This document summarizes a preliminary study that examined the effects of word frequency and plurality on L2 word recognition in Japanese learners of English. The study tested 32 Japanese undergraduate and graduate students using a picture matching task and an L1 translation matching task with English nouns that were either singular-dominant, plural-dominant, or had similar frequencies for both forms. Results from the L1 matching task showed significantly faster response times for plural-dominant nouns in plural form compared to singular form, but no differences for other word types. The picture matching task showed a significant interaction where response times differed between singular and plural forms depending on the word type. Overall, the results provide preliminary evidence that plurality information may be represented for

1. Word Frequency
Effects and Plurality in
L2 Word Recognition
—A Preliminary Study–
June 28, 2015
45th CELES
Wakayama University
1

2. The handout is available from…
2

3. The handout is available from…
3

4. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
4

5. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
5

6. • Morphology
• Inflectional morphology
• -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s
• Derivational morphology
• prefix
• pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive)
• suffix
• -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly)
Introduction
6
Morphological Processing

7. • Morphology
• Inflectional morphology
• -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s
• Derivational morphology
• prefix
• pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive)
• suffix
• -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly)
Introduction
7
Morphological Processing

8. • Morphology
• Inflectional morphology
• -ed, -ing, 3rd-person -s, plural -s
• Derivational morphology
• prefix
• pro- (e.g., proactive), re- (e.g., reactive)
• suffix
• -ness (e.g., kindness), -ly (e.g., kindly)
Introduction
8
Morphological Processing

9. • Recognition process
• Visual word recognition
• How morphology is processed in reading
• Auditory word recognition
• How morphology is processed in listening
Introduction
9
Morphological Processing

10. • Recognition process
• Visual word recognition
• How morphology is processed in reading
• Auditory word recognition
• How morphology is processed in listening
Introduction
10
Morphological Processing

11. Findings of This Study
• Task characteristics change the
process of morphological
processing
• Only plural-dominant nouns
have a strong connection to
concepts
11
Introduction

12. Yu TAMURA
(Graduate School, Nagoua Univ.)
Yoshito NISHIMURA
(Graduate School, Nagoua Univ.)
12

13. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
13

14. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
14

15. • Word Association Hypothesis
Background
15
Bilingual Mental Lexicon
L2L1
Concepts

16. • Conceptual Mediation Hypothesis
Background
16
Bilingual Mental Lexicon
L2L1
Concepts

17. • the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll &
Stewart, 1994)
Background
17
Bilingual Mental Lexicon
L2L1
Concepts

18. • The developmental hypothesis
• the more proficiency develops, the stronger the
connection between concepts and L2 becomes
(e.g., Kawakami, 1994)
• the more proficiency develops, the less
interference effects of L1 occur (e.g.,
Sunderman & Kroll, 2006)
• conceptual links and processing skills
gradually develop (e.g., Yamashita, 2007)
Background
18
Bilingual Mental Lexicon

19. • Factors affecting the connections
• Frequency
• high frequency L2 words activate
conceptual links (e.g., Habuchi, 2005)
• Concreteness
• concrete and high frequency words
processed through concept mediation (e.g.,
Nakagawa, 2009)
Background
19
Bilingual Mental Lexicon

20. • Used to approach the issue of morphological
processing and its storage
• For reception (e.g., Baayen, Dijkstra, &
Schreuder, 1997; Baayen, Lieber, & Schreuder,
1997; Sereno & Jongman, 1997; Taft, 2004)
• For production (e.g., Baayen, Levelt,
Schreuder, & Ernestus, 2008; New, Brysbaert,
Segui, Ferrand, & Rastle, 2004; Beyersmanna
,
Dutton, Amer, Schiller, & Britta, 2015)
Background
20
Frequency Effects

21. • Regularly inflected forms
• High frequency -> full-form storage
• Low frequency -> morphological decomposition
(e.g., Stemberger & MacWhinny, 1991)
Background
21
Frequency Effects

22. • Two types of number features
• conceptual number
• “the numerosity of the subject’s referent in
the speaker’s mental model” (Humphreys &
Bock, 2005)
• e.g., scissors, [bacon and eggs]
• grammatical number
• linguistically expressed number
• e.g., plural marker -s in English
Background
22
Plurality

23. • Conceptual plural information disturbs number
agreement process (e.g., Eberhard, 1999;
Humphreys & Bock, 2005; Vigliocco, Butterworth,
& Semenza, 1995; Vigliocco, Hartsuiker, Jarema,
& Kolk, 1996)
• Plurality is psycholinguistically marked (e.g., Bock
& Miller, 1991)
• High frequency plurals (plural-dominant plurals)
might have a strong connection to plurality (Barker
& Nicol, 2000)
• L2 learners may be able to represent conceptual
plurality (Kusanagi, Tamura, & Fukuta, 2015)
Background
23
Plurality

24. • Researching in word recognition process…
• frequency
• concreteness
Background
24
Motivation of the study

25. • Researching in word recognition process…
• frequency
• concreteness
• grammatical information <-this should also be
stored with L2 words and used in processing
• As a preliminary study
• this study focused on plurality (number
information)
Background
25
Motivation of the study

26. • High frequency -> conceptual links
• Plural-dominant plurals -> strong link to plurality
• L2 learners’ use of conceptual plurality
• Plural dominant-plurals might be processed
through conceptual link?
Background
26
Hypothesis

27. • High frequency -> conceptual links
• Plural-dominant plurals -> strong link to plurality
• L2 learners’ use of conceptual plurality
• Plural dominant-plurals might be processed
through conceptual link?
• This advantage might not be found through L1
route <- Japanese doesn’t mark number
morphologically.
Background
27
Hypothesis

28. • Plural-dominant plurals
• Singular-dominant singulars
Background
28
Hypothesis
L2L1
Concepts

29. • At least high frequent plurals might be
represented with number information either
semantically or morphologically.
Background
29
Hypothesis

30. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
30

31. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
31

32. • 32 Japanese undergraduate and
graduate students
• 58% had some experience in staying
in English-speaking countries
(Min = 2 weeks, Max = 54 months)
Table 1. Background Information of the Participants
The Present Study
32
Participants
Age TOEIC Score
N M SD M SD
Participants 32 24.77 5.34 824.22 113.12

33. 1. Frequency list of nouns (both singular and plural
forms) from British National Corpus (BNC)
2. 12 words which double or triple in frequency of
singular form compared to plural form -> singular-
dominant words
The Present Study
33
Stimuli

34. 3. 12 words which double or triple in frequency of
plural form compared to singular form -> plural
dominant words
4. 12 words whose frequency of singular and
plural form was almost same. -> control words
The Present Study
34
Stimuli

35. • The base frequency (sig + pl) was controlled
among the three groups
Table 2. Mean Frequency and SD in Parentheses
The Present Study
35
Stimuli
singular plural base
sig-domminant
25.55
(15.26)
10.38
(6.82)
35.93
(21.52)
pl-dominant
9.23
(5.71)
21.84
(16.52)
31.06
(21.63)
control
18.50
(9.89)
18.08
(10.32)
36.58
(19.45)

36. The Present Study
36
Stimuli
sig-dominant pl-dominant control
camera
dragon
engine
salad
ship
train
bowl
carpet
cat
eagle
photo
sword
biscuit
leaf
nail
shoe
sock
toy
bean
flower
glove
lip
potato
soldier
cloud
goat
monkey
nurse
pig
ticket
bee
ear
egg
key
mountain
rabbit
Table 3. List of Test Items

37. • Norming study
• Participants:
• 3 Japanese graduate students
• Task:
• Picture naming in English and Japanese
• Results:
• All the test pictures correctly named as
target L2 and L1
• All the filler pictures elicited non-target words
-> NO responses could work
The Present Study
37
Stimuli

38. •Picture-matching Task on PC
The Present Study
38
Experiment
+
1000ms
cat
+
500ms
1000ms
500ms

39. •L1-matching Task on PC
The Present Study
39
Experiment
+
1000ms
cat
+
猫
500ms
1000ms
500ms

40. • judge whether the target L2 words matched
L1 translation / picture
• 36 test items (12*3) presented either in
singular or plural form
• 18 test items (6*3) per task
• Carefully counterbalanced
• 18 test items -> always YES response
• 36 filler items -> YES: 18 items, NO: 18 items
The Present Study
40
Experiment

41. • The order of the tasks counterbalanced:
• Pic -> L1, L1 -> Pic
• After the two tasks
• Familiarity questionnaire (instructions are in
Japanese)
• 5-point Likert scale
• 36 items (singular or plural form) which the
participants did not see in the matching tasks
• “How much have you seen or heard the words?”
(1: I’ve never seen – 5: I’ve often seen )
The Present Study
41
Experiment

42. • Erroneous responses removed (L1-matching:
5%, Pic-matching: 4%)
• Log transformation (base = 2)
• Outliers (M +/- 2SD of each participant) removed
(L1-matching: 4%, Pic-matching: 5%)
The Present Study
42
Analysis

43. • 2*3*2 ANOVA (within participants)
• Task type (2 levels) : L1/ picture matching
• Noun type (3 levels) : singular-dominant,
plural-dominant, control
• Presentation condition(2 levels): singular/
plural form
• Statistically significant three-way interaction
• F (2, 62) = 3.41, p < .05
The Present Study
43
Analysis

44. • 3*2 ANOVA (within participants) for each task
• Noun type (3 levels)
• singular-dominant, plural-dominant, control
• Presentation condition(2 levels)
• singular/ plural form
The Present Study
44
Analysis

45. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
45

46. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
46

47. 47
Overall Accuracy Scores
Results
k M SD 95%CI
Picture-mathing 18 .94 .06 [.92, .96]
L1-matching 18 .96 .05 [.94, .98]
Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics of Overall Mean Accuracy Scores
N = 32

48. 48
L1 Matching
Results
k M SD 95%CI
sig-domminant
sig 3 573 217 [498, 648]
pl 3 616 237 [534, 698]
pl-dominant
sig 3 551 207 [479, 623]
pl 3 584 166 [526, 641]
control
sig 3 575 183 [511, 638]
pl 3 563 191 [500, 625]
Table 5.
Descriptive Statistics of Reading Time in L1-matching task(ms)
N = 32

49. Results
49
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI

50. Results
50
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Almost significant interaction
F(1, 53) = 2.58, p = .09, ηp2 = .08

51. Results
51
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant simple main effects
F(1, 31) = 5.54, p = .03, ηp2 = .15

52. Results
52
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant simple main effects
F(1, 31) = 5.05, p = .03, ηp2 = .14

53. Results
53
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
a
No significant simple main effects
F(1, 31) = 0.27, p = .60, ηp2 = .01

54. Results
54
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Almost significant interaction
F(2, 62) = 2.40, p = .10, ηp2 = .07

55. Results
55
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Almost significant interaction
F(2, 62) = 2.40, p = .10, ηp2 = .07
But no meaningful differences

56. 56
Picture Matching
Results
K M SD 95%CI
sig-domminant
sig 3 619 185 [554, 683]
pl 3 652 202 [582, 722]
pl-dominant
sig 3 650 210 [578, 723]
pl 3 580 203 [509, 650]
control
sig 3 592 158 [537, 646]
pl 3 584 180 [522, 646]
Table 6.
Descriptive Statistics of Reading Time in Picture-matching task(ms)
N = 32

57. Results
57
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI

58. Results
58
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant interaction
F(2, 62) = 4.28, p = .02, ηp2 = .12

59. Results
59
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
No significant simple main effects
F(1, 31) = 2.23, p = .15, ηp2 = .07

60. Results
60
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
Significant simple main effects
F(1, 31) = 6.97, p = .01, ηp2 = .18

61. Results
61
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
No significant simple main effects
F(1, 31) = 0.06, p = .81, ηp2 = .002

62. Results
62
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
sig > pl (t [31] = 2.88, p = .001)

63. Results
63
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
sig > ctrl (t [31] = 2.58, p = .015)

64. Results
64
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Log RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI
pl = ctrl (t [31] = 0.66, p = .514)

65. 65
Familiarity Questionnaire
Results
k M SD 95%CI
sig-domminant
sig 6 4.44 0.59 [4.24, 4.65]
pl 6 4.47 0.56 [4.27, 4.66]
pl-dominant
sig 6 4.40 0.67 [4.16, 4.63]
pl 6 4.55 0.53 [4.36, 4.73]
control
sig 6 4.51 0.55 [4.32, 4.70]
pl 6 4.49 0.71 [4.24, 4.73]
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics of the Results of the Familiarity Questionnaire
N = 32, 5-point Likert scale

66. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
66

67. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
67

68. • singular-dominant
• singular form (e.g., cat)
• plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant
• singular form (e.g., bean)
• plural form (e.g., beans)
Discussion
68
L1 Matching

69. • singular-dominant
• singular form (e.g., cat) -> faster
• plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant
• singular form (e.g., bean) -> faster
• plural form (e.g., beans)
Discussion
69
L1 Matching

70. • singular forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cat)
• plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural-forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant (e.g., beans)
Discussion
70
L1 Matching

71. • singular forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cat)
• plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant (e.g., beans)
Discussion
71
L1 Matching
No significant difference
No significant difference

72. • Frequency effects
• if plural-dominant plurals are processed faster
than singular-dominant plurals…
• if singular-dominant singulars are processed
faster than plural dominant singulars…
-> frequency effects
• However, this was not the case in L1
matching condition.
• Both plurals were processed through
morphological decomposition
Discussion
72
L1 Matching

73. • singular-dominant
• singular form (e.g., cat)
• plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant
• singular form (e.g., bean)
• plural form (e.g., beans)
Discussion
73
Picture Matching

74. • singular-dominant
• singular form (e.g., cat)
• plural form (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant
• singular form (e.g., bean)
• plural form (e.g., beans) -> faster
Discussion
74
Picture Matching
-> No significant difference

75. • singular forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cat)
• plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cats)
• plural-dominant (e.g., beans)
Discussion
75
Picture Matching

76. • singular forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cat)
• plural-dominant (e.g., bean)
• plural forms
• singular-dominant (e.g., cats)
• plural dominant (e.g., beans) -> faster
Discussion
76
Picture Matching
No significant difference

77. • Frequency Effects
• Singular-dominant singulars -> NO
• Plural-dominant plurals -> YES
Discussion
77
Picture Matching

78. • L1 matching task
• L2 words -> semantic information (L1)
• No number information needed to process
• Always morphological decomposition
irrespective of frequency
• Picture matching
• L2 words -> conceptual information (Picture)
• Strong connection between plural-dominant
plurals and plurality may result in making faster
processing route to concepts
Discussion
78
Assymetrical Frequency Effects?

79. • Plural-dominant plurals
• Picture-matching condition
• frequency effects -> full-form storage?
• L1-matching condition
• task effects (L2 -> L1) led the learners to
process through morphological decomposition
• Singular-dominant singulars
• Picture-matching condition
• no frequency advantage -> enough time for
singular-dominant plurals to be decomposed?
Discussion
79
Assymetrical Frequency Effects?

80. • Singular-dominant singulars
• Plural-dominant singulars
• Plural-dominant plurals
• Singular-dominant plurals
Discussion
80
Processing Routes
L2L1
Concepts
decomposition
full-form

81. • Number of test items
• Difficulty in controlling base frequency and
frequency dominance
• Only concretes items can be used
• Intervals between the recognition of L2 and L1 or
Picture
• How can we handle plural forms of abstract
nouns?
• What if the picture would have been multilple
objects?
Discussion
81
Limitations

82. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
82

83. Overview
• Introduction
• Background
• The Present Study
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
83

84. • Plurals with high frequency
• direct access to concepts
• full-form processing
• Singulars with high frequency
• no firm evidence of frequency effects
• singular is always easy to process irrespective of
frequency?
• Future research
• different type of nouns
• not only reception but production
84
Frequency and Plurality
Conclusion

85. Baayen, R. H., Lieber, R., & Schreuder, R. (1997). The morphological complexity of simplex nouns. Linguistics,
35, 861–877. doi:10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.861
Baayen, R., Levelt, W., Schreuder, R., & Ernestus, M. (2007). Paradigmatic structure in speech production.
Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 43, 1–29. Retrieved from http://
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cls/pcls/2007/00000043/00000001/art00001
Barker, J., & Nicol, J. (2000). Word frequency effects on the processing of subject-verb number agreement.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 99–106. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
10723714
Beyersmann, E., Dutton, E. M., Amer, S., Schiller, N. O., & Biedermann, B. (2015). The production of singular-
and plural-dominant nouns in Dutch. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 867–876. doi:
10.1080/23273798.2015.1027236
Biedermann, B., Beyersmann, E., Mason, C., & Nickels, L. (2013). Does plural dominance play a role in spoken
picture naming? A comparison of unimpaired and impaired speakers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 712–
736. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2013.05.001
Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93. doi:
10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7
Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in
English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560–578. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2662
Habuchi, Y. (2005). Daini gengo gakusyu-sya no tango syori ni oyobosu goi to gainen no rengo-kyodo no eikyo
[The effects of associative strength between lexical and conceptual representations on word processing in
second language learners]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76,1–9.
Humphreys, K. R., & Bock, K. (2005). Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
12, 689–95. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16447383
References
85

86. Kawakami, A. (1994). Goi-Gainen-kankei ni okeru daini gengo no syujyukudo no eikyo [The effect of proficiency in
a second language on lexical-conceptual representation]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 64, 426–433.
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford
University Press.
Kusanagi, K., Tamura, Y., & Fukuta, J. (2015). The notional number attraction in English as a foreign language: A
self-paced reading study. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences, 16, 77–96.
Nakagawa, C. (2009). Examination of the developmental hypothesis on the revised hierarchical model. Annual
Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 121–130.
New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in
French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 568–585.
Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25, 425–
437. doi:10.3758/BF03201119
Stemberger, J. P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms.
Memory & Cognition, 14, 17–26. doi:10.3758/BF03209225
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 745–765.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing Subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of
semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186–215. doi:10.1006/jmla.
1995.1009
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or More Labels on the Bottles ? Notional Concord in
Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407–442.
Yamashita, J. (2007). Investigating asymmetry in EFL Learners’ mental lexicon: Connections between lexical and
Conceptual representations in Ll and L2. JACET Journal, 45, 63–79.
References
86

87. Word Frequency Effects and Plurality
in L2 Word Recognition
–A Preliminary Study–
contact info Yu Tamura
Graduate School, Nagoya University
yutamura@nagoya-u.jp
http://www.tamurayu.wordpress.com/
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
8.68.89.09.29.4
LogTransformedMeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching
Picture-matching
87

88. Results
88
400500600700
MeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
L1-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI

89. Results
89
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
pluralMeanRT(ms)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
L1-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI

90. Results
90
400500600700
MeanRT(ms)
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
plural
Picture-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI

91. Results
91
singular−dominant plural−dominant control
singular
pluralMeanRT(ms)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Picture-matching (Raw RT)
Note. Error bar represents 95%CI

92. Results
92
0 500 1000 1500
050010001500
singular−dominant
singular form
pluralform
L1
Pic
0 500 1000 1500
050010001500
plural−dominant
singular form
pluralform
L1
Pic
0 500 1000 1500
050010001500
control
singular form
pluralform
L1
Pic
Mean Raw RT Plot (N = 32)