Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:10:44.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Morphological Productivity and Phonological Transparency*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Frank Anshen
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Mark Aronoff
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook

Extract

With a few important exceptions, such as Berko (1958) and Derwing and Baker (1977), linguistic morphology has always been a descriptive science, content with investigating actually occurring words and extracting patterns from these. Consequently, it has suffered from a difficulty common to all descriptive endeavours, the fear of obscuring individual cases in abstracting to general principles. In turn, as a result of this deficiency, morphological theory has tended to expend its energy not on general patterns, but rather on single words: more thought has been devoted to the one English word sang than to most other topics. In an earlier paper, Aronoff and Schvaneveldt (1978) showed how an experimental technique borrowed from cognitive psychology, the Lexical Decision Task, could be used to investigate morphological patterns without focusing primary attention on single actually occurring words. The essence of the technique is to ask native speakers of a language (English in this case) whether certain stimuli are words of their language or not.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in December 1979.

References

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry monograph #1. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and R. Schvaneveldt (1978) “Testing morphological productivity,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 318, 106114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958) “The child’s learning of English morphology,” Word 14, 150177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. (1968) The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1980) “Productivity in word formation,” in CLS 16. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. I.., and Baker, W. J. (1977) “The psychological basis for morphological rules.” In Language Learning and Thought, ed. J. Macnamara. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation, 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Myerson, R. (1976) A Study of children’s knowledge of certain word formation rules and the relationship of this knowledge to various forms of reading achievement. Ph. D. dissertation. Harvard Education School. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., and Rubinstein, M. A. (1971) “Evidence for phonemic recording in visual word recognition,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10, 64557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1977) “Rule breaking in English spelling; a study of final E,” in Hopper, P., ed.Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. (1973) “Nonsources for unpassives,” in Kimball, J., ed. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taft, M. and Forster, K. (1975) “Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14, 63847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, E. L., and Lorge, I. (1944) The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000 Words. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1936) Walker’s Rhyming Dictionary. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar