Cited by 17Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationCategorization, perception, and language

Cognitive and linguistic biases in morphology learning

Finley, Sara·2018·WIREs Cognitive Science

Abstract

Morphology is the study of the relationship between form and meaning. The study of morphology involves understanding the rules and processes that underlie word formation, including the use and productivity of affixes, and the systems that create novel word forms. The present review explores these processes by examining the cognitive components that contribute to typological regularities among morphological systems across the world's language. The review will focus on research in morpheme segmentation, the suffixing preference, acquisition of morphophonology, and acquiring morphological categories and inflectional paradigms. The review will highlight research in a range of areas of linguistics, from child language acquisition, to computational modeling, to adult language learning experiments. In order to best understand the cognitive biases that shape morphological learning, a broad, interdisciplinary approach must be taken. This article is categorized under: Linguistics > Linguistic Theory Linguistics > Language Acquisition Psychology > Language.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wcs.1467

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In L1 acquisition, high token frequency surface forms are produced earlier and more accurately than other forms and words inflected in lower token frequency forms.

    “In L1 acquisition, high token frequency surface forms are produced earlier and more accurately in those forms compared to production in other forms and compared to production of other words that are inflected in lower token frequency forms (Aguado-Orea, 2004;Braine et al., 1990;Finley, 2018;Marchman, 1997).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 166 · Cited by 17

Authors
Finley, S.
Affiliations
Pacific Lutheran University (US)
Corresponding author
Finley, Sara
Venue
WIREs Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e1467-e1467
ISSN
  • 1939-5078 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5086
OpenAlex
W2806222379
Cited by
17
References
166
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
morphology learning, cognitive biases, morpheme segmentation, morphophonology, morphological categories, inflectional paradigms, word formation, affixes, child language acquisition, adult language learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review