Papers by Steven Pinker on thePsychology of Inflectional Morphology

Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988) On language andconnectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of languageacquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193. Reprinted in S. Pinker & J.Mehler (Eds.) (1988) Connections and symbols. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Prince, A. & Pinker, S. (1988) Rules and connectionsin human language. Trends in Neurosciences, 11, 195-202.Reprinted (1989) in R. G. Morris (Ed.), Parallel Distributed Processing:Implications for psychology and neurobiology. New York:Oxford University Press. Reprinted (1993) in J.Higginbotham (Ed.), Language and cognition. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell. Reprinted (1999) in R. Cummins & D. D. Cummins (Eds.), Minds,brains, and computers. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Prince, A., & Pinker, S. (1989) Wickelphoneambiguity. Cognition, 30, 189-190.

Kim, J. J., Pinker, S., Prince, A, & Prasada, S. (1991) Why no mere mortal has ever flown out to center field. Cognitive Science, 15, 173-218.

Pinker, S. (1991) Rules of language. Science, 253, 530-535. Reprinted(1993) in P. Bloom (Ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Reprinted (1996) in H. Geirsson& M. Losonsky (Eds.), Readings in language and mind. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell. Reprinted in P. Thagard(Ed.), Mind readings: Introductory selections on cognitive science.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprintedin A. Clark & J. Toribio (Eds.), Artificialintelligence and cognitive science: Conceptual issues. Hamden, CT: Garland. Reprinted (1999)in A. Slater & D. Muir (Eds.), The Blackwell reader in developmentalpsychology. Oxford:Blackwell. Reprinted (2002) in G. T. M. Altmann(Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts. London: Routledge.

Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen,T. J. & Xu, F. (1992) Cognition, 4, 153-195.
•Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T., Xu, F. & Clahsen, H. (1992) Overregularizationin language acquisition. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, 57 (4, Serial No. 228).

Prasada, S. & Pinker, S. (1993)Generalizations of regular and irregular morphology. Language and CognitiveProcesses, 8, 1-56.

Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen,T. J. & Xu, F. (1992) Overregularizationin language acquisition. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, 57 (4, Serial No. 228).

Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1994) Regular and irregularmorphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S. D. Lima, R. L., Corrigan,& G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality oflinguistic rules. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.

Kim, J. J., Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Hollander, M.,& Coppola, M. (1994) Sensitivity of children’s inflection to morphologicalstructure. Journal of Child Language, 21, 173-209. Reprinted in K. Perera, G. Collis, &B. Richards (Eds.), Growing points in child language.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S. (1995) Why the child holdedthe baby rabbits: A case study in language acquisition. In L.Gleitman, & M. Liberman(Eds.), Invitation to Cognitive Science, 2nd Edition. Volume1: Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen,H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995) German inflection: The exception thatproves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189-256.

Xu, F.& Pinker, S. (1995) Weird past tense forms. Journal of ChildLanguage, 22, 531-556.

Ullman, M., Corkin, S., Coppola, M., Hickok, G., Growdon, J. H., Koroshetz, W. J.,& Pinker, S. (1997) A neuraldissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part ofdeclarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the proceduralsystem. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 289-299. Reprinted in Bánréti Zoltán(Ed.). Nyelvi Struktúrákés azAgy: Neurolingvisztikai Tanulmányok. Hungary.

Pinker, S. (1997) Words and rules in the human brain. Nature, 387,547-548.

Pinker, S. (1998) Words andrules. Lingua, 106, 219-242. Reprinted in A. Sorace, C. Heycock, and R. Shillcock (Eds.), Generative approaches to languageacquisition. Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Berent, I., Pinker, S.,& Shimron, J. (1999) Defaultnominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition 72,1-44.

Pinker, S. (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: HarperCollins.

Pinker, S.(2001) Four decades of rules and associations, or whatever happened to the pasttense debate? In E. Dupoux(Ed.), Language, the brain, and cognitive development: Papers in honor ofJacques Mehler. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pinker, S.& Ullman, M. (2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trendsin Cognitive Science, 6, 456-463.

Pinker, S.& Ullman, M. (2002) Structure and combination, not gradedness,is the issue (Reply to McClelland and Patterson). Trends in CognitiveScience, 6, 472-474.

Berent, I. & Pinker, S. The nature of regularity and irregularity: Evidence from Hebrewnominal inflection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,31(5), 459-502.

Pinker, S.& Ullman, M. (2003) Beyond one model perphenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 108-109.

Berent, I., Pinker, S., & Ghavami,G. (under review) The constraint against regularplurals in compounds: Phonologicalfamiliarity or morphological constraint?

Berent, I., Pinker, S., Tzelgov, J., Bibi, U., & Goldfarb, L. (2005) Computation of semanticnumber from morphological information. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 342-358..

Sahin, N., Pinker,& Halgren, E.. (2006) Abstractgrammatical processing of nouns and verbs in Broca'sArea: Evidence from fMRI. Cortex, 42, 540-562.

Senghas, A., Kim, J. J., & Pinker, S. (under review) Plurals incompounds.