Tessa Bent, Adam Buchwald, Joan Bybee, and Susannah Levi for helpful discussion
Albright, A., and B. Hayes. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/ experimental study. Cognition 90, 119-61.
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes,10. 425-455.
Kapatsinski, V. M. 2005. Characteristics of a rule-based default are dissociable: Evidence against the Dual Mechanism Model. In S. Franks, F. Y. Gladney, and M. Tasseva-Kurtchieva, eds. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting, 136-46. Michigan Slavic Publications.
Pinker, S., and A. Prince. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
Pinker, S., and A. Prince. 1994. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, and G. K. Iverson, eds. The reality of linguistic rules, 321-51. Benjamins.
Breakdown by place of articulation of final C
Extracting the dependencies
For a dependency between a part of the root and a suffix to be formed, many roots must share the same sublexical chunk and the same stem extension
Is this the case?
What are the major schemas?
Are they all local?
Separate networks for –a and –i verbs
The most connected –a verbs min number of neighbors = 20
The most connected –i verbs min number of neighbors = 35
Adding some less connected –i verbs (min #of neighbors = 20)
There are large clusters of verbs in the lexicon in which all verbs are similar to each other in exactly the same way, which could give rise to schema formation.
Many of such schemas would not involve sharing segments that are adjacent to the suffix.