View More View Less
  • 1 Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
  • 2 Dipartimento di Psicologia e Scienze Cognitive, Università di Trento, Trento, Italy
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription (Individual Only)

USD  $648.00

Abstract

It is generally assumed that, within an inflectional paradigm, some forms are cognitively more salient than others. Although this effect is the result of various concomitant factors to which all forms of the given paradigm concur, the existence of salient forms is crucial to assist the speaker in predicting the remaining forms of the paradigm. The notion of ‘salient form(s)’ was implicit in the so-called Kennform(en) proposed by Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel as inflectional class marker(s). A possible candidate to salience is the so-called citation-form, i.e. the form by means of which lexemes are referred to in a dictionary, but this should be checked on a language-by-language basis. The present paper addresses the task of defining the most salient form(s) within the Italian verb paradigm. By means of three lexical decision experiments, the performance on the Infinitive (the citation-form) was compared with the performance on its most likely competitors, i.e. the Present Indicative 3SG, which is the most frequent form of most verbs, and the Present Indicative 1SG, which is selected as citation-form in some lexicographic traditions. The results indicate that the Infinitive and the Present Indicative 3SG prevail over the Present Indicative 1SG – as well as on various other forms used as controls and fillers in the experiments – but do not differ from each other. This offers an interesting insight into the organization of a complex verb paradigm, such as the Italian one. In particular, it shows that salience depends on the interaction of various morphological and psycholinguistic factors, whose relative weight is a function of the specific language considered.

  • Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins and Robert Malouf. 2009. Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In James P. Blevins and Juliette Blevins (eds.) Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5482.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ackerman, Farrell and Robert Malouf. 2013. Morphological organization: The low entropy conjecture. Language 89(3). 429464.

  • Albright, Adam. 2002. The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. PhD dissertation: UCLA.

  • Albright, Adam. 2005. The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Laura Downing, Tracy Alan Hall and Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1743.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Baerman, Matthew and Greville G. Corbett. 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Belletti, Adriana and Maria Teresa Guasti. 2015. The acquisition of Italian: Morphosyntax and its interfaces in different modes of acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blevins, James P. 2004. Inflection classes and economy. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel and Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection. Berlin: De Gruyter. 5195.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 531573.

  • Blevins, James P. 2013. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bonami, Olivier and Sarah Beniamine. 2015. Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Paper presented at the Wordnets Conference, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boyé, Gilles and Gauvain Schalchli. 2019. Realistic data and paradigms: the paradigm cell finding problem. Morphology 29. 199248.

  • Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning 45(1). 532.

  • Caramazza, Alfonso and Michele Miozzo. 1997. The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: Evidence from the ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon. Cognition 64. 309343.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • De Jong, IV, Nivja H, Robert Schreuder and Harald Baayen R. 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and cognitive processes 15(4–5). 329365.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93. 283321.

  • Dorfman, David, and Murray Glanzer. 1988. List composition effects in lexical decision and recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 633648.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Anna M. Thornton. 1991. Doppie basi e binarismo nella morfologia italiana. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 3. 322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kostić, Aleksandar. 1995. Informational load constraints on processing inflectional morphology. In Laurie B. Feldman (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 317–44.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Laudanna, Alessandro, Simone Gazzellini and Maria De Martino. 2004. Representation of grammatical properties of Italian verbs in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 90. 95105.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lison, Pierre. and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Open Subtitles 2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and TV subtitles. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016). http://opus.nlpl.eu/OpenSubtitles-v2018.php.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Loper, Edward and Steven Bird. 2002. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. arXiv preprint cs/0205028.

  • Luce, Paul A. and David B. Pisoni. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and hearing 19(1). 1.

  • Lukatela, Georgije, Claudia Carello and Michael T. Turvey. 1987. Lexical representation of regular and irregular inflected nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes 2. 117.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Maiden, Martin. 2003. Il verbo italoromanzo: verso una storia autenticamente morfologica. In Mathée Giacomo-Marcellesi and Alvaro Rocchetti (eds.), Il verbo italiano. Studi diacronici, sincronici, contrastivi, didattici. Roma: Bulzoni 321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Maiden, Martin. 2018. The romance verb. Morphomic structure and diachrony. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Manova, Stela. 2008. On some recent changes in Bulgarian conjugation. In Ferincz István (ed.), Bulgarian language and literature at the crossroads of cultures, Vol. 1, 2229. Szeged: Szegedi Egyetemi Kiadó. Available at: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/stela.manova/uploads/1/2/2/4/12243901/onsomerecentchangesinbulgarianconjugation.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miceli, Gabriele, Maria Caterina Silveri, Cristina Romani and Alfonso Caramazza. 1989. Variation in the pattern of omissions and substitutions of grammatical morphemes in the spontaneous speech of so-called agrammatic patients. Brain and Language 36. 447492.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Milin, Petar, Dušica Filipović Đurđević, and Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín. 2009. The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language 60. 5064.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Montermini, Fabio and Olivier Bonami. 2013. Stems spaces and predictability in verbal inflection. Lingue e Linguaggio 12(2). 171190.

  • Montermini, Fabio and Gilles Boyé. 2012. Stem relations and inflection class assignment in Italian. Word Structure 5(1). 6987.

  • Pirrelli, Vito. 2000. Paradigmi in morfologia. Un approccio interdisciplinare alla flessione verbale dell’italiano. Pisa and Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pirrelli, Vito and Marco Battista. 2000. The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 12(2). 307380.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tiedemann, Jörg and Lars Nygaard. 2004. The OPUS corpus-parallel and free. In Maria Teresa Lino, Maria Francisca Xavier, Fátima Ferreira, Rute Costa, Raquel Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’04); Lisbon. European Language Resources Association. 11831186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thornton, Anna M. 2007. Is there a partition in the present indicative of Italian regular verbs? Annali Online di Ferrara – Lettere 2. 4361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

  • Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1987. Paradigmenstrukturbedingungen: Aufbau und Veränderung von Flexionsparadigmen. In Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel (ed.), Studien zur Morphologie und Phonologie II. Number 156 in Linguistische Studien, Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. 135155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Springer.