KOGNITIVNA OBRADA DERIVIRANIH IMENICA SA VIŠEZNAČNIM SUFIKSIMA: BIHEJVIORALNA I STUDIJA OČNIH POKRETA

  • Isidora Gatarić Social Sciences and Computing, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Ključne reči: a-morfnamorfologija, derivaciona i distributivna morfologija, leksička obrada, studija očnih pokreta, višeznačnost sufiksa

Apstrakt

Primarn icilj ovog istraživanja bio je da ispita da li višeznačnost sufiksa utiče na leksičku obradu deriviranih imenica srpskog jezika. Shodno tome, u Eksperimentu 1 su derivirane imenice predstavljene ispitanicima izolovano u zadatku vizuelne leksičke odluke. Imajući u vidu to da je rečenični kontekst važan za leksičku obradu, Eksperiment 2 je dizajniran kao studija očnih pokreta sa rečenicama kao stimulusima (rečenicama u kojima su se nalazile derivirane imenice iz Eksperimenta 1). Prema našim saznanjima, slično eksperimentalno istraživanje nije do sada sprovedeno na srpskomjeziku, tako da ova studija predstavlja prvi pokušaj istraživanja ovog fenomena u srpskom. Identična statistička analiza korišćena je za analizu podataka prikupljenih u oba eksperimenta – Generalizovani Aditivni Mešoviti Modeli (GAMMs). Finalni rezultati svih GAMMs analiza ukazuju na to da višeznačnost sufiksa ne utiče na leksičku obradu deriviranih imenica srpskog jezika, bez obzirana to da li su stimulus prikazani izolovano ili u rečeničnom kontekstu. Dobijeni rezultati u potpunosti podržavaju a-morfnu perspektivu morfološko-leksičke obrade, kao i distributivni morfološki pristup iz teorijske lingvistike.

Reference

Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. (1992). A–morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511586262.001
Arcodia, F. G. (2012, February). Diachrony and the polysemy of derivational affixes. Paper presented at the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, Austria. doi:10.1075/cilt.327.08arc
Baayen, R. H. (2011). Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 295–328. doi:10.1590/S1984–63982011000200003
Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing Reaction Times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. doi:10.21500/20112084.807
Belić, B. (2008). Minor paucal in Serbian. In G. Zybatow, L. Szucsich, U. Junghanns, & R. Meyer (Eds.), Formal description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig 2003 (pp. 258–269). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression Diagnostics. Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics.
Berreta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
Bertram, B., Laine, M., & Karvinen, K. (1999). The interplay of Word Formation Type, Affixal Homonymy, and Productivity in lexical processing: evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 213–226. doi:10.1023/A:1023200313787
Bertram, R. (2011). Eye movements and morphological processing in reading. The Mental Lexicon, 6(1), 83–109. doi:10.1075/bct.47.14ber
Bertram, R., Hyönä J., & Laine, M. (2000a). The role of context in morphological processing: Evidence from Finnish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 367–388. doi:10.1080/01690960050119634
Bertram, R., Laine, M., Baayen, R. H., Schreuder, R., & Hyönä, J. (2000b). Affixal Homonymy triggers full form storage, even with inflected words, even in a morphologically rich language. Cognition, 74, 13–25. doi:10.1016/S0010–0277(99)00068–2
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000c). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of Word Formation Type, Affixal Homonymy and Productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26(2), 1–23. doi:10.1037//0278–7393.26.2.489
Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Development, writing and other language processes, Vol. 2 (pp. 257–294). London: Academic Press.
Bybee, L.J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/tsl.9
Catasso, N. (2011). Genitive–Dative Syncretism in the Balkan Sprachbund: An Invitation to Discussion. The SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 8(2), 70–93.
Davis, S., & Gillon, B. (2004). Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). The use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word–by–word self–paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555–569. doi:10.1037/0278–7393.16.4.555
Foss, D. J. (1970). Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(6), 699–706. doi:10.1016/s0022–5371(70)80035–4
Gatarić, I., & Filipović Đurđević, D. (2015, July). Quantitative measures of derivational suffixes in Serbian language: A database. Paper presented at the 1st International Quantitative Morphology Meeting, Belgrade, Serbia.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790942.029
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256–281.doi:10.1037//0096–3445.113.2.256
Gortan–Premk, D. (2004). Polisemija i organizacija leksičkog sistema u srpskom jeziku [Polysemy and the organization of the lexical system in the Serbian language]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Halle, M. (1990). An approach to morphology. Proceedings of NELS, 20, 150–184.
Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), MITWPL 30: Papers at the Interface (pp. 425–449).Cambridge: MIT WPL. doi:10.1075/cilt.202.07hal
Hyönä, J., Vainio, S., & Laine, M. (2002). A morphological effect obtains for isolated words but not for words in sentence context. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 417–433. doi:10.1080/09541440143000131
Jones, M. N., Dye, M., & Johns, B. T. (2017). Context as an organizing principle of the lexicon. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 239–283). New York: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2017.03.008
Klajn, I. (2005). Gramatika srpskog jezika [The grammar of the Serbian language]. Beograd: Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika.
Kostić, A. (1991). Informational approach to processing inflected morphology: Standard data reconsidered. Psychological Research, 53(1), 62–70. doi:10.1007/bf00867333
Kostić, A. (1995). Informational load constraints on processing inflected morphology. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing (pp. 189–214). Ney Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Inc. Publishers. doi:10.1007/bf00867333
Kostić, A. (2010). Kognitivna psihologija [Cognitive psychology]. Beograd: Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika.
Kostić, A., Marković, T., & Baucal, A. (2003). Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or co–implicative domains? In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Process (pp. 1–44). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110910186.1
Lakoff, G. (1970). A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 357–359. doi:10.1515/9783110226614.507
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lehrer, J. A. (2000). Are affixes signs: The semantic relationships of English derivational affixes. In W. U. Dressler, O. E. Pfeiffer, M. A. Pöchtrager, & J. R. Rennison (Eds.), Morphological Analysis in Comparison (pp. 143–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cilt.201.08leh
Ljubešić, N., & Klubička, F. (2016). The Serbian web corpus srWaC. Ljubljana: Jožef Stefan Institute.
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open–source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. doi:10.3758/s13428–011–0168–7
Milin, P., Divjak, D., Dimitrijević, S., & Baayen, H. (2016). Towards cognitively plausible data science in language research. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 507–526. doi:10.1515/cog–2016–0055
Milin, P., Feldman, L. B., Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., Baayen, R. H. (2017). Discrimination in lexical decision. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0171935. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171935
Piantadosi, S., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
Plag, I., & Winter Balling, L. (in press). Derivational morphology: An integrative perspective on some fundamental issues. In V. Pirelli, I. Plag, & W. Dressler (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: A cross–disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R–project.org/
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. doi:10.1037//0033–2909.124.3.372
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen–Wilson, W. (2002). Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
SR Research Ltd. (2008). EyeLink II 2.31. Canada: Mississauga. URL: http://www.sr–research.com/
Stanojčić, Ž., & Popović, Lj. (1992). Gramatika srpskoga jezika [The grammar of the Serbian language]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765. doi:10.1080/02724980343000477
Taft, M., & Forster, K.I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647. doi:10.1016/s0022–5371(75)80051–x
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273–290. doi:10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
Van Rij J., Wieling M., Baayen R., & van Rijn H. (2016). itsadug: Interpreting Time Series and Autocorrelated Data Using GAMMs. R package version 1.0.1.
Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. United States: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Wood, S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 73(1), 3–36. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9868.2010.00749.x
Xiang, M., Harizanov, B., Polinsky, M., & Kravtchenko, E. (2011). Processing morphological ambiguity: An experimental investigation of Russian numerical phrases. Lingua, 121, 548–560. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.016
Objavljeno
26. 03. 2019.
Broj časopisa
Sekcija
Članci