Overregularization in language acquisition.

By Gary F. Marcus, Steven Pinker, Michael T. Ullman, Michelle A. Hollander, T. Rosen, Fei Xu, Harald Clahsen. 1992

Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology, Linguistics

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

In Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science (2005, background): “One of the most famous battlegrounds was over the status of inflectional rules such as the one for past tense formation (Marcus et al. 1992).”
Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish (2004, background): “Irregular verbs have very high token frequency: about 85% of past tense forms occurring in casual conversation are irregular (Marcus et al., 1992: 75).”
On the identity of roots (2014, background): “This kind of learning follows the famous U-shaped learning curve for irregulars Marcus et al. (1992), showing that it is initially difficult for the learner to associate two distinct phonological exponents to a single underlying featural category.”
Negative evidence in language acquisition. (1993, background): “00004 (Marcus et al., 1992), while the overall rate of adult speech errors is about .”
Articles, adjectives and age of onset: the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender (2008, background): “…according to various models, the distinction between the two types of representations does not exist (compare the Past Tense debate on dual vs. single mechanism; see Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986; Pinker and Prince, 1988; Marcus et al., 1992; Pinker, 1999; McClelland and Seidenberg, 2000).”
‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes (2010, background): “, Marcus et al., 1992) and adult speakers extend sub-regular patterns to nonword stems in experimental tests (e.g., spling–splung; Kim, Pinker, Prince, & Prasada, 1991). Thus, it is possible that the early morphological level of analysis proposed by Rastle et al. (2004) is in fact purely orthographi”
Grammatical processing in language learners (2006, methodology): “Marinis et al.’s (2005) experimental sentences were presented visually in a segment by segment fashion, and were followed by a comprehension question.”
The morphological basis of paradigm leveling (2002, background): “Even so, the result in (4) is still significant, because we can assume that speakers do sometimes make overregularization errors ( Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen, and Xu 1992; Pinker 1999), and the errors that the model makes correctly mirror the attested historical change.”