Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2024 / When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning

When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning

Paper · 2024 · Niveen Omar, Karen Banai and Bracha Nir

Summary

The paper asks whether a sub-lexical piece of a word, one that marks a broad category, changes how learners acquire the narrower meaning of the whole word. The authors build artificial Hebrew-like words in the Semitic root-and-pattern style. A shared syllabic pattern signals a superordinate manner-of-motion class (skipping or flipping). Each whole word names an individual moving character. Learners in a multimorphemic condition are compared with learners of monomorphemic labels, using a word-learning test plus conceptual and morphological generalization tests. Previous labeling work, including Lupyan's Label Feedback Hypothesis, would predict that a shared form helps. Instead, the shared pattern made learning of the specific characters worse, mostly on the motion dimension the pattern encodes. The authors conclude that a word-form's influence reaches beyond its own category level and can have opposite effects at different levels of a hierarchy. Put simply, the more salient a feature is at the superordinate level, the less it helps tell members apart below it.

Key points

  • Stimuli: novel Semitic-like proper nouns. A syllabic pattern (similar to real Hebrew maCCéC for instruments, as in mazrék 'syringe') encodes a manner-of-motion class, and the full word encodes one moving character.
  • Main result: in the main experiment, a shared pattern lowered word-learning accuracy, and the drop was concentrated on Motion trials, which probe the pattern-encoded dimension.
  • The negative link between generalizing a manner and learning it at the character level held for skipping but not flipping (Table 3). The authors relate this to flipping being visually more complex and less human-like, which may make it more salient.
  • The theoretical framing combines the Label Feedback Hypothesis (Lupyan, 2008; 2012) with Ambridge's (2020) view that exemplars are re-represented at every level of abstraction.
  • Stated limitation: the conceptual generalization test requires recalling the specific characters, so it mixes superordinate and character-level learning. A character-free categorization test is proposed.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Bound pieces of a word, such as affixes or patterns, can signal a whole family of meanings, as with drug suffixes like -statin and -cillin or place endings like -cester; this lets a word's form point to its class even when the word itself is unknown.
  • I2. A feature that defines a shared class becomes useless, or even misleading, for distinguishing members of that class.
  • I3. The study measures learning separately for each dimension of meaning (motion versus other features) rather than reporting one overall score, which is how the level-specific effect became visible.
  • I4. A monomorphemic control condition keeps the items and meanings fixed and varies only the internal structure of the form, isolating the effect of form.
  • I5. The authors acknowledge that a test needing two levels of recall at once cannot separate those levels, and they propose a test that probes only one.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tokens): the morphology layer could map productive suffixes to WordNet-style class hints for out-of-vocabulary words, recording the suffix as the explainable reason for the guess.
  • I2 (world): when resolving which of several same-class entities is meant, the world model should down-weight the attributes they share as a class and rely on attributes that differ among them.
  • I3 (learn): evaluation could break down parser and frame accuracy by relation type or role level, so that a gain in one layer cannot hide a loss in another.
  • I4 (learn): negative controls could replace morphologically transparent words with opaque ones in the same contexts, to check whether a model's success really depends on morphology.
  • I5 (answer): reader tests should include items that probe a single step (category knowledge alone versus entity recall alone), so that failures can be traced to the right stage.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of HaifaHaifa · Israel27 works · 871 citations

📚 Shelves 5The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 worksPsychology · 798 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 463 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 260 works

🧭 Topics 2Research subjects and languages the work is about.Semitic languages · 1,484 worksLexical semantics & word embeddings · 40 works

Cite

Cite as Niveen Omar, Karen Banai and Bracha Nir. 2024. When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning. Language and Cognition 16.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1017/langcog.2024.34

@inproceedings{omar2024when,
  title = {{When more is less: the impact of multimorphemic words on learning word meaning}},
  author = {Niveen Omar, Karen Banai and Bracha Nir},
  booktitle = {Language and Cognition 16},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1017/langcog.2024.34},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.34}
}

References

55 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Althaus, N., & Mareschal, D. (2014). Labels direct infants’ attention to commonalities during novel category learning. PLoS One, 9(7), e99670. ↗
  2. Ambridge, B. (2020). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40(5–6), 640–659. find
  3. Aronoff, M. (2007). Language: Between words and grammar. The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives, 55–79. find
  4. Banai, K., Nir, B., Moav-Scheff, R., & Bar-Ziv, N. (2020). A role for incidental auditory learning in auditory-visual word learning among kindergarten children. Journal of Vision, 20(3), 4–4. ↗
  5. Balaban, M. T., & Waxman, S. R. (1997). Do words facilitate object categorization in 9-month-old infants?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64(1), 3–26. ↗
  6. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Preprint, arXiv:1406.5823. ↗
  7. Barsalou, L. W., Huttenlocher, J., & Lamberts, K. (1998). Basing categorization on individuals and events. Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 203–272. ↗
  8. Bentin, S., & Frost, R. (2013). Morphological factors in visual word identification in 1 2 Hebrew. In Morphological aspects of language processing (271 pages). Psychology Press. find
  9. Berman, R. A. (2003). Children’s lexical innovations. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28, 243–292. find
  10. Berman, R. A. (2013). Modern Hebrew. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic languages (pp. 312–333). Routledge. find
  11. Blewitt, P., & Krackow, E. (1992). Acquiring taxonomic relations in lexical memory: The role of superordinate category labels. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(1), 37–56. ↗
  12. Brooks, P. J., & Kempe, V. (2020). How are exemplar representations transformed by encoding, retrieval, and explicit knowledge? A commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40(5–6), 564–568. find
  13. Clapper, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1991). Learning and applying category knowledge in unsupervised domains. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 65–108). Academic Press. ↗
  14. Clapper, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1994). Category invention in unsupervised learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 443. ↗
  15. Davis, M. H., & Gaskell, M. G. (2009). A complementary systems account of word learning: neural and behavioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3773–3800. ↗
  16. Feldman, L. B., Frost, R., & Pnini, T. (1995). Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes: Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 947. ↗
  17. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829. find
  18. Fulkerson, A. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Words (but not tones) facilitate object categorization: Evidence from 6-and 12-month-olds. Cognition, 105(1), 218–228. ↗
  19. Gervits, F., Johanson, M., & Papafragou, A. (2023). Relevance and the Role of Labels in Categorization. Cognitive Science, 47(12), e13395. ↗
  20. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. ↗
  21. Johanson, M., & Papafragou, A. (2016). The influence of labels and facts on children’s and adults’ categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 130–151. ↗
  22. Jouravlev, O., Taikh, A., & Jared, D. (2018). Effects of lexical ambiguity on perception: A test of the label feedback hypothesis using a visual oddball paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1842. ↗
  23. Katz, P. A. (1963). Effects of labels on children’s perception and discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 423. ↗
  24. Kolan, L., Leikin, M., & Zwitserlood, P. (2011). Morphological processing and lexical access in speech production in Hebrew: Evidence from picture–word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 286–298. ↗
  25. Kutlu, E., Barry-Anwar, R., Pestana, Z., Keil, A., & Scott, L. S. (2023). A label isn’t just a label: Brief training leads to label-dependent visuo-cortical processing in adults. Neuropsychologia, 178, 108443. ↗
  26. LaTourrette, A. S., & Waxman, S. R. (2020). Naming guides how 12-month-old infants encode and remember objects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(35), 21230–21234. ↗
  27. Lupyan, G. (2008). From chair to" chair": A representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 348. ↗
  28. Lupyan, G. (2012). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 54. ↗
  29. Lupyan, G., & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, 7(2), 167–193. ↗
  30. Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1077–1083. ↗
  31. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207. ↗
  32. Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1981). Strategies and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(4), 241. ↗
  33. Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. MIT Press. find
  34. Murphy, G. L. (2016). Is there an exemplar theory of concepts?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1035–1042. ↗
  35. Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 70. ↗
  36. Murphy, G. L., & Lassaline, M. E. (1997). Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 93–131). MIT Press. ↗
  37. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. find
  38. Napolitano, A. C., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. Child Development, 75(6), 1850–1870. find
  39. Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization?. Cognition, 80(3), B11–B20. ↗
  40. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39. ↗
  41. Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 54. ↗
  42. Omar, N., Banai, K., & Nir, B. (2021). Learning beyond words: Morphology and the encoding of hierarchical categories. The Mental Lexicon, 16(2–3), 397–421. find
  43. Ravid, D. (2003). A developmental perspective on root perception in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28, 293–320. find
  44. Ravid, D. (2006). Word-level morphology: A psycholinguistic perspective on linear formation in Hebrew nominals. Morphology, 16(1), 127–148. ↗
  45. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. ↗
  46. Schlücker, B., & Ackermann, T. (2017). The morphosyntax of proper names: An overview. Folia Linguistica, 51(2), 309–339. ↗
  47. Shatil, N. (2006). The Hebrew Noun System: A Structural Cognitive Perspective. Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects (243- 282). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/stable/24332479. ↗
  48. Shimron, J. (2003). Semitic languages: Are they really root-based?. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 28, 1–28. find
  49. Slobin, D. I. (2005). Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified. Iconicity Inside Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature, 4, 307–322. Slobin, Dan. ↗
  50. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient. Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. H. S. Robert (Ed.), Space in Languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. John Benjamins. find
  51. Sloutsky, V. M., & Napolitano, A. C. (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development, 74(3), 822–833. find
  52. Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event integration. Buffalo Papers in Linguistics, 91(01), 147–187. find
  53. Waxman, S. R. (1990). Linguistic biases and the establishment of conceptual hierarchies: Evidence from preschool children. Cognitive Development, 5(2), 123–150. ↗
  54. Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12-to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 257–302. ↗
  55. Welder, A. N., & Graham, S. A. (2006). Infants’ categorization of novel objects with more or less obvious features. Cognitive Psychology, 52(1), 57–91. ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/omar-2024-more-less-impact-multimorphemic-words/