Suffix Ordering and Morphological Processing

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Canonical derivational morphology (2010, background): “The fact that in this respect reality frequently departs from the canonical is interesting, though not surprising (and the second conclusion of Plag & Baayen 2009: 146-147, on the role of memory, is relevant here).”
Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words (2010, background): “Previous research has shown that lexical processing of derived words is co-determined by the distributional properties of those words, as well as by the properties of their bases and affixes (cf. e.g., Bertram et al., 2000; Niswander et al., 2000; Plag & Baayen, 2009).”
Prefix combinations in English: structural and processing factors (2010, methodology): “Abstract Recent studies, such as Hay and Plag (2004) and Plag and Baayen (2009) , provide evidence that suffix combinations in English are constrained by structural and processing factors.”
The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs (2010, background): “Adverbs formed with ·ly never participate in further derivation: from quickly we do not get *quicklyish, *quicklitude, *quickliment, or any other derivatives at all (Plag & Baayen 2009).”
Productivity and Reuse in Language (2011, unknown): “One theory which accounts for this fact is complexity-based ordering (CBO; Hay, 2002; Plag & Baayen, 2009).”