Inflection), the Bad (Derivation) and the Ugly (Compounding)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Central Archive at the University of Reading Morphological processing in the brain: the good (inflection), the bad (derivation) and the ugly (compounding) Article Published Version Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY) Open Access Leminen, A., Smolka, E., Duñabeitia, J. A. and Pliatsikas, C. (2019) Morphological processing in the brain: the good (inflection), the bad (derivation) and the ugly (compounding). Cortex, 116. pp. 4-44. ISSN 0010-9452 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.016 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/78769/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.016 Publisher: Elsevier All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading's research outputs online cortex 116 (2019) 4e44 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cortex Special issue: Review Morphological processing in the brain: The good (inflection), the bad (derivation) and the ugly (compounding) Alina Leminen a,b,*,1, Eva Smolka c,1, Jon A. Dunabeitia~ d,e and Christos Pliatsikas f a Cognitive Science, Department of Digital Humanities, Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki, Finland b Cognitive Brain Research Unit, Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland c Department of Linguistics, University of Konstanz, Germany d Facultad de Lenguas y Educacion, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, Spain e Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), Donostia, Spain f School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: There is considerable behavioral evidence that morphologically complex words such as Received 8 January 2018 ‘tax-able’ and ‘kiss-es’ are processed and represented combinatorially. In other words, they Reviewed: 2 May 2018 are decomposed into their constituents ‘tax’ and ‘-able’ during comprehension (reading or Revised 1 July 2018 listening), and producing them might also involve onetheespot combination of these Accepted 22 August 2018 constituents (especially for inflections). However, despite increasing amount of neuro- Published online 1 September 2018 cognitive research, the neural mechanisms underlying these processes are still not fully understood. The purpose of this critical review is to offer a comprehensive overview on the Keywords: state-of-the-art of the research on the neural mechanisms of morphological processing. In Morphology order to take into account all types of complex words, we include findings on inflected, Compounding derived, and compound words presented both visually and aurally. More specifically, we Derivation cover a wide range of electro- and magnetoencephalography (EEG and MEG, respectively) Inflection as well as structural/functional magnetic resonance imaging (s/fMRI) studies that focus on Neuroimaging morphological processing. We present the findings with respect to the temporal course and localization of morphologically complex word processing. We summarize the observed findings, their interpretations with respect to current psycholinguistic models, and discuss methodological approaches as well as their possible limitations. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). * Corresponding author. Cognitive Science, Department of Digital Humanities, University of Helsinki, Finland. E-mail address: alina.leminen@helsinki.fi (A. Leminen). 1 The authors have contributed equally to this work. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.016 0010-9452/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). cortex 116 (2019) 4e44 5 detailed theoretical discussion of the morphological opera- 1. Introduction tions or processes at stake, we believe that a short description and overview of the (psycho-)linguistic models that have been A significant portion of the psycholinguistic literature in the proposed to describe each morphological operation could be past several decades has been concerned with the processing beneficial to correctly frame the studies discussed below. For of morphologically complex words. Despite an increasing this reason, we start each of the three main sections of this number of studies on the neural underpinnings of morpho- review by briefly summarizing our current theoretical logical processing, its time-course and the underlying brain knowledge in the field. networks are still far from being clearly identified. In this paper, we present a much needed comprehensive review of the studies which have used some of the main neuroimaging 2. Inflectional morphology methods, in order to grasp the state-of-the-art in the cognitive neuroscience of morphological processing. Thus, the main Borrowing an illustrative term previously used in the litera- aim of this methodological review is to provide cognitive ture (cf. Janda, 2010), inflectional morphemes could be defined (neuro-) scientists interested in conducting neuroimaging as the “glue” of linguistic constructions, systematically research on morphological processing with a comprehensive materializing in morphemic units the relationships between summary of the most relevant neuroimaging research on this the different slots that constitute an expression. There are matter. This review mainly focuses and pivots on the experi- multiple definitions of what inflectional morphology is (see mental methods, and especially on three neuroimaging Bybee, 1985), but they all tend to consistently refer to the techniques that are of great relevance for the field, summa- broad concept of grammar, closely relating inflectional mor- rizing evidence from studies using Electroencephalography phemes with syntactic structures. And that is precisely the (EEG), Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and structural and common denominator of most descriptive approaches to the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The review is bound morphemes that constitute the core of inflectional organized in three main sections corresponding to the three morphology, depicting the rules and principles that govern main morphological operations: inflection, derivation, and the relations between the elements of a linguistic expression compounding. In each of the sections, the evidence provided that ultimately yield the selection of the appropriated closed- by neuroimaging studies using the three main techniques class bound morphemic “glue” for each slot. mentioned above is discussed. We selected only studies that But if that is indeed the case, and if inflectional morphemes were conducted with a) adult, b) healthy, c) native speakers of are used to fuse together different parts of speech respecting the test language d) without reading difficulties. In most cases, the grammatical rules and principles of a given language, then the participants of the reviewed studies are students at uni- it may be worth investigating the cognitive representations of versities (whose reading skills are usually not assessed). We the individual inflectional morphemes that underlie such thus have not included studies on language acquisition or on dynamic blending mechanisms. And this is precisely what the special populations, even if they report a comparison to a field has been doing for several decades, trying to elucidate control group (i.e. healthy, adult, native speakers with unim- when an inflected polymorphemic word is decomposed and paired reading skills), with the exception of a handful of its stem accessed, and to what extent this morphological studies that (a) report native and nonnative speakers together decomposition process depends on the saliency and regularity in the absence of between group differences, (b) tested of the inflectional morphemes (e.g., Caramazza, Laudanna, & simultaneous bilinguals (2 L1s) in both their languages and (c) Romani, 1988; Stump, 2001). link brain structure to morphological processing, which we Most notably, the “English past tense” debate constitutes consider relevant and timely. To this end, the review of the hallmark of this issue, given the obvious saliency differ- functional MRI studies includes 22 studies on inflections, 18 ences between a regular past tense like walked and an irreg- on derivations (note that studies that looked at both inflection ular one like ran (see Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1998). Regular and derivation are counted twice) and three on compounding, inflected forms of the past tense provide a transparent cue to plus three structural MRI studies; the review of MEG studies the root, given that the physical form of the stem is usually includes 7 studies on inflections, 10 on derivations, and two on fully contained in the affixed representation (e.g., walk in compounding, and the review of EEG studies provides a se- walked). In contrast, irregular forms do not always provide a lection of 28 papers on inflections, 19 on derivations, and 13 on cue to the stem, since it