, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 71–97 | Cite as

Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects

  • Kaidi LõoEmail author
  • Juhani Järvikivi
  • Fabian Tomaschek
  • Benjamin V. Tucker
  • R. Harald Baayen


Most psycholinguistic models of lexical processing assume that the comprehension and production of inflected forms is mediated by morphemic constituents. Several more recent studies, however, have challenged this assumption by providing empirical evidence that information about individual inflected forms and their paradigmatic relations is available in long-term memory (Baayen et al. 1997; Milin et al. 2009a, 2009b). Here, we investigate how whole-word frequency, inflectional paradigm size and morphological family size affect production latencies and articulation durations when subjects are asked to read aloud isolated Estonian case-inflected nouns. In Experiment 1, we observed that words with a larger morphological family elicited shorter speech onset latencies, and that forms with higher whole-word frequency had shorter acoustic durations. Experiment 2, for which we increased statistical power by using 2,800 words, revealed that higher whole-word frequency, inflectional paradigm size, and morphological family size reduced both speech onset times and acoustic durations. These results extend our knowledge of morphological processing in three ways. First, whole-word frequency effects of inflected forms in morphologically rich languages are not restricted to a small number of very high-frequency forms, contrary to previous claims (Niemi et al. 1994; Hankamer 1989; Yang 2016). Second, we replicated the morphological family size effect in a new domain, the acoustic durations of inflected forms. Third, we showed that a novel paradigmatic measure, inflectional paradigm size, predicts word naming latencies and acoustic durations. These results fit well with Word-and-Paradigm morphology (Blevins 2016) and argue against strictly (de)compositional models of lexical processing.


Whole-word frequency Inflectional paradigm size Estonian Inflection morphology Word naming 



We would like to thank Pärtel Lippus and Einar Meister for their assistance with the data collection as well as the editor-in-chief Olivier Bonami and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful reviews on the earlier version of this paper.


  1. Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 41–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, D., Tomaschek, F., Lopez, F., Sering, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2017). Words from spontaneous conversational speech can be recognized with human-like accuracy by an error-driven learning algorithm that discriminates between meanings straight from smart acoustic features, bypassing the phoneme as recognition unit. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0174,623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnon, I., & Cohen Priva, U. (2013). More than words: the effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 56(3), 349–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychology Research, 3, 12–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 94–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baayen, R. H., McQueen, J., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (2003). Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: revisiting Dutch plurals. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 355–390). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: a regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 419–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baayen, R. H., Levelt, W., Schreuder, R., & Ernestus, M. (2008). Paradigmatic structure in speech production. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society, 43(1), 1–29. Google Scholar
  10. Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipović-Ðurđević, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118(3), 438–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baayen, R. H., Sering, T., Shaoul, C., & Milin, P. (2017a). Language comprehension as a multiple label classification problem. In Proceedings of the 32nd international workshop on statistical modelling (IWSM). The Netherlands: Johann Bernoulli Institute, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. 3–7 July, 2017. Google Scholar
  12. Baayen, R. H., Vasishth, S., Bates, D., & Kliegl, R. (2017b). The cave of shadows: addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 206–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Balling, L., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1159–1190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition, 125(1), 80–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Balota, D., Cortese, M., Sergent-Marshall, S., Spieler, D., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition for single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133, 283–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: the effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bien, H., Levelt, W., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Frequency effects in compound production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 17,876–17,881. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bien, H., Baayen, R. H., & Levelt, W. J. (2011). Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 683–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Blevins, J. P. (2003). Stems and paradigms. Language, 79, 737–767. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Blevins, J. P. (2013). Word-based morphology from Aristotle to modern WP. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics (pp. 375–395). Oxford: Oxfort University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Blevins, J. P., Milin, P., & Ramscar, M. (2017). The Zipfian paradigm cell filling problem. In J. Kiefer, J. P. Blevins, & H. Bartos (Eds.), Perspectives on morphological organization: Data and analyses. Leiden: Brill. Chap. 8. Google Scholar
  23. Caselli, N. K., Caselli, M. K., & Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2016). Inflected words in production: evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 432–454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cotterell, R., Kirov, C., Sylak-Glassman, J., Walther, G., Vylomova, E., Xia, P., Faruqui, M., Kübler, S., Yarowsky, D., Eisner, J., & Mans, H. (2017). CoNLL-SIGMORPHON 2017 shared task: universal morphological reinflection in 52 languages. Preprint, arXiv:170609031.
  25. De Jong, N. H. (2002). Morphological families in the mental lexicon. MPI series in psycholinguistics. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Google Scholar
  26. De Jong, N. H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: peripheral morphological, and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81, 555–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fasiolo, M., Goude, Y., Nedellec, R., & Wood, S. N. (2016). Fast calibrated additive quantile regression. R package version 1.0. Google Scholar
  28. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
  29. Fruchter, J., & Marantz, A. (2015). Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: meg evidence for the full decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 143, 81–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), Current studies in linguistics: Vol. 24. The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  31. Hanique, I., & Ernestus, M. (2012). The role of morphology in acoustic reduction. Lingue E Linguaggio, 11(2), 147–164. Google Scholar
  32. Hankamer, J. (1989). Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 392–408). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  33. Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (1990). Generalized additive models. New York: Wiley Online Library. Google Scholar
  34. Hay, J. B. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative? Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hendrix, P. (2015). Experimental explorations of a discrimination learning approach to language processing. PhD thesis, University of Tübingen. Google Scholar
  36. Hothorn, T., Buehlmann, P., Dudoit, S., Molinaro, A., & Van Der Laan, M. (2006). Survival ensembles. Biostatistics, 7, 355–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Janssen, N., & Barber, H. A. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PLoS ONE, 7(3), 202, e3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Janssen, N., Bi, Y., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A tale of two frequencies: determining the speed of lexical access for Mandarin Chinese and English compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 1191–1223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaalep, H. J. (1997). An Estonian morphological analyser and the impact of a corpus on its development. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 115–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karlsson, F. (1986). Frequency considerations in morphology. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 39(1–4), 19–28. Google Scholar
  41. Karlsson, F., & Koskenniemi, K. (1985). A process model of morphology and lexicon. Folia Linguistica, 19(1–2), 207–232. Google Scholar
  42. Keuleers, E. (2013). vwr: useful functions for visual word recognition research., R package version 0.3.0.
  43. Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: a lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 287–304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koskenniemi, K. (1984). A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics (pp. 178–181). Google Scholar
  46. Kuperman, V., Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2006). Morphological predictability and acoustic salience of interfixes in Dutch compounds. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 122, 2018–2024. Google Scholar
  47. Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading of multimorphemic Dutch compounds: towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876–895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2017, submitted for publication). Whole-word frequency and inflectional paradigm size facilitate Estonian case-inflected noun processing. Manuscript. Google Scholar
  49. Laine, M., Niemi, J., Koivuselkä-Sallinen, P., & Hyönä, J. (1995). Morphological processing of polymorphemic nouns in a highly inflecting language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(5), 457–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Laine, M., Vainio, S., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Lexical access routes to nouns in a morphologically rich language. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 109–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2003). How word frequency affects morphological processing in monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(03), 213–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38. Google Scholar
  53. Lin, X., & Zhang, D. (1999). Inference in generalized additive mixed models by using smoothing splines. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Statistical Methodology, 61(2), 381–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marantz, A. (2013). No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 905–916. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marcus, G. F., Brinkman, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: the exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  57. Milin, P., Filipović Durdević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009a). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 50–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2009b). Paradigms bit by bit: an information-theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: form and acquisition (pp. 214–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Bertram, R., Häikiö, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: the case of Finnish compared to Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1271–1278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: an information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94, 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Schreuder, R., De Jong, N. H., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Changing places: a cross-language perspective on frequency and family size in Hebrew and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 496–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2014). Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 59–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Niemi, J., Laine, M., & Tuominen, J. (1994). Cognitive morphology in Finnish: foundations of a new model. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 423–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pham, H. (2014). Visual processing of Vietnamese compound words: a multivariate analysis of using corpus linguistic and psycholinguistic paradigms. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Canada. Google Scholar
  65. Pham, H., & Baayen, R. H. (2015). Vietnamese compounds show an anti-frequency effect in visual lexical decision. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1077–1095. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: the ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Google Scholar
  67. Plag, I., Homann, J., & Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53(1), 181–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roelofs, A. (1996). Morpheme frequency in speech production: testing WEAVER. In G. E. Booij, & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 135–154). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  70. Schmidtke, D., Matsuki, K., & Kuperman, V. (2017). Surviving blind decomposition: a distributional analysis of the time-course of complex word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Google Scholar
  71. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shaoul, C., Westbury, C. F., & Baayen, R. H. (2013). The subjective frequency of word n-grams. Psihologija, 46(4), 497–537. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shaoul, C., Baayen, R. H., & Westbury, C. F. (2014). N-gram probability effects in a cloze task. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3), 437–472. Google Scholar
  74. Soveri, A., Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2007). Word frequency and morphological processing in Finnish revisited. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3), 359–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sprenger, S., & van Rijn, H. (2013). It’s time to do the math: computation and retrieval in phrase production. The Mental Lexicon, 8(1), 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sun, C. C. (2016). Lexical processing in simplified Chinese: An investigation using a new large-scale lexical database. PhD thesis, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Google Scholar
  78. Tabak, W., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Lexical statistics and lexical processing: semantic density, information complexity, sex, and irregularity in Dutch. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic Evidence—Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives (pp. 529–555). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tabak, W., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Producing inflected verbs: a picture naming study. The Mental Lexicon, 5(1), 22–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 607–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tomaschek, F., & Baayen, R. H. (2017, in preparation). The consequences of lexical proficiency for articulation. Manuscript. Google Scholar
  83. Tomaschek, F., Wieling, M., Arnold, D., & Baayen, R. H. (2013). Word frequency, vowel length and vowel quality in speech production: an EMA study of the importance of experience. In INTERSPEECH (pp. 1302–1306). Google Scholar
  84. Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. V., Wieling, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2014). Vowel articulation affected by word frequency. In Proceedings of 10th ISSP, Cologne (pp. 429–432). Google Scholar
  85. Traficante, D., & Burani, C. (2003). Visual processing of Italian verbs and adjectives: the role of the inflectional family size. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 45–64). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  86. Tremblay, A., & Tucker, B. V. (2011). The effects of n-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon, 6(2), 302–324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vare, S. (2012). Eesti keele sõnapered. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Google Scholar
  89. Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalized additive models. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Google Scholar
  90. Wood, S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Statistical Methodology, 73(1), 3–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wood, S. N., Goude, Y., & Shaw, S. (2015). Generalized additive models for large data sets. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C. Applied Statistics, 64(1), 139–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yang, C. (2010). Three factors in language variation. Lingua, 120(5), 1160–1177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yang, C. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations