Arguments concerning the relative role of semantic and grammatical factors in word formation have proven to be a wedge issue in current debates over the nature of linguistic representation and processing. In the present paper, we re-examine claims by Ramscar [Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 45-94.] that it is semantic rather than grammatical factors that influence the choice of regular or irregular past tense forms for English verbs. In Experiment 1, we first replicated Ramscar's (2002) experiment, which showed semantic influences on choice of past tense inflection. A novel verb, splink, was introduced in a semantic context that was reminiscent of an existing regular or irregular rhyme verb: blink or drink. Participants favored the past tense form (splinked or splank) that matched that of the semantically similar verb. In Experiment 2, we introduced novel verbs in a context suggesting that they were grammatically derived from nouns (i.e., denominals). Some current symbolic processing models propose that regular past tense forms should be preferred for such forms. When Ramscar's (2002) original contexts for derivational verbs were re-tested in this condition, we replicated his failure to find a preference for regular past tense forms. However, when the contexts were modified to make the grammatical process more salient, we did find a preference for regular past tense forms, suggesting that the derivational status might have been ambiguous in the original materials. In Experiment 3, we tested whether acceptability ratings for regular or irregular past tense forms of grammatically derived verbs could be explained by semantic distance metrics or by ratings of noun-to-verb derivational status. Ratings of semantic distance and grammatical derivation were orthogonal factors in Experiment 3. Only derivational status predicted acceptability ratings for regular past tense forms. Taken together, the present results suggest that semantic factors do not explain the regularization of irregular verbs in derivational contexts, although semantic factors can affect the choice of past tense forms in certain circumstances.

中文翻译：

---

单靠语义可以理解或理解构词吗？

关于语义和语法因素在构词中的相对作用的争论已被证明是当前关于语言表示和处理性质的辩论中的一个楔子问题。在本文中，我们重新审视了 Ramscar [Ramscar, M. (2002) 的主张。意义在屈折中的作用：为什么过去时不需要规则。Cognitive Psychology, 45, 45-94.] 是语义而不是语法因素影响英语动词的规则或不规则过去时形式的选择。在实验 1 中，我们首先复制了 Ramscar (2002) 的实验，该实验显示了语义对过去时变化选择的影响。在语义上下文中引入了一个新颖的动词 splink，让人联想到现有的规则或不规则押韵动词：blink 或 Drink。参与者喜欢与语义相似的动词匹配的过去时形式（splinked 或 splank）。在实验 2 中，我们在上下文中引入了新的动词，表明它们在语法上源自名词（即名词）。当前的一些符号处理模型建议，对于此类形式，应首选规则的过去时形式。当 Ramscar (2002) 在这种情况下重新测试派生动词的原始上下文时，我们重复了他未能找到对常规过去时形式的偏好。然而，当修改上下文以使语法过程更加突出时，我们确实发现了对规则过去时形式的偏好，这表明派生状态在原始材料中可能不明确。在实验 3 中，我们测试了语法派生动词的规则或不规则过去时形式的可接受性评级是否可以通过语义距离度量或名词到动词派生状态的评级来解释。语义距离和语法派生的评分是实验 3 中的正交因素。只有派生状态才能预测常规过去时形式的可接受性评分。综上所述，目前的结果表明语义因素不能解释派生语境中不规则动词的规则化，尽管语义因素在某些情况下会影响过去时形式的选择。语义距离和语法派生的评分是实验 3 中的正交因素。只有派生状态才能预测常规过去时形式的可接受性评分。综上所述，目前的结果表明语义因素不能解释派生语境中不规则动词的规则化，尽管语义因素在某些情况下会影响过去时形式的选择。语义距离和语法派生的评分是实验 3 中的正交因素。只有派生状态才能预测常规过去时形式的可接受性评分。综上所述，目前的结果表明语义因素不能解释派生语境中不规则动词的规则化，尽管语义因素在某些情况下会影响过去时形式的选择。