Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-p5w8z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T04:57:03.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating behavioral and neuroimaging data on past tense processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

James H. Hoeffner  and
Mark S. Seidenberg
James H. Hoeffner
Affiliation:
University of Memphis
Mark S. Seidenberg*
Affiliation:
University of Memphis
*
Mark S. Seidenberg, Neuroscience Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520 [[marks@gizmo.usc.edu]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jaeger, Lockwood, Kemmerer, Van Valin, Murphy, and Khalak 1996 (Language 72.3) reported an experimental study that provided reaction time and PET neuroimaging data said to support Pinker’s (1991) theory of inflectional morphology in which rule-governed forms and exceptions are processed by separate mechanisms. The results were also taken as evidence against connectionist accounts in which a single processing system generates both types of forms. We provide a critical analysis of the study that yields three main conclusions: First, Jaeger et al.’s data do not provide strong evidence that rule-governed forms and exceptions are processed in separate brain regions. Second, there are problems with the design of the study that contaminate critical comparisons between conditions. The results therefore afford alternative interpretations related to experiment-specific factors rather than the regular-irregular distinction. Third, the dissociations between rule-governed forms and exceptions observed in studies such as Jaeger et al.’s can be accommodated by the connectionist theory. We conclude by offering suggestions for future research that would overcome the major limitations of this study and provide more decisive evidence bearing on the issues.

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 104 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barinaga, Marcia. 1997. What makes brain neurons run? Science 276. 196–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckner, Randy L., Bandettini, Peter A., Ocraven, Kathleen M., Savoy, Robert L., Petersen, Steven E., Raichle, Marcus E.; and Rosen, Bruce R. 1996. Detection of cortical activation during averaged single trials of a cognitive task using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93.14 878–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Moder, C. L. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Slobin, Dan I. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58. 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, Max, Curtis, Brent, Atkins, Paul; and Haller, Michael. 1993. Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed approaches. Psychological Review 100. 589–608.Google Scholar
Craik, Fergus I. M., and Lockhart, Robert S. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11. 671–84.Google Scholar
Daugherty, Kim, and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1992. The past tense revisited. Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Demb, Jonathan B., Desmond, John E., Wagner, Anthony D., Vaidya, Chandan J., Glover, Gary H.; and Gabrieli, John D. E. 1995. Semantic encoding and retrieval in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: A functional MRI study of task difficulty and process specificity. Journal of Neuroscience 15. 5870–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark J., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico; and Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I., and Davis, Carol. 1984. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10. 680–98.Google Scholar
Gabrieli, John D. E., Desmond, John E., Demb, Jonathan B., Wagner, Anthony D., Stone, Maria V., Vaidya, Chandan J.; and Glover, Gary H. 1996. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of semantic memory processes in the frontal lobes. Psychological Science 7. 278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, Mark A., and Rumelhart, David E. (eds.) 1990. Neuroscience and connectionist theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goldman-Rakic, Patricia S. 1988. Topography of cognition: Parallel distributed networks in primate association cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience 11. 137–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, Barry. 1983. Lexical access and lexical decision: Mechanisms of frequency sensitivity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22. 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Segmental phonology of modem English. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary, and Elman, Jeffrey L. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56. 61–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Harm, Michael W., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1997. Phonology, reading and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, ms.Google Scholar
Hoeffner, James H. 1997. Are rules a thing of the past? A single mechanism account of English past tense acquisition and processing. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University dissertation.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J., Lockwood, Alan H., Kemmerer, David L., Van Valin, Robert D., Murphy, Brian W.; and Khalak, Hanif G. 1996. A positron emission tomography study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English. Language 72. 451–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel A., Carpenter, Patricia A., Keller, Timothy A., Eddy, William F.; and Thulborn, Keith R. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274. 114–16.Google ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, Brian, and Leinbach, Jared. 1991. Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition 39. 121–57.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D., and Tyler, Lorraine K. 1997. Dissociating types of mental computation. Nature 387. 592–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Patterson, Karalyn E. 1981. Neuropsychological approaches to the study of reading. British Journal of Psychology 72. 151–74.Google Scholar
Petersen, Steven E., Fox, Peter T., Posner, Michael I., Mintun, Mark; and Raichle, Marcus E. 1988. Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single-word processing. Nature 331. 585–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253. 530–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28. 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plaut, David C. 1997. Double dissociation without modularity: Evidence from connectionist neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 17. 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, David C., McClelland, James L., Seidenberg, Mark S.; and Patterson, Karalyn E. 1996. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychology Review 103. 56–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poeppel, David. 1996. A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing. Brain and Language 55. 317–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, Sandeep, Pinker, Steven; and Snyder, William. 1990. Some evidence that irregular forms are retrieved from memory but regular forms are rule generated. Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans. Rayner, Keith, and Alexander Pollatsek. 1994. The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rice, Mabel (ed.) 1996. Toward a genetics of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates Roskies.Google Scholar
Anne, L. 1994. Mapping memory with positron emission tomography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 91. 1989–91.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L.; and the, PDP Group, Research (eds.) 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, Daniel L., Cortese, Charles; and Scarborough, Hollis S. 1977. Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3. 1–17.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. 1992. Connectionism without tears. Connectionism: Theory and practice, ed. by Davis, Stephen, 84–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. 1995. Visual word recognition: An overview. Speech, language, and communication, ed. by Miller, Joanne L. and Eimas, Peter D., 138–80. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eimas, Peter D., and Bruck, Maggie. 1990. Consistency effects in the generation of past tense morphology. Paper presented at the 31st meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Bruck, Maggie, and McClelland, James L. 1989. A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96. 523–68.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L., Waters, Gloria S., Barnes, Marcia; and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 1984. When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23. 383–404.Google Scholar
Sergent, Justine. 1994. Brain-imaging studies of cognitive functions. Trends in Neurosciences 17. 221–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shallice, Tim. 1988. From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraban, Roman, and McClelland, James L. 1987. Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language 26. 608–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Michael T., Corkin, Suzanne, Coppola, Marie, Hicock, Gregory, Growdon, John H., Koroshetz, Walter J.; and Pinker, Steven. 1997. A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9. 266–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed