Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?

By David C. Plaut, Laura M. Gonnerman. 2000

408 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Cultural Studies, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/529420405e1daec5bc7bab60a6bcf920d073948f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Cultural Studies

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition (2011, background): “Panel C illustrates the distributed connectionist view on morphological processing (e.g., Plaut & Gonnerman, 2000).”
Is there a ‘fete’ in ‘fetish’? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition (2008, background): “Morphological decomposition has typically been seen as a high-level lexical phenomenon constrained by semantic knowledge (e.g., Marslen-Wilson et al., 1994; see also Plaut & Gonnerman, 2000; Rueckl & Raveh, 1999).”
The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English (2004, result): “Further, we observed verymuch the same pattern in another (unpublished) study with somewhat different stimuli (see footnote 3), suggesting that the pattern reported by Sereno and Jongman (1997) and in Experiment 3 of the present experiment is a robust one and unlikely to be due to random fluctuation”
Morphological priming without morphological relationship (2003, background): “Would a connectionist account of derivational morphology be more successful (Plaut & Gonnerman, 2000; Seidenberg & Gonnerman, 2000)?”
Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective (2011, positive): “On this approach, morphological decomposition can be seen as a learned sensitivity to the systematic relationships among the surface forms of words and their meanings (cf. Plaut & Gonnerman, 2000; Seidenberg & Gonnerman, 2000).”
Morphologically Complex Words in L1 and L2 Processing: Evidence from Masked Priming Experiments in English. (2008, background): “…and from the finding that priming effects vary along with formal transparency, with more priming for transparent than for less transparent prime-target pairs (e.g. deletion-delete vs. introduction-introduce); see Plaut and Gonnerman (2000) for a connectionist simulation of these findings.”
A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon (2010, background): “According to a distributed connectionist model, then, the priming of a word (e.g., hunt) by its morphological variant (e.g., hunter) arises at this intermediate level of representation (e.g., Plaut & Gonnerman, 2000).”
Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography (2008, methodology): “It includes only those studies in which primes were displayed for less than 60 ms, as there is mounting evidence that a semantically based form of decomposition becomes evident when primes become partially or fully visible (see Rastle et al., 2000, and the next section). Morphologically structured p”
Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic (2005, background): “Such a result would present more of a challenge, however, for connectionist learning models where morphology has no explicit representation (Plaut & Gonnerman, 2000, Seidenberg & Gonnerman, 2000), and has been viewed in the past as simply the interaction of form and meaning-based constraints.”