Morphological Parsing and Morphological Structure

  • Gary Libben
Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 22)


A language’s ability to create new word forms by recombining morphemes has obvious advantages for both language comprehension and production. It allows a relatively large whole-word vocabulary to develop from a considerably smaller set of morphemes, it allows novel forms to be immediately comprehensible in terms of their constituent morphemes, and it allows the semantic relationships among words to be coded through shared morphological elements. For these advantages to be realized, however, the constituent morphemes of complex and compound words must be available to the language user during on-line processing, so that novel forms such as fruitpepper or reflocking can be easily understood. What is less than clear, however, is the role that such constituent extraction plays in the comprehension of existing words of the language.


Word Recognition Lexical Decision Real Word Stimulus Category Mental Lexicon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (ed.) Language Production2. New York, Academic Press, 257–294.Google Scholar
  2. Hudson, P. T. W. & Buis, D. (1995). Left-to-right processing of derivational morphology. In: L. B. Feldman (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,Google Scholar
  3. Libben, G. (in press). Getting at psychological reality: On- and off-line tasks in the investigation of hierarchical morphological structure. In R. Smyth (Ed.) Festschrift for Bruce Derwing. Google Scholar
  4. Libben, G. (1993). Are morphological structures computed during word recognition?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(5), 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Libben, G. (1994). How is morphological decomposition achieved? Language and Cognitive Processes, P, 369–391.Google Scholar
  6. Lieber, R. (1980). The organization of the lexicon. PhD Dissertation MIT. [Distributed by IULC 1981a].Google Scholar
  7. McQueen, J. & Cutler, A. (1998). Morphology in word recognition. In: A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Pesetsky, D. (1985). Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry16, 193–246.Google Scholar
  9. Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of Words. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph I, Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Sproat, R. (1988). Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization and other topics: the mapping between syntax and phonological structure. In M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts & M. Trommelen (eds.) and Morphology Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  11. Taft, M. (1981). Prefix Stripping Revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Taft M. & Forster, K.I. (1975). Lexical storage and the retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 630–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Taft, M. & Forster, K.I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zwicky, A. (1988). Morphological rules, operations and operation types. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the East States Society for Computational Linguistics. 318–334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations