Developmental Morphographemics II

Abstract

A morphographemic alternation is an alternation of graphemes that is morphologically, orthographically, and phonologically conditioned, such as the deletion (0/e), as in (argue∼argument), the non-identical substitution (i/y), as in (unify∼unification), the identical substitution (e/e), as in (agree∼agreeing), and the addition (e/o), as in (cargo∼cargoes). Morphographemic alternations are an interesting subject for developmental psycholinguistic investigation, because they offer additional dimensions of ambiguity and contextual conditioning to the already complex interface between sound and print. Accordingly, morphemes with different types, kinds, and numbers of morphographemic alternations (cf. Luelsdorff 1988 for a typology of morphographemic differences) exhibit varying degrees of productivity across several contextual dimensions in a developmental setting.

In an earlier investigation of developmental morphographemic productivity (Luelsdorff & Eyland 1989b), we established the superiority of (1) familiar words over unfamiliar, (2) ADJ over V over N over ADV, (3) inflection over derivation, and (4) substitutions (first non-identical, then identical) over additions.

The present paper is a further inquiry into the acquisition of morphographemic productivity, with additional emphasis on the support productivity lends to the psycholinguistic reality of analogies, as opposed to rules. We confirm the superior morphographemic productivity of (1) familiar words over un-familiar, (2) ADJ over V over N over ADV, (3) inflection over derivation, and add the superiority of (4) deletions over identical substitutions, (5) certain suffixes over others, (6) certain stems over others, and (7) certain words over others.

What are the implications of these findings for the psychological reality of rules? The least one may expect of rules is that they apply to structures meeting their structural descriptions in a statistically significant number of instances. However, we find the above superiority effects, despite the fact that the structural description of the putative rule is met by both the superior and the inferior groups. This leads us to conclude with Derwing and Skousen (1989) that it is not rules that are being learned but a network of lexical analogical connections. The large variance is explained by the notion of extemporaneous analogization, with great variation depending upon the individual’s ability to perceive similarities and differences among structures of varying complexity and difficulty.