Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1025-1026 (1999)
|Abstract||Analogy plays an important role in the production of irregular forms but the proposed Minimalist Morphology (MM) representations do not express this. Recent results also show that the regular forms of strong paradigms can have idiosyncratic properties that cannot be accounted for by MM. Methodological problems with an experiment are discussed and a plea for a processing explanation is made.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Margherita Orsolini (1999). On the Cross-Linguistic Validity of a Dual-Mechanism Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1033-1035.
Richard Wiese (1999). On Default Rules and Other Rules. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1043-1044.
Mauricio Suárez & Albert Solé (2006). On the Analogy Between Cognitive Representation and Truth. Theoria 21 (1):39-48.
Joseph Shimron, Iris Berent & Stephen Pinker, Default Nominal Inﬂection in Hebrew: Evidence for Mental Variables.
Michael J. Wreen (2007). A Second Form of Argument From Analogy. Theoria 73 (3):221-239.
Joan Bybee (1999). Use Impacts Morphological Representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1016-1017.
Steven Pinker & Joseph Shimron, The Nature of Regularity and Irregularity: Evidence From Hebrew Nominal Inflection.
Thomas F. M.ü, Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells nte & Marta Kutas (1999). One, Two, or Many Mechanisms? The Brain's Processing of Complex Words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1031-1032.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #274,556 of 548,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?