Correspondingly, in a second experimental block, pseudowords (e.g., tang/*tung/*ting) were presented. The critical past tense form was correct (e.g., er sang ) or incorrect by being either partially consistent (e.g., *er sung ) or inconsistent (e.g., *er sing ) with the proposed morphological principles. Participants read series of irregular verb inflection including present tense, past participle, and past tense forms embedded in minimal syntactic contexts. We tested this latter hypothesis by examining alternations of irregular German verbs as well as pseudowords using ERPs. These subregularities are computed by the syntactic system. Recent morphological accounts, however, hold that irregular inflection is not entirely rule-free but relies on morphological principles. Past tense inflection of regular verbs is assumed to be generated by a syntactic rule (e.g., show-ed), whereas irregular verbs consist of rather unsystematic alternations (e.g., caught) represented as lexical entries. Neuropsychological research investigating mental grammar and lexicon has largely been based on the processing of regular and irregular inflection.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |