Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The quick brown fox run over one lazy geese : phonological and morphological processing of plurals in English.

By Katie J. Alcock


There is some evidence that semantics, conceptual features, and phonology interact with syntactic processing of words; however, other accounts suggest that in particular, irregular and regular English nouns and verbs, which differ in their phonology, are processed through different routes. The processing of regular and irregular nouns, and of pseudoplurals (nouns with the phonological form of a plural that are morphologically singular, such as cheese), was examined in a final-word sentence priming task. When the noun itself was repeated by participants in a grammatical or ungrammatical context (We saw one/three dog/dogs) regulars and irregular singulars showed a straightforward grammaticality effect, with repetition faster in grammatical sentences, while pseudoplurals and irregular plurals showed no grammaticality effect. When a verb following the noun was repeated in a grammatical or ungrammatical context (The dog/dogs runs/run) an interaction was found between number and grammaticality: both regular and irregular singulars showed a grammaticality effect, while regular and irregular plurals showed no or a reverse grammaticality effect; this was true both of university students and older participants. Pseudoplurals showed a straightforward grammaticality effect in the direction predicted by their morphology. It is concluded that the processing of nouns with conflicting morphology and phonology – such as irregular plurals and pseudoplurals – is influenced by both these features. However, previous studies (Bock & Eberhard, 1993) that have found irregular plurals and pseudoplurals do not differ from regulars in their processing may have been affected by aspects of the tasks or stimuli chosen

Year: 2009
OAI identifier:
Provided by: Lancaster E-Prints

Suggested articles


  1. (1979). A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure.
  2. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning.
  3. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement.
  4. (1995). Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors.
  5. (1991). Gender. Cambridge; England:
  6. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology.
  7. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?
  8. (2004). Interaction between phonological and grammatical processing in single word production in Kiswahili.
  9. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of Compounds Research.
  10. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement.
  11. (2007). On the evolution of consonant harmony:the case of secondaryarticulation agreement.
  12. (1996). One or more labels on the bottles?
  13. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement.
  14. (1986). Proximity Concord in English.
  15. (2001). Some attractions of verb agreement.
  16. (1999). Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The case of gender disagreement in Italian language-impaired and unimpaired speakers.
  17. (2005). Syntactic variation and spoken language. In
  18. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. CRL
  19. (2008). The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A crosslinguistic study of form effects on agreement.
  20. (2003). The Northern Subject Rule in Ulster: How Scots, how English? Language Variation and Change,
  21. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense doesn't require a rule.
  22. (2001). When sex affects syntax: Contextual influences in sentence production.
  23. (2005). Where does gender come from? Evidence from a complex inflectional system.
  24. (2000). Words and rules: the ingredients of language (1st ed.).

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.