub-lexical units usually encode superordinate categories, whereas whole words encode exemplars of these categories. Complex, non-linear word structure is common in Semitic languages and can be used to probe the learning of multiple form-meaning associations. The aim of this study was to investigate how well Hebrew-speaking adults learn the dual form-meaning relationships that reflect different categorical levels following a few exposures to novel Hebrew-like words. Twenty-four native Hebrew-speakers were exposed to novel words through an interactive video story. Following a few exposures to the words, the learning of the exemplars was tested in a three-alternative-forced-choice identification test. The learning of the sub-lexical morphemes and the categories they encode were tested in generalization tests. The results show that a few exposures to novel, morphologically and conceptually complex words are sufficient to allow unsupervised simultaneous learning of two hierarchical categories even though the superordinate was not explicitly represented in the input.
Keywords: word learning, form-meaning relationship, Semitic, morphology, superordinate category, category learning
Article outline
  • Learning hierarchical multiple form-meaning associations
  • Nonlinear morphology and the encoding of meaning
  • The current study
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Stimuli
  • General overview of the experimental procedure
  • Design
    • Exposure phase
    • Test phase
    • Exemplar learning test
    • Conceptual generalization test
    • Morphological generalization test
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Exemplar learning test
    • Conceptual generalization test
    • Morphological generalization test
  • Discussion
    • Learning form-meaning relationships at the word level
    • Learning superordinate categories encoded morphologically
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20030.oma
References (59)
References
Ambridge, B. (2020a). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40 (5–6), 509–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40 (5–6), 640–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anglin, J. M. (1977). Word, object, and conceptual development.‏ Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (2007). Language: Between words and grammar. In G. Jarema & G. Libben, G. (Eds.), The mental lexicon: Core perspectives (pp. 55–79). Brill.Google Scholar
Bachra, B. N. (2001). The phonological structure of the verbal roots in Arabic and Hebrew (Vol. 341). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Early referential understanding: Infants’ ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Developmental Psychology, 29 (5), 832. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banai, K., Nir, B., Moav-Scheff, R., & Bar-Ziv, N. (2020). A role for incidental auditory learning in auditory-visual word learning among kindergarten children. Journal of Vision, 20 (3), 4–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (2003). Children’s lexical innovations. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28 1, 243–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Modern Hebrew. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic languages (pp. 312–333). Routledge.Google Scholar
Berman, R., & Seroussi, B. (2011). Derived nouns in Modern Hebrew: Structural and psycholinguistic perspectives. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (1), 105–125.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words (Vol. 3771). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P., & Markson, L. (1998). Capacities underlying word learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (2), 67–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. H., Zhang, Y., & Yu, C. (2018). Learning object names at different hierarchical levels using cross-situational statistics. Cognitive Science, 42 1, 591–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & O’Reilly, A. W. (1988). Children’s inductive inferences within superordinate categories: The role of language and category structure. Child Development, 59 (4), 876–887. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83 (1), 49–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 (5), 1166.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. (2003). Examining the relationship between word learning, nonword repetition, and immediate serial recall in adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56 (7), 1213–1236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. G. (1991). Acquiring proper nouns for familiar and unfamiliar animate objects: Two-year-olds’ word-learning biases. Child Development, 62 (5), 1142–1154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horton, M. S., & Markman, E. M. (1980). Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. Child Development, 708–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. T., & Arnold, A. R. (2016). Word learning in linguistic context: Processing and Memory Effects. Cognition, 156 1, 71–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 434–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. Labov, Language in The Inner City (pp. 354–396). University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2005). English word-formation processes. In P. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 375–427). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18 (12), 1077–1083. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (1), 54–70.Google Scholar
Mather, E., & Plunkett, K. (2012). The role of novelty in early word learning. Cognitive Science, 36 (7), 1157–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maxfield, J. T., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2012). Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categorization affects visual search. Visual Cognition, 20 (10), 1153–1163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20 (2), 121–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (1), 89–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minda, J. P., Desroches, A. S., & Church, B. A. (2008). Learning rule-described and non-rule-described categories: a comparison of children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (6), 1518–1533.Google Scholar
Moav-Scheff, R., Yifat, R., & Banai, K. (2015). Phonological memory and word learning deficits in children with specific language impairment: A role for perceptual context?. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 45 1, 384–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muchnik, M. (2017). Personal names in Modern Hebrew: A morphosyntactic and gender analysis. Folia Linguistica, 51 (2), 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11 (1), 70–84.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1989). Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (4), 572–586.Google Scholar
Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization?. Cognition, 80 (3), B11–B20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115 (1), 39–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D. (2003). A developmental perspective on root perception in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28 1, 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Word-level morphology: A psycholinguistic perspective on linear formation in Hebrew nominals. Morphology, 16 (1), 127–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8 (3), 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenhouse, J. (2002). Personal names in Hebrew and Arabic: Modern trends compared to the past. Journal of Semitic Studies, 47 (1), 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72 (2), 95–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Share, D. L., & Shalev, C. (2004). Self-teaching in normal and disabled readers. Reading and Writing, 17 (7–8), 769–800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shatil, N. (2006). The Hebrew noun system: A structural cognitive perspective. Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects, 68 1, 243–282.Google Scholar
Shimron, J. (2003). Semitic languages: Are they really root-based?. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28 1, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloat, C. (1969). Proper nouns in English. Language, 45 (1), 26–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2005). Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified. In C. Maeder, O. Fischer, & W. Herlofsky (Eds.), Iconicity inside out: Iconicity in language and literature (pp. 307–322). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient. Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. H. S. Robert (Ed.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism?. Cognition, 60 (2), 143–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stošić, D. (2013). Manner of motion, evaluative and pluractional morphology. Space in South Slavic. Oslo Studies in Language, 5 (1), 61–89.Google Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14 1, 638–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: a typology of event integration. Buffalo Papers in Linguistics, 91 (1), 147–187.Google Scholar
Tamminen, J., Davis, M. H., Merkx, M., & Rastle, K. (2012). The role of memory consolidation in generalisation of new linguistic information. Cognition, 125 (1), 107–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminen, J., Davis, M. H., & Rastle, K. (2015). From specific examples to general knowledge in language learning. Cognitive Psychology, 79 1, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Akhtar, N. (1995). Two-year-olds use pragmatic cues to differentiate reference to objects and actions. Cognitive Development, 10 (2), 201–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Early word-learning entails reference, not merely associations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (6), 258–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114 (2), 245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yablonski, M., Ben-Shachar, M. (2018). The morpheme interference effect in Hebrew: A generalization across the verbal and domains. The Mental Lexicon, 11 (2),277–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Omar, Niveen, Karen Banai & Bracha Nir
2024. When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nathaniel, Upasana, Stav Eidelsztein, Kate Girsh Geskin, Brianna L. Yamasaki, Bracha Nir, Vedran Dronjic, James R. Booth & Tali Bitan
2023. Decomposition in early stages of learning novel morphologically derived words: The impact of linear vs. non-linear structure. Cognition 240 ► pp. 105604 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 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.