The interplay between semantics and morphology Michele Miozzo

The morphological processes that enable speakers to generate different inflected forms (dog vs. dogs; eat vs. eats) have been traditionally viewed as distinct from the mechanisms devoted to word semantics.  This view has been called into question by recent connectionist models that propose that the selection of certain morphological forms depends crucially on semantic processing.  Ullman's recent proposal that shared mechanisms underlie semantics and the processing of (at least certain) morphological forms also challenges the traditional view.  The extent to which morphological processing depends on semantic mechanisms has been tested with brain-damaged patients who exhibit semantic deficits.  Our findings show that semantic deficits and deficits affecting the retrieval of inflected forms can dissociate in conditions of brain damage.  This type of evidence provides some support to theories that describe morphological and semantic processes as widely distinct.  Denominals - i.e., verbs derived from nouns, of which "to e-mail" or "to google" are recent examples in English - also represent an interesting case for testing the different theories concerning the interplay between morphology and semantics.  Accounts inspired by the connectionist approach propose that the way in which denominals are inflected depends on semantics. While earlier accounts have minimized the effect of semantics on denominal inflected forms, they have emphasized the roles of other variables (e.g., grammatical class).  The data we have obtained from normal speakers exclude that semantics affects the choice of denominal inflected forms - instead, such choices are significantly influenced by grammatical class.  Overall, the data presented in this talk support the proposal that morphological processes are considerably autonomous with respect to word semantics.