OJML  Vol.4 No.1 , March 2014
German Plural Processing: New Evidence from ERP- and Reaction Time Experiments
Abstract: The processing of the German plural has been examined in a range of behavioral and neurophysiological studies. A number of studies so far showed differences between the processing of the default plural form -s and the irregular plural form -(e)n. While previous studies focused on the examination of generally two plural categories (e.g. -(e)n versus -s), the current study aimed at examining four German plural categories with different morpheme endings and violating them cross-wise. The results of the current auditory event-related (ERP) and reaction time study show general similarities between the more acoustically salient plural categories. In the early latency range from 200 - 400 ms -n violated by -s plural (and the cross-condition) act differently from the -e versus -er plural violations (and the cross-conditions) but in the later time windows only violation effects are visible. Processing differences may be explained by the morphological characteristics of the plural categories and/or phonetic differences between the suffixes.
Cite this paper: Winter, V. , Eulitz, C. & Rinker, T. (2014). German Plural Processing: New Evidence from ERP- and Reaction Time Experiments. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4, 21-26. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2014.41002.

[1]   Bartke, S., Rosler, F., Streb, J., & Wiese, R. (2005). An ERP-Study of “Irregular” Morphology. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 29-55.

[2]   Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical Entries and Rules of Language: A Multidisciplinary Study of German Inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991-1060.

[3]   Hahne, A., Mueller, J. L., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological Processing in a Second Language: Behavioural and EventRelated Brain Potential Evidence for Storage and Decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 121-134.

[4]   Jasper, H. H. (1958). The Ten-Twenty Electrode System of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371-375.

[5]   Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the Gap: Evidence from ERPs on the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196-214.

[6]   Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.

[7]   Luce, R. D. (1986). Response Times. New York: University Press.

[8]   Lück, M., Hahne, A., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Brain Potentials to Morphologically Complex Words during Listening. Brain Research, 1077, 144-152.

[9]   Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German Inflection: The Exception That Proves the Rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189-256.

[10]   Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The Assessment and Analysis of Handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97113.

[11]   Penke, M., & Krause, M. (2002). German Noun Plurals—A Challenge to the Dual-Mechanism Model. Brain and Language, 81, 303-311.

[12]   Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1992). Regular and Irregular Morphology and the Psychological Status of Rules of Grammar. Proceedings of the 17th Berkeley Linguistics Society, USA, 230-251.

[13]   Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for Dealing with Reaction Time Outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.

[14]   Rinker, T., Budde, N., Bamyaci, E., & Winter, V. (2011). Einblicke in die Sprachlichen Leistungen Türkischer Kinder mit Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Diskurs Kindheitsund Jugendforschung, 6, 471-478.

[15]   Weyerts, H., Penke, M., Dohrn, U., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. (1997). Brain Potentials Indicate Differences between Regular and Irregular German Plurals. Neuroreport, 8, 957-962.

[16]   Wiese, R. (2009). The Grammar and Typology of Plural Noun Inflection in Varieties of German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 12, 137-173.