Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:05:08.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early morphological decomposition of suffixed words: Masked priming evidence with transposed-letter nonword primes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

ELISABETH BEYERSMANN ,
JON ANDONI DUÑABEITIA ,
MANUEL CARREIRAS ,
MAX COLTHEART  and
ANNE CASTLES
ELISABETH BEYERSMANN*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
JON ANDONI DUÑABEITIA
Affiliation:
Basque Centre on Cognition, Brain and Language
MANUEL CARREIRAS
Affiliation:
Basque Centre on Cognition, Brain and Language, and Basque Foundation for Science
MAX COLTHEART
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
ANNE CASTLES
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Elisabeth Beyersmann, Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. E-mail: lisi.beyersmann@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies have previously reported that the recognition of a stem target (e.g., teach) is facilitated by the prior masked presentation of a prime consisting of a derived form of it (e.g., teacher). We conducted two lexical decision experiments to investigate masked morphological priming in Spanish. Experiment 1 showed that equal magnitudes of masked stem-target priming are obtained for both morphologically complex word primes (e.g., doloroso-DOLOR [painful-PAIN]) and morphologically complex nonword primes that included letter transpositions within the stem (e.g., dlooroso-DOLOR). Experiment 2 used morphologically complex nonword primes comprising lexically illegal combinations of stems and suffixes (e.g., total + ito [a little total]). Priming was obtained for morphologically related nonword primes (e.g., totalito-TOTAL), but not for nonword primes that included letter transpositions within the pseudostem (e.g., ttoalito-TOTAL). Our data suggest that morphoorthographic parsing mechanisms benefit from semantic constraints at early stages in the reading system, which we discuss in the context of current morphological processing accounts.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , September 2013 , pp. 869 - 892
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, S. (1996). Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 775–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representations. In Butterworth, B. (Ed.), Language production (pp. 257–294). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Johnson, R. L., & Rayner, K. (2005). Letter transpositions within and across morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1327–1339.Google ScholarPubMed
Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2009). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: The case of prefixed words. Memory & Cognition, 37, 895–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duñabeitia, J. A., Kinoshita, S., Carreiras, M., & Norris, D. (in press). Is morpho-orthographic decomposition purely orthographic? Evidence from masked priming in the same-different task. Language & Cognitive Processes.Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Molinaro, N., Laka, I., Estévez, A., & Carreiras, M. (2009). N250 effects for letter transpositions depend on lexicality: Casual or causal? NeuroReport, 20, 381–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition, 105, 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2009). There is no clam with coats in the calm coast: Delimiting the transposed-letter priming effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1930–1947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, L. B., O'Connor, P. A., & Moscoso del Prado Martin, F. (2009). Early morphological processing is morpho-semantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 684–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 211–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2003). On the role of derivational affixes in recognizing complex words: Evidence from masked priming. In Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 209–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language and Speech, 30, 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In Bonin, P. (Ed.), The mental lexicon (pp. 1–23). New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. L., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 209–229.Google ScholarPubMed
Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupker, S. J., Perea, M., & Davis, C. J. (2008). Transposed letter priming effects: Consonants, vowels and letter frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manelis, L., & Tharp, D. (1977). The processing of affixed words. Memory & Cognition, 5, 690–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Is there a ‘fete’ in ‘fetish’? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2009). Adore-able not adorable? Orthographic underspecification studied with masked repetition priming. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 813–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Longtin, C. M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Transposed-letter priming effects for close versus distant transpositions. Experimental Psychology, 55, 397–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In Kinoshita, S. & Lupker, S. J. (Eds.), Masked priming—The state of the art (pp. 97–120). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2007). The role of external letter positions in visual word recognition. Psicothema, 19, 559–564.Google ScholarPubMed
Peressotti, F., & Grainger, J. (1999). The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 691–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother's brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., White, S., Johnson, R. L., & Liversedge, S. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There's a cost. Psychological Science, 17, 192–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.7.1). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rueckl, J. G., & Rimzhim, A. (in press). On the interaction of letter transpositions and morphemic boundaries. Language and Cognitive Processes.Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M. (2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In Assink, E. & Sandra, D. (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 113–137). Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 745–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M. (2010). A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar