- Email: [email protected]
Morphological Errors in Casual Conversation
Brain and Language 68, 144–150 (1999) Article ID brln.1999.2071, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Morphological Errors in Casual Conversation Z. S. Bond Department of Linguistics, Ohio University Occasionally, listeners’ strategies for dealing with casual speech lead them into an erroneous perception of the intended message—a slip of the ear. When such errors occur, listeners report hearing, as clearly and distinctly as any correctly perceived stretch of speech, something that does not correspond to the speakers’ utterance. From a collection of almost 1000 examples of misperceptions in English conversation, perceptual errors involving morphology suggest that listeners expect monomorphemic forms and treat phonological information as primary. Listeners are not particularly attentive to morphological information and may supply inflectional morphemes as needed by context. 1999 Academic Press Key Words: Perceptual errors; conversation; slip of the ear.
Even though the phonetic information supplied in ordinary conversation may be ambiguous or degraded, listeners usually recover the intended message rapidly and accurately. Occasionally, however, listeners’ strategies for understanding casual conversation lead them into an erroneous perception of the intended message—a slip of the ear. When such errors occur, listeners report hearing, as clearly and distinctly as any correctly perceived utterance, something that does not correspond to what a speaker has said. Perceptual errors can affect almost any property of an utterance, from its segmental inventory to its meaning. Some errors simply reflect the phonetic similarity of segments. Captain Cook heard as Captain Hook suggests that the listener interpreted the aspiration of the velar stop /k/ as a fricative. Other misperceptions offer insight into ways in which listeners use linguistic knowledge. The perceptual error Mrs. Winner ⇒ Mrs. Winter suggests that listeners use phonological knowledge to compensate for a supposedly reduced pronunciation of /t/. The utterance John’s nose is on crooked heard as John knows his own cooking indicates that when there is an error in part of speech assignment—N nose is interpreted as V knows—the following material is interpreted as an appropriate complement. Some misperceptions Address correspondence and reprint requests to Z. S. Bond, Department of Linguistics, 367 Gordy Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. 144 0093-934X/99 $30.00 Copyright 1999 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS IN CONVERSATION
145
show only a remote resemblance to their target, as I’m going to go back to bed and crush the noodles for I’m going to go back to bed until the news. Because there are many ways for listeners to misperceive a target utterance which implicates multiple kinds of linguistic information, it is not always straightforward to determine what property of an utterance has been misperceived. This report attempts to characterize perceptual errors that involved morphology in a relatively clear way. Perceptual errors associated with radical restructuring of the phonological material were eliminated from consideration. Such examples (as crush the noodles) do not lead to a clear analysis of a misperception. The selection of errors from the data set represents all examples in which a misperception appears to affect a morphological marker without other extensive restructuring of the target utterance. DATA SET
All the examples of perceptual errors concerning morphology in some way were selected from approximately 1000 English misperceptions. All have been gathered from ordinary conversational speech. A few errors have been obtained while participating as either a speaker or listener in a conversation during which a misperception occurred; others have been noted by observation of a misperception, detectable because the listener asked for clarification from the speaker. The majority of examples have been reported by interested students, friends, and colleagues. The data, therefore, consist of anecdotal reports gathered over a period of years. Consequently, the data set is probably skewed toward the more noticeable or bizarre misperceptions rather than faithfully reflecting the distribution of perceptual errors in casual conversation. This report is based on a portion of the complete data set, which will be available this year (Bond, in press). Although it would be desirable to have an estimate of the relative frequency of various types of morphological errors, this goal is problematic. In order to interpret frequencies of occurrence, we need to know with what frequency various morphological markers occur in casual conversation. To my knowledge, such information is not currently available. INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
In the misperception data set, perceptual errors affected morphemes at different rates. The most common morphological errors involved plural suffixes. Examples of these, occurring without other major phonological errors, are given in Table 1. Many of these errors involved reinterpreting phonetic material present in the utterance. That is, there was phonological material which could either be interpreted as an affix or be assigned to a stem. In the majority of errors in which a singular was interpreted as a plural, as in the following examples,
146
Z. S. BOND
TABLE 1 Misperceptions of Singular/Plural Are the Most Common A morphologically simple singular is interpreted as plural The white sauce ladies ⇒ the white socks ladies Dialect divergence ⇒ dialect diversions Her niece was in the hospital ⇒ her knees It will be done next year ⇒ in six years On an island with a moat surrounding it ⇒ with moats surrounding it Parachute ⇒ pair of shoes Anne Schwarz ⇒ had on shorts It’ll be a confusing weekend ⇒ You’re confusing weekends A plural suffix is reinterpreted as part of the stem The acts of God ⇒ the ax of God Those shoes ⇒ oh shoot Matches ⇒ mattress Book on primate infants ⇒ primate incest It depends on the Finns ⇒ on the spin They’re all Appalachian whites ⇒ Appalachian waste He got ten years in prison ⇒ tenure in prison How about your tires? ⇒ your title There are stars and . . . ⇒ Tarzan
a fricative was present in the utterances which could be interpreted as a plural suffix: dialect divergence ⇒ dialect diversions on an island with a moat surrounding it ⇒ with moats surrounding it Her niece was in the hospital ⇒ her knees In other examples, the reverse error occurred. A fricative representing a plural suffix was interpreted as part of the stem. For example, matches ⇒ mattress the acts of God ⇒ the ax of God Sometimes the fricative was preserved in the misperception but did not appear as the final segment of a stem, as if the sequence has undergone metathesis: They’re all Appalachian whites ⇒ Appalachian waste book on primate infants ⇒ primate incest Some plural forms occurring in misperceptions did not have obvious phonological support, but probably appeared by conforming the perception to grammatical requirements. For example, in the error
MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS IN CONVERSATION
147
It’ll be a confusing weekend ⇒ You’re confusing weekends the listener may have misinterpreted the beginning of the utterance and consequently supplied a plural form of weekend. Similarly, in the two errors parachute ⇒ pair of shoes It will be done next year ⇒ in six years the word pair requires a plural form of a following noun and the number six requires the following word to be plural. Finally, some plural suffixes were simply lost perceptually, as in the misperceptions: It depends on the Finns ⇒ on the spin He got ten years in prison ⇒ tenure in prison In other misperceptions of inflectional morphology, there was a strong tendency to interpret a morphologically complex form as monomorphemic. This imbalance is consistent with the observation that listeners tend to report monomorphemic forms when they are presented with one vs two morpheme homophones. For example, when presented with /blu/, listeners tend to write blue rather than blew. The examples which do not show extensive phonological changes are given in Table 2. As is the case with plural suffixes, phonological material was sometimes reinterpreted; at other times, phonological material was simply lost in misperceptions. One error opens the possibility that morphemes may exist as abstract categories which are not necessarily tied to the phonetic material representing them. In the slip of the ear my coffee cup refilled ⇒ my coffee cup fell the listener retained the past tense form of the verb refilled in the misperception fell, even though the error changed a regular past tense form to an irregular form. There are a few examples, given in Table 3, of reinterpreting one morpheme as another. All three examples affected inflectional suffixes. In all three, phonological material appears to be reinterpreted. OTHER MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS
Most perceptual errors involving morphology affected inflectional rather than derivational affixes. This may simply result from the fact that in conversation, inflected forms are probably more common than derived forms. The few examples of errors in derivational morphology are given in Table 4. These examples of reinterpretation are as likely to have phonological as morphological motivation. It may also be that derivational affixes differ from inflectional affixes in transparency.
148
Z. S. BOND
TABLE 2 Other Misperceptions of Inflectional Morphology A morphologically simple word is interpreted as a possessive This is six news at eight ⇒ Dick’s news A loose end in this problem ⇒ a leaf’s end A possessive suffix is reinterpreted as part of the stem I’ve never cooked anybody’s goose ⇒ cooked anybody mousse Olga’s son ⇒ the sun Good old zebra’s law ⇒ zebra slaw Skippers’ treat ⇒ trick or treat Joe’s going to ⇒ jaws going to A monomorphemic word is interpreted as a verb with a suffix I was through on a bus ⇒ I was thrown off a bus Couldn’t you say that was an SPC? ⇒ was misperceived A verbal suffix is interpreted as part of the stem Who’s calling? ⇒ Who’s Colleen? Plant dying ⇒ plant dung He runs a driving school ⇒ a drive-in school Citrus craving ⇒ citrus gravy Interestin’ ⇒ Enarson Cracked ⇒ track My coffee cup refilled ⇒ my coffee cup fell This friend of ours who visited ⇒ of ours is an idiot R.P.ized ⇒ RPI A mono-morphemic word is interpreted as containing a comparative Does he have any hair? ⇒ any higher
TABLE 3 One Suffix Is Interpreted as Another Long’s ⇒ lawns Missed the news ⇒ must a snoozed T’shows ⇒ Joe’s
TABLE 4 Misperceptions of Derivational Morphology He hasn’t heard of any viable reasons ⇒ buyable reasons How do you spell diverse? ⇒ divert Felicity conditions ⇒ ballistic conditions The most literate ⇒ most illiterate
MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS IN CONVERSATION
149
TABLE 5 Suffixes Were Sometimes Perceived Correctly Even When Stems Were Not I read Coomb’s paper last night ⇒ Kuhn’s paper Bloomfield’s personality was warped here ⇒ Whorfed here I have to say good-bye to the Frys ⇒ flies
Various perceptual errors took place in stems without affecting affixes. Examples are given in Table 5. In the first example, a name was misperceived but its possessive suffix remained unaffected. In the second example, a past tense suffix was retained in the misperception even when the target was heard as a proper noun forming a nonce form. In the third example, the plural suffix was perceived correctly while the noun was perceived erroneously. It is curious that all three examples are related to proper names in some way. A possible reason may be pressure from discourse. There are a number of examples of errors in which clitics are involved, all affecting contracted forms. Examples are given in Table 6. The same types of misperceptions affected clitics as affixes and clitics could be perceived correctly even when their hosts were not. The impression left by these slips is that contracted forms are treated no differently from words with affixes. TABLE 6 Errors Involving Clitics A contraction is interpreted as part of the stem The bottom’s all covered with eels ⇒ the bob . . . It’s typed ⇒ his type Four to six months we’ll get a house ⇒ four to six marks will get you a house Someone else isn’t neat this morning ⇒ is in heat this morning A stem is reinterpreted as containing a contracted form I get to leave this place ⇒ I can’t believe this place I can see you at four ⇒ I can’t see you at four Worse n that ⇒ Where’s Annette A contracted form is reinterpreted as a different contraction I’m horny ⇒ It’s morning It’ll be a confusing weekend ⇒ You’re confusing weekends Clitics were perceived correctly even when their hosts were not That’s a good idea for the future ⇒ What’s a good idea She doesn’t know what he’s doing? ⇒ know what she’s doing Andy’s going to fall asleep ⇒ Annie’s There’s Jay ⇒ Where’s Jay?
150
Z. S. BOND
CONCLUSIONS
In discussions about the mental lexicon, a primary issue is the access and understanding of morphologically complex words. Morphology has been viewed as actively involved in language understanding (decomposition) or as knowledge available in the mental lexicon as back-up for postperceptual analysis. Because of differences in transparency, inflectional and derivational morphemes may or may not function in the same way in the organization of the lexicon or in language use. Regular and irregular inflectional morphology may follow different principles (see Marslen-Wilson, 1989; Pinker & Prince, 1994; Sandra & Taft, 1994). An examination of perceptual errors does not allow us to decide between theoretical positions. Rather, the perceptual errors leave a number of impressions about the way that morphological information functions in language understanding: (1) Almost any inflectional suffix may be involved in a misperception. (2) Affixes and contracted forms have some independence within the lexicon. (3) Listeners tend to misperceive morphologically complex words as simple words rather than the reverse. (4) Misperceptions tend to have some phonological support. (5) Misperceptions may result from grammatical requirements. (6) Few errors affect derivational morphemes. When such errors do occur, they tend to be phonologically rather than morphologically based. (7) Stems may be misperceived without affecting affixes. Ultimately, theoretical accounts need to be compatible with observations of the ways listeners balance phonetic input and linguistic knowledge in understanding utterances. REFERENCES Bond, Z. S. In press. Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, R., Kostic, A., Savic, M., & Turvey, M. T. 1978. Lexical decision for inflected nouns, Language and Speech, 21, 166–173. Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, R., Kostic, A., & Turvey, M. T. 1980. Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon, Memory and Cognition, 8, 415–423. Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.) 1989. Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. 1994. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, & G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sandra, D., & Taft, M. (Eds.) 1994. Morphological structure, lexical representation and lexical access. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morphological Errors in Casual Conversation Z. S. Bond Department of Linguistics, Ohio University Occasionally, listeners’ strategies for dealing with casual speech lead them into an erroneous perception of the intended message—a slip of the ear. When such errors occur, listeners report hearing, as clearly and distinctly as any correctly perceived stretch of speech, something that does not correspond to the speakers’ utterance. From a collection of almost 1000 examples of misperceptions in English conversation, perceptual errors involving morphology suggest that listeners expect monomorphemic forms and treat phonological information as primary. Listeners are not particularly attentive to morphological information and may supply inflectional morphemes as needed by context. 1999 Academic Press Key Words: Perceptual errors; conversation; slip of the ear.
Even though the phonetic information supplied in ordinary conversation may be ambiguous or degraded, listeners usually recover the intended message rapidly and accurately. Occasionally, however, listeners’ strategies for understanding casual conversation lead them into an erroneous perception of the intended message—a slip of the ear. When such errors occur, listeners report hearing, as clearly and distinctly as any correctly perceived utterance, something that does not correspond to what a speaker has said. Perceptual errors can affect almost any property of an utterance, from its segmental inventory to its meaning. Some errors simply reflect the phonetic similarity of segments. Captain Cook heard as Captain Hook suggests that the listener interpreted the aspiration of the velar stop /k/ as a fricative. Other misperceptions offer insight into ways in which listeners use linguistic knowledge. The perceptual error Mrs. Winner ⇒ Mrs. Winter suggests that listeners use phonological knowledge to compensate for a supposedly reduced pronunciation of /t/. The utterance John’s nose is on crooked heard as John knows his own cooking indicates that when there is an error in part of speech assignment—N nose is interpreted as V knows—the following material is interpreted as an appropriate complement. Some misperceptions Address correspondence and reprint requests to Z. S. Bond, Department of Linguistics, 367 Gordy Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. 144 0093-934X/99 $30.00 Copyright 1999 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS IN CONVERSATION
145
show only a remote resemblance to their target, as I’m going to go back to bed and crush the noodles for I’m going to go back to bed until the news. Because there are many ways for listeners to misperceive a target utterance which implicates multiple kinds of linguistic information, it is not always straightforward to determine what property of an utterance has been misperceived. This report attempts to characterize perceptual errors that involved morphology in a relatively clear way. Perceptual errors associated with radical restructuring of the phonological material were eliminated from consideration. Such examples (as crush the noodles) do not lead to a clear analysis of a misperception. The selection of errors from the data set represents all examples in which a misperception appears to affect a morphological marker without other extensive restructuring of the target utterance. DATA SET
All the examples of perceptual errors concerning morphology in some way were selected from approximately 1000 English misperceptions. All have been gathered from ordinary conversational speech. A few errors have been obtained while participating as either a speaker or listener in a conversation during which a misperception occurred; others have been noted by observation of a misperception, detectable because the listener asked for clarification from the speaker. The majority of examples have been reported by interested students, friends, and colleagues. The data, therefore, consist of anecdotal reports gathered over a period of years. Consequently, the data set is probably skewed toward the more noticeable or bizarre misperceptions rather than faithfully reflecting the distribution of perceptual errors in casual conversation. This report is based on a portion of the complete data set, which will be available this year (Bond, in press). Although it would be desirable to have an estimate of the relative frequency of various types of morphological errors, this goal is problematic. In order to interpret frequencies of occurrence, we need to know with what frequency various morphological markers occur in casual conversation. To my knowledge, such information is not currently available. INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
In the misperception data set, perceptual errors affected morphemes at different rates. The most common morphological errors involved plural suffixes. Examples of these, occurring without other major phonological errors, are given in Table 1. Many of these errors involved reinterpreting phonetic material present in the utterance. That is, there was phonological material which could either be interpreted as an affix or be assigned to a stem. In the majority of errors in which a singular was interpreted as a plural, as in the following examples,
146
Z. S. BOND
TABLE 1 Misperceptions of Singular/Plural Are the Most Common A morphologically simple singular is interpreted as plural The white sauce ladies ⇒ the white socks ladies Dialect divergence ⇒ dialect diversions Her niece was in the hospital ⇒ her knees It will be done next year ⇒ in six years On an island with a moat surrounding it ⇒ with moats surrounding it Parachute ⇒ pair of shoes Anne Schwarz ⇒ had on shorts It’ll be a confusing weekend ⇒ You’re confusing weekends A plural suffix is reinterpreted as part of the stem The acts of God ⇒ the ax of God Those shoes ⇒ oh shoot Matches ⇒ mattress Book on primate infants ⇒ primate incest It depends on the Finns ⇒ on the spin They’re all Appalachian whites ⇒ Appalachian waste He got ten years in prison ⇒ tenure in prison How about your tires? ⇒ your title There are stars and . . . ⇒ Tarzan
a fricative was present in the utterances which could be interpreted as a plural suffix: dialect divergence ⇒ dialect diversions on an island with a moat surrounding it ⇒ with moats surrounding it Her niece was in the hospital ⇒ her knees In other examples, the reverse error occurred. A fricative representing a plural suffix was interpreted as part of the stem. For example, matches ⇒ mattress the acts of God ⇒ the ax of God Sometimes the fricative was preserved in the misperception but did not appear as the final segment of a stem, as if the sequence has undergone metathesis: They’re all Appalachian whites ⇒ Appalachian waste book on primate infants ⇒ primate incest Some plural forms occurring in misperceptions did not have obvious phonological support, but probably appeared by conforming the perception to grammatical requirements. For example, in the error
MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS IN CONVERSATION
147
It’ll be a confusing weekend ⇒ You’re confusing weekends the listener may have misinterpreted the beginning of the utterance and consequently supplied a plural form of weekend. Similarly, in the two errors parachute ⇒ pair of shoes It will be done next year ⇒ in six years the word pair requires a plural form of a following noun and the number six requires the following word to be plural. Finally, some plural suffixes were simply lost perceptually, as in the misperceptions: It depends on the Finns ⇒ on the spin He got ten years in prison ⇒ tenure in prison In other misperceptions of inflectional morphology, there was a strong tendency to interpret a morphologically complex form as monomorphemic. This imbalance is consistent with the observation that listeners tend to report monomorphemic forms when they are presented with one vs two morpheme homophones. For example, when presented with /blu/, listeners tend to write blue rather than blew. The examples which do not show extensive phonological changes are given in Table 2. As is the case with plural suffixes, phonological material was sometimes reinterpreted; at other times, phonological material was simply lost in misperceptions. One error opens the possibility that morphemes may exist as abstract categories which are not necessarily tied to the phonetic material representing them. In the slip of the ear my coffee cup refilled ⇒ my coffee cup fell the listener retained the past tense form of the verb refilled in the misperception fell, even though the error changed a regular past tense form to an irregular form. There are a few examples, given in Table 3, of reinterpreting one morpheme as another. All three examples affected inflectional suffixes. In all three, phonological material appears to be reinterpreted. OTHER MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS
Most perceptual errors involving morphology affected inflectional rather than derivational affixes. This may simply result from the fact that in conversation, inflected forms are probably more common than derived forms. The few examples of errors in derivational morphology are given in Table 4. These examples of reinterpretation are as likely to have phonological as morphological motivation. It may also be that derivational affixes differ from inflectional affixes in transparency.
148
Z. S. BOND
TABLE 2 Other Misperceptions of Inflectional Morphology A morphologically simple word is interpreted as a possessive This is six news at eight ⇒ Dick’s news A loose end in this problem ⇒ a leaf’s end A possessive suffix is reinterpreted as part of the stem I’ve never cooked anybody’s goose ⇒ cooked anybody mousse Olga’s son ⇒ the sun Good old zebra’s law ⇒ zebra slaw Skippers’ treat ⇒ trick or treat Joe’s going to ⇒ jaws going to A monomorphemic word is interpreted as a verb with a suffix I was through on a bus ⇒ I was thrown off a bus Couldn’t you say that was an SPC? ⇒ was misperceived A verbal suffix is interpreted as part of the stem Who’s calling? ⇒ Who’s Colleen? Plant dying ⇒ plant dung He runs a driving school ⇒ a drive-in school Citrus craving ⇒ citrus gravy Interestin’ ⇒ Enarson Cracked ⇒ track My coffee cup refilled ⇒ my coffee cup fell This friend of ours who visited ⇒ of ours is an idiot R.P.ized ⇒ RPI A mono-morphemic word is interpreted as containing a comparative Does he have any hair? ⇒ any higher
TABLE 3 One Suffix Is Interpreted as Another Long’s ⇒ lawns Missed the news ⇒ must a snoozed T’shows ⇒ Joe’s
TABLE 4 Misperceptions of Derivational Morphology He hasn’t heard of any viable reasons ⇒ buyable reasons How do you spell diverse? ⇒ divert Felicity conditions ⇒ ballistic conditions The most literate ⇒ most illiterate
MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS IN CONVERSATION
149
TABLE 5 Suffixes Were Sometimes Perceived Correctly Even When Stems Were Not I read Coomb’s paper last night ⇒ Kuhn’s paper Bloomfield’s personality was warped here ⇒ Whorfed here I have to say good-bye to the Frys ⇒ flies
Various perceptual errors took place in stems without affecting affixes. Examples are given in Table 5. In the first example, a name was misperceived but its possessive suffix remained unaffected. In the second example, a past tense suffix was retained in the misperception even when the target was heard as a proper noun forming a nonce form. In the third example, the plural suffix was perceived correctly while the noun was perceived erroneously. It is curious that all three examples are related to proper names in some way. A possible reason may be pressure from discourse. There are a number of examples of errors in which clitics are involved, all affecting contracted forms. Examples are given in Table 6. The same types of misperceptions affected clitics as affixes and clitics could be perceived correctly even when their hosts were not. The impression left by these slips is that contracted forms are treated no differently from words with affixes. TABLE 6 Errors Involving Clitics A contraction is interpreted as part of the stem The bottom’s all covered with eels ⇒ the bob . . . It’s typed ⇒ his type Four to six months we’ll get a house ⇒ four to six marks will get you a house Someone else isn’t neat this morning ⇒ is in heat this morning A stem is reinterpreted as containing a contracted form I get to leave this place ⇒ I can’t believe this place I can see you at four ⇒ I can’t see you at four Worse n that ⇒ Where’s Annette A contracted form is reinterpreted as a different contraction I’m horny ⇒ It’s morning It’ll be a confusing weekend ⇒ You’re confusing weekends Clitics were perceived correctly even when their hosts were not That’s a good idea for the future ⇒ What’s a good idea She doesn’t know what he’s doing? ⇒ know what she’s doing Andy’s going to fall asleep ⇒ Annie’s There’s Jay ⇒ Where’s Jay?
150
Z. S. BOND
CONCLUSIONS
In discussions about the mental lexicon, a primary issue is the access and understanding of morphologically complex words. Morphology has been viewed as actively involved in language understanding (decomposition) or as knowledge available in the mental lexicon as back-up for postperceptual analysis. Because of differences in transparency, inflectional and derivational morphemes may or may not function in the same way in the organization of the lexicon or in language use. Regular and irregular inflectional morphology may follow different principles (see Marslen-Wilson, 1989; Pinker & Prince, 1994; Sandra & Taft, 1994). An examination of perceptual errors does not allow us to decide between theoretical positions. Rather, the perceptual errors leave a number of impressions about the way that morphological information functions in language understanding: (1) Almost any inflectional suffix may be involved in a misperception. (2) Affixes and contracted forms have some independence within the lexicon. (3) Listeners tend to misperceive morphologically complex words as simple words rather than the reverse. (4) Misperceptions tend to have some phonological support. (5) Misperceptions may result from grammatical requirements. (6) Few errors affect derivational morphemes. When such errors do occur, they tend to be phonologically rather than morphologically based. (7) Stems may be misperceived without affecting affixes. Ultimately, theoretical accounts need to be compatible with observations of the ways listeners balance phonetic input and linguistic knowledge in understanding utterances. REFERENCES Bond, Z. S. In press. Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, R., Kostic, A., Savic, M., & Turvey, M. T. 1978. Lexical decision for inflected nouns, Language and Speech, 21, 166–173. Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, R., Kostic, A., & Turvey, M. T. 1980. Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon, Memory and Cognition, 8, 415–423. Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.) 1989. Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. 1994. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, & G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sandra, D., & Taft, M. (Eds.) 1994. Morphological structure, lexical representation and lexical access. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.