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?
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Chomsky, N. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9783112316009 · Cited by 7,885
Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5 · Cited by 4,022
Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.1.56 · Cited by 2,698
Self-citationOn the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade.
McClelland, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.86.4.287 · Cited by 1,298
Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model.
Zorzi, M., Houghton, G., & Butterworth, B. (1998) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.4.1131 · Cited by 339
Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1987) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(87)90105-7 · Cited by 301
Lexical access-via an orthographic code: The basic orthographic syllabic structure (BOSS)
Taft, M. (1979) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90544-9 · Cited by 284
Cited by
Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618772271 · Cited by 1,297
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0023851 · Cited by 595
Towards a universal model of reading
Frost, R. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11001841 · Cited by 484
Morphological priming without morphological relationship
Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960244000036 · Cited by 447
Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960802069730 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M.
- Venue
- Language and Cognitive Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.