LINGUIST List 25.2812

Sat Jul 05 2014

Review: Morphology; Linguistic Theories: Stolz et al. (2012)

Editor for this issue: Mateja Schuck <>

Date: 09-Jan-2014
From: Alexandra Marquis <>
Subject: Irregularity in Morphology (and beyond)
E-mail this message to a friend

Discuss this message

Book announced at

EDITOR: Thomas Stolz
EDITOR: Hitomi Otsuka
EDITOR: Aina S. Urdze
EDITOR: Johan van der Auwera
TITLE: Irregularity in Morphology (and beyond)
SERIES TITLE: Studia typologica
PUBLISHER: Akademie Verlag GmbH
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Alexandra Marquis, Université de Montréal

“Irregularity in Morphology (and beyond)” is intended for readers interested
in morphology, (ir)regularity in morphology, and for linguists generally. It
offers detailed analyses of various morphological phenomena from European
languages including French, Spanish, Italian, Catalan, and Latin as well as
Greek, German, Turkish, English, Russian, but also Native American languages,
including Thompson Salish and Iroquoian languages. The volume follows the 2009
international conference on “Irregularity in Morphology (and Beyond)” held in
Bremen, Germany.

The book includes descriptive, empirical and theoretical reviews of
irregularity in morphology. Empirical data are presented from children and
adults. Neurological disorders are also discussed, covering Broca’s aphasia,
Wernicke’s aphasia, and Parkinson’s disease. Concepts such as markedness,
redundancy, suppletion, and recursiveness are investigated throughout the
volume. A short description of each paper follows.

Thomas Stolz, Hitomi Otsuka, Aina Urdze, and Johan van der Auwera authored
“Introduction: Irregularity -- glimpses of a ubiquitous phenomenon” (pp.7-37).
Irregularity is attested in a variety of languages and language families, but
receives little attention in handbooks. A summary of Kiefer’s (2000) major
statements (given on p.12, e.g., “irregularities are violations of rules of
grammar» or «irregularity is supported by high frequency”) provides a good
opening on what is irregularity and some of the properties discussed in the
book. Proofs of the universality quality of irregularity are given with
evidence from Indo-European (e.g., Armenian and French) and unrelated
languages (e.g., Dargwa and Basque) grammars. Importance is placed on
irregularity beyond morphology. Then, an extensive and careful review of
literature on suppletion is provided, comparing 100 Indo-European and
non-Indo-European languages leading to the conclusion that suppletion is
particularly associated with Indo-European. The authors conclude by briefly
introducing the volume’s organization.

Marianne Mithun examines Mohawk, Tuscora and Cherokee (all Iroquoian) in “The
deeper regularities behind irregularities” (pp.39-59). Iroquoian languages are
polysynthetic languages, with complex derivational and inflectional morphology
concentrated in the verb. The first example from Mohawk (p.40),
Tha’-t-onta-ho-ate-nenneri’t-ate-’sere-ht-at-kehront-ako-hatie’ (‘He’s just on
his way back from buying himself another dang car’), is composed of 13
different parts or morphemes (indicated by the hyphens). Another instance of
this complexity is that a term like ‘younger sibling’ can take 35 different
forms. Mithun covers irregularity in pronominal inflection, tense inflection,
aspect inflection, and derivation in these morphologically rich languages. She
first addresses Mohawk instrumental applicatives -hst and -hkw and concludes
that their irregular distribution is not phonological but rather a matter of
lexical choice. The pronominal prefixes k- and wak- further strengthen her
conclusion of semantic influence of lexical choice in Mohawk. Then, the
imperative pronominal prefix alternation found in Mohawk s-/ts-,Tuscarora
s-/tš, and Seneca s-/ts- would come from Proto-Northern-Iroquoian, while the
tak-/-hsk- irregularity in Mohawk would come from use of the cislocative ta-
rather than the pronominal prefix, possibly for politeness reasons. The
irregular prefix for ‘they/me’ is composed of a singular prefix plus a
distributive enclitic, actually a generic third person pronominal similar to
English ‘one’. Then, semantic irregularities are presented for pronominal and
tense inflection and Mithun closes with irregularity on root-aspect
collocations that indicates that aspect marker is triggered by the root rather
than by word function (p.58).

“Sturtevant’s paradox revisited”, by Paolo Ramat (pp.61-79), deals with
possible diachronic sources of irregularity, by analyzing Sturtevant’s
Paradox, which claims that sound change is regular but creates irregularity,
while analogical change is irregular but creates regularity. Ramat covers the
concepts of complexity, markedness, redundancy, analogy, and predictability.
Examples are introduced from Latin to Italian -am/-as/-at to -o/-i/-a
imperfect endings and German war/waren opposed to English was/were singular
versus plural past forms of “to be”. Ramat then reminds us that Sturtevant’s
formulation has two layers, one for phonology and one for morphology, with
different chronological levels. Thus, a later rule can affect outputs of a
previous rule, but not always, which gives rise to irregular patterns (e.g.,
was/were versus drove/drove). The author associates regularity with
unmarkedness and irregularity with markedness, while making a distinction with
complexity (for irregularity/markedness). Examples are provided from comparing
English to Turkish and Hungarian, arguing that complexity and markedness
values are language specific (i.e., constructions can be complex yet unmarked
in a given language). Redundancy helps to detect linguistic transparency
(e.g., double marking like German singular/plural Gast/Gäste). Further,
redundancy-economy changes would explain why old and new forms coexist in
paradigms. Analogical rules introduce regularized forms that go against
paradigm regularity. An example of such rules is taken from children
productions of bring/*brang by analogy to sing/sang as opposed to *bringed.
The author concludes that while irregularity is not predictable, it is part of
all languages.

“Paradigm gaps in Whole Word Morphology” by Luc Baronian and Elena Kulinich
(pp.81-100) considers paradigm gaps of defective verbs in French, English,
Spanish, and Russian based on Whole Word Morphology (WWM). Irregularity is
approached in defective verbs, verbs missing at least one form in the paradigm
(e.g., the French verb frire ‘to fry’ does not have plural forms; the verb
beware in English has no past or present). WWM theory does not provide general
default forms and is a word-, not primitive-based theory of morphology. Their
proposal is that for Word-Formation Strategies (WFS, seven in total) speakers
favor network representation and make phonemic subgeneralizations. As a
word-based theory built on existing phonological forms (e.g., goose, tooth
<--> geese, teeth), WFS will limit formations outside the model (e.g.,
proof/*preef). A survey with Russian speakers to induce defective and
non-defective real, borrowed, low-frequency and nonce 1SG non-past verbs
reveals a significant difference between low-frequency and defectives. As they
note, the survey fails in ecological validity by its design, forcing a
response when a ‘no form’ response would be expected for defectives. The
authors conclude that WWM accounts for paradigm gaps of defective verbs where
small classes (of verbs) are separated into phonological subgeneralizations.

“Irregularity in inflectional morphology -- where language deficits strike” by
Martina Penke and Eva Wimmer (pp.101-125) treats irregularity in inflectional
morphology from a neurological disorders perspective. Inflectional morphology
is often affected in developmental or acquired language deficits. From a
dualistic point of view (e.g., Pinker, 1999), regular forms (e.g., love-loved)
would be computed by combining stems and affixes, while irregular forms (e.g.,
sing-sang) would be retrieved as is in the lexicon. This implies that
selective deficits should be found between speakers (i.e., some would be
impaired on regular forms with irregular forms spared and others would
demonstrate the complete opposite pattern). Data for such deficits are
presented from Ullman et al. (2005) where on the one hand a Broca’s aphasic
English patient showed selective impairment with regular inflection and on the
other hand a fluent anomic aphasic English patient showed irregular inflection
deficits (and spared regular inflection). These two cases were also observed
in distinct lesion sites, frontal in the first case and posterior in the
later. These selective deficits are discussed in terms of the
Procedural/Declarative Model (e.g., Ullman, 2001) where regular inflection is
part of the procedural memory system located in left frontal brain areas
(Broca’s aphasia) as opposed to irregular inflection that is part of the
declarative memory system located in left temporo-parietal brain areas (i.e.,
Wernicke’s aphasia). Then, however, evidence from other languages (e.g.,
German, Italian) suggests that language typology plays a role in such a
dualistic distinction, probably because in these languages, irregulars will
also have inflectional endings, while in English, regularity is confounded
with inflection. Empirical data are then presented where elicited productions
of regular (e.g., lachen-gelacht ‘to laugh-laughed’; Blume-Blumen ‘flower-s’)
and irregular (e.g., trinken-getrunken ‘to drink-drunk’; Muskel-Muskeln)
verbal and nominal forms in German-speaking participants with Broca’s aphasia,
Wernicke’s aphasia, Parkinson’s disease, and without deficits are compared.
Results show that in German, irregularity correlates with more errors than
regularity regardless of neurological syndromes. Participants with
neurological syndromes demonstrate a selective deficit affecting irregular
inflection (i.e., no dual patterns were found in German speakers between
Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasics unlike English speakers in Ullman et al.,
2005). However, frequency effects are found in both aphasic groups. These
results are thus incompatible with the Procedural/Declarative Model (e.g.,
Ullman, 2001) in which Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasics should differ in
regular/irregular inflectional morphology and confirm the importance of
investigating typologically different languages.

The paper by Anna Anastassiadis-Symeonidis and Elvira Masoura, “Word
ending-part and phonological memory: a theoretical approach” (pp.127-140),
presents empirical evidence from two experiments in Greek addressing class
marking (in word final position e.g., -ιά [-ia]; -άκι [aki]) or phonological
similarity (e.g., αυτά-πουφτά [afta]-[poufta]; μήνας-μήδρο [minas]-[midro]).
In Greek, class markings play synchronic (integration into a grammatical
category) and diachronic (regulation of categories) roles. The authors adopt
Corbin’s (1987) framework for case markers in which new words entering a
language are created following rules and that when (sound) irregularities
enter, it triggers the creation of regularity by means of case marking to
respect to conformity to a category. This would be in line with semantic
networks (Collins & Loftus, 1975) where concepts are part of a network. Also,
phonological similarity (Baddeley, 1966) would impact participants’ recall
capacities depending if the tasks imply immediate (disruption effects) or
delayed (facilitation effects) recall. A series of experiments examined class
marking roles. In the first set of experiments on case markings, participants
had to create a new category, words belonging to a category or a new verb. For
the second experiment, participants had to recall pairs of words that were
phonologically similar initially or finally or phonologically dissimilar.
Results show that participants tended to create words with an ending
phonologically resembling the dominant ending of the category (e.g., ending in
-ιά [-ia]). Also, participants remembered phonologically similar words more
accurately than dissimilar ones (word position did not quite significantly
differ). The authors conclude that results of their study are consistent with
Corbin’s (1987) model.

Leah Bauke’s paper “(Ir)regularity in nominal root compounds” (pp.141-165)
treats word formation in French, English, and German. She begins by noting
that most irregularities are limited to morphology in the lexicon, while
syntax is regular. She cites Chomsky’s (1970) claim that irregularities arise
particularly in derivational morphology, while inflectional morphology is
(like syntax) regular. Part two discusses nominal root compounding. In
Germanic languages like German and English, this process is believed to be
productive and recursive where new compounds can be formed. In contrast,
Romance languages like French, for example, compounding lacks productivity and
recursivity. The difference could reflect an abstract clitic position allowing
productive compounding that exists in Germanic but is missing in Romance.
Moreover, it is argued that German has two types of nominal root compounds,
with or without inflectional elements i.e., recursive and non-recursive.
Inflectional recursive compounds resemble English compounds and allow
compositional interpretation, while non-inflectional non-recursive compounds
resemble French compounds, where meanings are ‘drifted’ or non-compositional.
Moreover, recursive compounds would be built in the syntax, while
non-recursive compounds would be built in the lexicon (cf. Roeper, Snyder, &
Hiramatsu, 2002). Also, compositional compounds are specified for lexical
category (i.e., are not roots), while non-compositional compounds are (bare)
roots. In conclusion, phase instantiations are created with compositional
compounds that give rise to abstract clitic positions that explain the
recursive nature of such compounds.

Volha Kharytonava’s “Taming affixes in Turkish: with or without residue?”
(pp.167-185) deals with the Suspended Affixation (SA) phenomenon which relates
to a situation where in a coordinate construction, an affix is omitted from
one of the coordinands that another coordinand has, so that the affix has
scope over both coordinands. The phenomenon is examined with noun compound
data from Turkish (where, e.g., the first two words lack subject agreement
marking that the third possesses: gid-er-, gör-ür-, al-ιr-Ø-ιz). The
phenomenon consists of two distinct processes (coordination and affixation).
Two existing approaches differ in their ordering of these processes: Approach
A in which coordination precedes affixation versus Approach B in which
affixation precedes coordination (this process also implies deletion of
preexisting affixes). In Turkish, three possible outcomes exist for noun
compound coordination that share interpretation: no SA, total SA or partial SA
(non-final conjuncts have -(s)I morpheme, note that -(s)I morpheme is in
complementary distribution with the possessive morpheme). Kharytonava assumes
Distributed Morphology and Feature Geometry accounts and proposes that SA is a
deletion process from the possessive suffix. By an Impoverishment process of
features in a terminal morpheme, both partial and total SA are made possible
for non-final conjuncts. Impoverishment would be a property of noun compounds
only and would not involve suffixes other than possessives in Turkish.

Francesco Rovai’s “On some Latin morphological (ir)regularities” (pp.187-211)
discusses the unproductive irregular 2nd-declension nominative plural in Latin
-eis (e.g., thurari-eis ‘incense-sellers’) and 3rd-declension genitive
singular in -us (e.g., patr-us ‘father’) inflections. They contrast with their
productive counterparts -i (2nd-declension regular nominative plural) and -is
(3rd-declension regular genitive singular). The paper tests whether regular
constraints exist for such irregulars using a usage-based framework (Hopper,
1987) in which linguistic structures (like categorization) are part of a
general cognitive capacity. Morphological (ir)regularity is said to be best
explained as a continuum from productive to unpredictable forms (p.187 citing
Ramat, 1985). Bybee & Slobin’s work (1982) is taken as evidence for such a
view because speakers can generalize about irregular forms or schemas
Morphological classes are gradient in productivity and applications to novel
items are related to type frequency and similarity between items. The -eis
ending (sometimes spelled -is or -es), an innovation that could have been
triggered by contact between Latin and Oscan, is discussed based on 47 forms
(26 family names and 21 common nouns). The 2nd-declension nominative plural
-eis appears to share semantic (it seems to be limited to
[+/-definite]/[+human] nouns) and phonetic (it occurs in words ending in
[alveolar sonorant]+[j], e.g., -[lj]-, -[rj]-, -[nj]-) attributes. Rovai says
that -eis can thus be viewed as a prototypically structured morphological
class where marginal members may be associated and items sharing none of the
features with the prototype are not included (also, semantic features seem
more relevant than phonetic features). The 3rd-declension genitive singular in
-us ending, that would be a relic from Indo-European, is discussed with 26
forms. It too could be viewed as a prototypically structured morphological
class that shares semantic (also limited to [+/-definite]/[+human] nouns) and
phonetic (alveolar sonorant -[n]- or -[r]- to the exception of 3 forms)
attributes among forms it applies to. Both irregularities suggest a scalar
status for irregular morphology since they are neither completely
unpredictable nor unproductive.

Lucia Aliffi’s “Irregularity in Latin: gender and inflexional class”
(pp.213-225) provides a broader picture of gender and inflexional class
irregularities in Latin, namely, feminine nouns in -us and masculine nouns in
-a. Feminine nouns in -us are unproductive (58 nouns, of which 37 refer to
plants, 31 are only feminine, while the remaining can also be masculine and/or
neuter) belong mostly to 2nd-declension (e.g., hum-us ‘earth/soil’) and
4th-declension (e.g., dom-us ‘house’) classes. Masculine nouns in -a of the
1st-declension class are more common (101 are only masculine e.g., gumi-a
‘glutton’ and 15 are both masculine and feminine, e.g., hybrid-a
‘hybrid/half-breed’). The majority of masculine nouns in -a are Graecisms (55
total, e.g., achet-a from ἀχέτης ‘male singing cicada’) or Latin (a total of
42 masculine gender only, e.g., andabat-a ‘blind-folded gladiator’) or
compounds (a total of 47 of Latin origin masculine gender only or common
masculine/feminine gender, e.g., agricol-a ‘farmer’). According to the author,
masculine nouns in -a are not irregular since they are productive and have
ancient or Greek origins. Aliffi’s conclusion is that grammatical gender is

“Regularity, sub-regularity and irregularity in French acquisition” by Phaedra
Royle, Gustavo Beritognolo and Eve Bergeron (pp.227-250) presents data from
French children on morphological (ir)regularity. The authors compare French,
Spanish, and Italian for sub-regularity. Single- and dual-route models of
acquisition are discussed where type frequency is taken as evidence for the
former model and overregularizations (e.g., *foots for ‘feet’) as evidence for
the latter. Spontaneous verb production in French is presented as evidence of
the single-route model because bilingual children produced regular (type
frequency effect) verbs better than irregular (token frequency effect) ones
(i.e., Nicoladis, Palmer, & Marentete, 2007). Sub-regularity is then discussed
in Romance (Spanish, Italian, and French). An elicited verb production study
shows that French children are better at producing regular verbs than
irregular (Royle, 2007; Kresh, 2008). Both studies also indicate influences of
verb frequency, where infrequent verbs are more problematic than frequent ones
and regular verbs better produced than sub-regular ones (for 2-4 year olds for
Royle, 2007; kindergarten and second grade children for Kresh, 2008). These
data do not support the single-route model. A corpus analysis of children’s
(3-4 year olds) verb usage is then presented to give further information on
type-token frequencies of French verbs. It reveals that French children
spontaneously produce more irregular tokens than regular and sub-regular ones
combined, while the regular type is more present overall. Then follows a
discussion about size and color variable (e.g., vert-verte ‘green’) and
invariable (e.g., rouge-rouge ‘red’) French adjectives where invariable
adjectives are better mastered than variable ones. The take-home message is
that French children are sensitive to productive morphological rules. The
presence of specific patterns in the corpus does not automatically trigger
rule-like productions in children (i.e., French variable adjectives and
sub-regular -u verbs).

“Overabundance in Italian verb morphology and its interactions with other
non-canonical phenomena” by Anna Thornton (pp.251-269) deals with
overabundance in Italian. In a canonical morphological paradigm, all cells are
filled, while defective paradigms are non-canonical. Stem allomorphy is a type
of canonical deviation. Thornton addresses overabundance, another type of
canonical deviation. She defines overabundance as follows, when a lexeme
paradigm cell is filled by two synonymous forms realizing the same
morphosyntactic properties that can be used interchangeably (e.g.,
burnt-burned in English). Forms that share a cell in a lexeme/paradigm are
called cell-mates (they are traditionally labeled doublets, but Thornton
points out that more than two forms are possible e.g., Italian
apparve-apparse-apparì ‘appear.PRF.IND.3SG’). Italian is a particularly rich
language in morphological overabundance, as is demonstrated throughout the
article. Overabundance interacts with other canonical deviations (e.g.,
allomorphy, heteroclisis). In particular, the phenomenon suggests, at least in
Italian, a strict interaction between overabundance and heteroclisis since two
cell-mates can belong to different inflectional classes.

Claudi Balaguer studies two aspects of verb morphology in Northern Catalan in
“Fighting irregularity: the reconstruction of verb morphology in Northern
Catalan” (pp.271-284), namely the degrees of reconstruction and regularization
of the indicative present 1SG and 2SG person markers and the -i ending
generalization to the imperfect and conditional tenses. Balaguer focuses on
the Roussillon-Conflent-Vellespir areas to analyze verb morphological changes
and evolution in this set of Catalan varieties. Catalan has lost all Latin
final vowels (except -a), giving rise to suffix-less forms. For the indicative
present 1SG, -Ø ending from Old Catalan evolved in a first phase to -e (in
Valencian), -i (used in northeastern Catalan areas e.g., canti ‘I sing’), -o
(realized as [u] in the oriental area or [o] in the Occidental dialect), and
-c (e.g., bec ‘I drink’ from Latin BIBŌ) endings depending of the area. In a
second phase, northern and central dialects displayed -o (central) and -i
(northern) endings. Another phase of regularization took place, one of an
inchoative transformation that made forms more distinguishable from one
another (e.g., moreixo instead of moro ‘I die’). Changes also occurred with
the 2SG indicative present from Latin to Old Catalan to Standard Catalan
(e.g., CURRIS --> cors --> corres ‘you run’). Changes from Latin also gave
rise to ambiguity between 1SG and 3SG in the imperfect and conditional tenses
(e.g., cantava ‘I/he sang) that underwent an -i change in 1SG (e.g., cantavi
‘I sang). These processes reveal attempts at regularization for pronunciation
and ambiguity reasons that occurred in the endangered Northern Catalan dialect
but that are slowly disappearing under pressure from central Catalan.

Karsten Koch examines agreement marking irregularity in Thompson Salish clefts
by appealing to semantic interpretation “Two levels of semantics and irregular
morphology in Thompson Salish clefts” (pp.285-303). In Thompson Salish, person
agreement morphology can optionally match clefted 1st or 2nd person focus that
may show two types of irregularity, optionality and multiple exponence of
agreement (the latter may be manifested by a -ne suffix but are expected to
use a subject gap marker or default morphology). Semantic interpretations
posit two levels of interpretation, an ordinary meaning and a focus one.
Linking the two levels of interpretation leads to a discourse updating process
that may result in morphological irregularity because of competing semantic
representations. Koch uses the Structured Meaning approach for focus semantic
meaning that allows three focus semantic objects, namely Focus, Alternatives,
and Background. His two observations are that the irregularity is optional and
is restricted to agreement features.

These papers fit together, revolving around the topic of irregularity in
morphology. This subject is vast in itself, and an appropriate examination
must cover a wide variety of languages and linguistic phenomena. Theoretical
approaches vary greatly from one paper to another, which some readers may find
difficult to follow. Regardless, papers are well-written in general and
extensive enough for the reader to grasp the authors’ full intent. However,
readers eager to find recent research data or child acquisition data may not
be satisfied; such research is not well covered in the volume. Even though all
papers treat irregularity in morphology, they can be better appreciated
individually because each paper is self-contained and they do not refer to
each other. This sparseness of specific matters could be problematic for an
audience looking for a cohesive treatment of irregularity in morphology.

The book achieves the goal of enriching our understanding of irregularity in
morphology. Its most interesting aspects are that together, the papers cover a
large array of languages, from Native American to European languages. They
also address a great number of linguistic concepts and singularities which
contribute together or individually to shed light on the complex topic of
irregularity in morphology.

Linguists, researchers and language specialists may find in this book answers
to some of their questions concerning morphology and (ir)regularity. It is
comparable with other linguistic volumes about morphology with the
particularity of focusing on morphological regularity, sub-regularity and
irregularity. For such a complex subject, the book coheres well, although
there is no single direct line of argument beyond its main subject. In sum,
irregularity in morphology leaves open a world of potential future research
topics which may never be fully understood.

Baddeley, Allan. 1966. The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on
long-term memory for word sequences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 18. 302-309.

Bybee, Joan, & Slobin, Dan. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use
of the English past tense. Language 58. 265-289.

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs and Peter
Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in transformational grammar. Washington: Georgetown
University Press. 184-221.

Collins, Allan, & Loftus, Elizabeth. 1975. A spreading activation theory of
semantic processing. Psychological Review 82. 407-428.

Corbin, Danielle. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du
lexique, 2 vol. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13.

Kiefer, Ferenc. 2000. Regularity. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, & Joachim
Mogdan (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur
Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and
Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 296-302.

Kresh, Sarah. 2008. L’acquisition et le traitement de la morphologie du
participe passé en français. M.A. Thesis. Université du Québec à Montréal.

Nicoladis, Elena, Palmer, Andrea, & Marentete, Paula. 2007. The role of type
and token frequency in using past tense morphemes correctly. Developmental
Science 10(2). 237-254.

Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.

Roeper, Thomas, Snyder, William, & Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 2002. Learnability in a
minimalist framework: root compounds, merger, and the syntax-morphology
interface. In Ingeborg Lasser (ed.), The process of language acquisition.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 25-37.

Royle, Phaedra. 2007. Variable effects of morphology and frequency on
inflection patterns of French preschoolers. The Mental Lexicon Journal 2(1).

Ullman, Michael T. 2001. A neurocognitive perspective on language: The
declarative/procedural model. Nature reviews Neuroscience 2. 717-726.

Ullman, Michael T., Pancheva, Roumyana, Love, Tracy, Yee, Eiling, Swinney,
David, & Hickok, Gregory. 2005. Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar.
Brain and Language 93(2). 185-238.

Alexandra Marquis holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and is currently a Postdoctoral
Researcher at École d’orthophonie et d’audiologie (School of Speech Language
Pathology and Audiology) at the Université de Montréal (Canada). Her research
interests revolve around psycho- and neurolinguistics, language acquisition in
infancy, child language development before schooling, and the comparison
between first (L1) and second (L2) language processing in both children and
adults with or without aphasia. Her present research project deals with the
role of verb groups in language development for francophone L1 and sequential
bilingual L2 children in Quebec.

Page Updated: 05-Jul-2014