What is it I am writing? Lexical frequency effects in spelling Russian prefixes: Uncertainty and competition in an apparently regular system

Abstract Whole-word frequency effects are shown to exist in what appears to be a completely regular system, the spelling of prefix-final /z/ in Russian. Russian prefixes that underlyingly end in /z/ (roz-, bez-, iz-) end in [s] on the surface when followed by a voiceless consonant. According to the rules of Russian orthography, the surface form, rather than the underlying form, must be reflected in the spelling. However, spelling errors reflecting the underlying form often occur, especially for the prefix bez-. The present paper reports that the error rate, either in natural typing on the web or in a classroom dictation task, for a given word is negatively correlated with the frequency of the word, suggesting that Russian writers rely, to a significant extent, on memory of complete orthographic forms as opposed to the orthographic rule. The frequency effect holds even within the set of regular inflectional variants of a single lexeme, with more frequent wordforms showing lower error rates. The evidence demonstrates a high degree of reliance on whole-form lexical retrieval even in what appears to be a regular system that is explicitly taught to the writers throughout their schooling in a morphologically rich language and thus provides support for the use of lexical retrieval even when it is not necessary (Baayen et al., Dutch inflection: The rules that prove the exception, Kluwer, 2002, Butterworth, Lexical representation, Academic Press, 1983, Bybee, Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form, John Benjamins, 1985, The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion, CSLI, 2000, vs. DiSciullo and Williams, On the definition of word, MIT Press, 1987, Pinker, Science 253: 530–535, 1991). However, reliance on retrieval is argued to be especially strong when there is a relatively long period of temporary uncertainty regarding which rule is applicable during processing (see also Albright, Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps, Equinox, 2009, Barca et al., Reading and Writing 20: 495–509, 2007, Burani et al., Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13: 346–352, 2006). The importance of temporary uncertainty and resulting rule competition suggests that the regular/irregular distinction needs to be reconsidered as even fully “regular” systems may feature rule competition due to temporary uncertainties about rule applicability. Reliance on retrieval may go largely undetected in Russian during schooling because teaching and test materials focus on the spelling of frequent words, which can be either produced by rule or retrieved as wholes. The largely complementary methodological challenges in studying lexical frequency effects in corpus and experimental data are discussed.

[1]  S. Pinker,et al.  On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition , 1988, Cognition.

[2]  Ilhan Raman Lexicality effects in single-word naming in alphabetic Turkish orthography. , 2003 .

[3]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology ? The frequency by Regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax , 1998 .

[4]  H. Clahsen,et al.  Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  The influence of spelling on phonological encoding in word reading, object naming, and word generation , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Peter M. Vishton,et al.  Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. , 1999, Science.

[7]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition , 1998 .

[8]  Sanford A. Schane,et al.  On the psychological reality of a natural rule of syllable structure , 1975, Cognition.

[9]  P. Largy,et al.  The Homophone Effect in Written French: The Case of Verb-Noun Inflection Errors. , 1996 .

[10]  Cristina Burani,et al.  Orthographic complexity and word naming in Italian: Some words are more transparent than others , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  Cristina Burani,et al.  Fully transparent orthography, yet lexical reading aloud: The lexicality effect in Italian , 2008 .

[12]  P. Bryant,et al.  Orthography: Children learn an untaught rule of spelling , 2000, Nature.

[13]  Jacob Cohen The Cost of Dichotomization , 1983 .

[14]  A Wingfield,et al.  Response Latencies in Naming Objects , 1965, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  Marcus Taft,et al.  Automatic activation of orthography in spoken word recognition: Pseudohomograph priming , 2008 .

[16]  W. Levelt,et al.  Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form , 1994 .

[17]  Michael K. Tanenhaus Spoken language comprehension: insights from eye movements , 2007 .

[18]  A. Friederici,et al.  Brain Correlates of Language Learning: The Neuronal Dissociation of Rule-Based versus Similarity-Based Learning , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  C. Westbury,et al.  Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading and Sentence Recall Tasks. , 2011 .

[21]  Antti Arppe,et al.  Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy , 2007 .

[22]  A. Friederici,et al.  Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: an MEG study , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  M. Taft Morphological Decomposition and the Reverse Base Frequency Effect , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[24]  Sara Finley FORMAL AND COGNITIVE RESTRICTIONS ON VOWEL HARMONY , 2008 .

[25]  J. Morton The logogen model and orthographic structure , 1980 .

[26]  Geert Booij,et al.  Against split morphology , 1993 .

[27]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[28]  Tao Wei,et al.  The contribution of orthography to spoken word production: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Markus F. Damian,et al.  Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm , 2003 .

[30]  David Patterson,et al.  Variant frequency in American English flap production , 2001 .

[31]  M. Taft Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Joan L. Bybee Formal Universals as Emergent Phenomena: The Origins of Structure Preservation , 2008 .

[33]  Allard Jongman,et al.  Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: evidence from Dutch , 2004, J. Phonetics.

[34]  Frank Keller,et al.  Using the Web to Obtain Frequencies for Unseen Bigrams , 2003, CL.

[35]  F. Dell Meter in poetry , 2009, Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique.

[36]  Paul Macura Elsevier's Russian-English Dictionary , 1990 .

[37]  P. Boersma How we learn variation, optionality and probalility , 1997 .

[38]  R. Port,et al.  Against Formal Phonology , 2005 .

[39]  William Badecker,et al.  Representational properties common to phonological and orthographic output systems , 1996 .

[40]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  Distant melodies: statistical learning of nonadjacent dependencies in tone sequences. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Vsevolod Kapatsinski Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: Constraints on models of morphophonology , 2010 .

[42]  A. Ellis,et al.  Context-sensitive rules and word naming in Italian children , 2007 .

[43]  Robert Schreuder,et al.  Dutch Inflection: The Rules that Prove the Exception , 2002 .

[44]  Paul Kiparsky,et al.  Where Stochastic OT fails: A discrete model of metrical variation , 2005 .

[45]  P. Bryant,et al.  When memorized instances compete with rules: The case of number-noun agreement in written French , 2007, Journal of Child Language.

[46]  John N. Williams,et al.  Memory, Attention, and Inductive Learning , 1999, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[47]  Vsevolod Kapatsinski,et al.  Frequency and the emergence of prefabs: Evidence from monitoring , 2009 .

[48]  Cristina Sanz,et al.  Verbal Inflectional Morphology in L1 and L2 Spanish: A Frequency Effects Study Examining Storage versus Composition. , 2010, Language learning.

[49]  J. Jescheniak,et al.  Word frequency effects in speech production , 1994 .

[50]  Jaye Padgett Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of [v] (or, The mouse that squeaked) , 2002 .

[51]  D. Sandra,et al.  Homophonic Forms of Regularly Inflected Verbs Have Their Own Orthographic Representations: A Developmental Perspective on Spelling Errors , 2002, Brain and Language.

[52]  J. Stemberger Length as a suprasegmental: Evidence from speech errors , 1984 .

[53]  Dominiek Sandra,et al.  Why Simple Verb Forms Can Be So Difficult to Spell: The Influence of Homophone Frequency and Distance in Dutch , 1999, Brain and Language.

[54]  Lars Borin,et al.  What is a lexical representation? , 1985, NODALIDA.

[55]  Karsten Steinhauer,et al.  Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[56]  F Grosjean,et al.  Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  P. Robinson GENERALIZABILITY AND AUTOMATICITY OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING UNDER IMPLICIT, INCIDENTAL, ENHANCED, AND INSTRUCTED CONDITIONS , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[58]  Ludovic Ferrand,et al.  Visual phonology: The effects of orthographic consistency on different auditory word recognition tasks , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[59]  J. Alegria,et al.  Using Morphology when Spelling in a Shallow Orthographic System: The Case of Spanish. , 2008 .

[60]  N. Snider,et al.  More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases , 2010 .

[61]  Johannes C. Ziegler,et al.  The role of orthography in speech production revisited , 2007, Cognition.

[62]  R. Port How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes , 2007 .

[63]  Johannes C. Ziegler,et al.  On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition , 2008, Brain Research.

[64]  S Pinker,et al.  Rules of language. , 1991, Science.

[65]  A. Caramazza,et al.  The structure of graphemic representations , 1990, Cognition.

[66]  Kevin R. Gregg SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR , 2004, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[67]  T. A. Hall Assibilation in modern German , 2004 .

[68]  Cristina Burani,et al.  Effects of semantic markedness in the processing of regular nominal singulars and plurals in Italian , 1997 .

[69]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Slips of the Pen. , 1979 .

[70]  Dominiek Sandra,et al.  Spelling errors with a view on the mental lexicon: frequency and proximity effects in misspelling homophonous regular verb forms in Dutch and French , 2003 .

[71]  Gary S Dell,et al.  Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[72]  Stéphane Dufau,et al.  On-line Orthographic Influences on Spoken Language in a Semantic Task , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[73]  M. Ettlinger Input-Driven Opacity , 2008 .

[74]  Neil Smith,et al.  Learning the impossible: The acquisition of possible and impossible languages by a polyglot savant , 1993 .

[75]  C. Büchel,et al.  Broca's area and the language instinct , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[76]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity , 1992 .

[77]  J. Bowers,et al.  Assessing the role of orthography in speech perception and production: Evidence from picture–word interference tasks , 2009 .

[78]  J. Hay Causes and Consequences of Word Structure , 2003 .

[79]  Jinseung Eu Testing search engine frequencies: Patterns of inconsistency , 2008 .

[80]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Anatomical Substrates of Visual and Auditory Miniature Second-language Learning , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[81]  Richard Sproat,et al.  Book Reviews: A Computational Theory of Writing Systems , 2006, CL.

[82]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[83]  B. Hayes,et al.  Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study , 2003, Cognition.

[84]  Adam Albright Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps , 2006 .

[85]  R. Treiman The division between onsets and rimes in English syllables , 1986 .

[86]  A. Sosa,et al.  Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: collocations involving the word of , 2002, Brain and Language.

[87]  Katherine J. Midgley,et al.  When beef primes reef more than leaf: orthographic information affects phonological priming in spoken word recognition. , 2009, Psychophysiology.

[88]  Joan L. Bybee Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[89]  Vsevolod Kapatsinski,et al.  Frequency of Use Leads to Automaticity of Production: Evidence from Repair in Conversation , 2010, Language and speech.

[90]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Similarity Avoidance and the OCP , 2004 .

[91]  B. Comrie,et al.  The Russian Language in the 20th Century , 1997 .

[92]  P. Kiparsky Stress, Syntax, and Meter , 1975 .

[93]  Geoffrey Nunberg,et al.  The linguistics of punctuation , 1990 .

[94]  Adam Albright,et al.  Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change , 2006 .

[95]  M. Kenstowicz Base-Identity and Uniform Exponence: Alternatives to Cyclicity , 1995 .

[96]  Andrea Krott,et al.  Rules and rote: Beyond the linguistic either-or fallacy , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[97]  R. Baayen,et al.  The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[98]  B MacWhinney,et al.  Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[99]  Richard Sproat,et al.  The Relation of Writing to Spoken Language , 2002 .

[100]  Dominiek Sandra,et al.  Frequency and analogical effects in the spelling of full-form and sublexical homophonous patterns by 12 year-old children , 2009 .

[101]  W. Badecker,et al.  Morphology: The internal structure of words , 2001 .

[102]  Vsevolod Kapatsinski Rethinking rule reliability : Why an exceptionless rule can fail , 2009 .

[103]  Sophia Ananiadou,et al.  On the definition of word , 2004, Machine Translation.

[104]  Ingo Plag,et al.  Word-Formation in English , 2018 .

[105]  Argye E. Hillis,et al.  The organization of the lexical system. , 2001 .

[106]  Charles Yang,et al.  Who's Afraid of George Kingsley Zipf? , 2010 .

[107]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English , 1999 .

[108]  E. Williams,et al.  On the definition of word , 1987 .

[109]  Anneke Neijt The interfaces of writing and grammar , 2002 .

[111]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[112]  Kie Zuraw,et al.  Patterned exceptions in phonology , 2000 .

[113]  A. Nunn Dutch orthography : a systematic investigation of the spelling of Dutch words , 2006 .

[114]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review , 2009 .

[115]  E. Newport,et al.  Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.