Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 436

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Plaut, David C., Gonnerman, Laura M.·2000·Language and Cognitive Processes

Abstract

On a distributed connectionist approach, morphology reflects a learned sensitivity to the systematic relationships among the surface forms of words and their meanings. Performance on lexical tasks should thus exhibit graded effects of both semantic and formal similarity. Although there is evidence for such effects, there are also demonstrations of morphological effects in the absence of semantic similarity (when formal similarity is controlled) in morphologically rich languages like Hebrew. Such findings are typically interpreted as being problematic for the connectionist account. To evaluate whether this interpretation is valid, we carried out simulations in which a set of morphologically related words varying in semantic transparency were embedded in either a morphologically rich or impoverished artificial language. We found that morphological priming increased with degree of semantic transparency in both languages. Critically, priming extended to semantically opaque items in the morphologically rich language (consistent with findings in Hebrew) but not in the impoverished language (consistent with findings in English). Such priming arises because the processing of all items, including opaque forms, is influenced by the degree of morphological organisation of the entire system. These findings suggest that, rather than being challenged by the occurrence of non-semantic morphological effects in morphologically rich languages, the connectionist approach may provide an explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the occurrence of these effects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01690960050119661

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 436

Metadata

Authors
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M.
Venue
Language and Cognitive Processes
Published
2000-08
Volume
15
Issue
4-5
Pages
445-485
ISSN
  • 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0732
OpenAlex
W2061430448
Cited by
436
References
8
FWCI
26.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01690960050119661
The paper
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119661

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.