Differential recall of derived and inflected word forms in working memory: examining the role of morphological information in simple and complex working memory tasks

Abstract

Working memory (WM) has been described as an interface between cognition and action, or a system for access to a limited amount of information needed in complex cognition. Access to morphological information is needed for comprehending and producing sentences. The present study probed WM for morphologically complex word forms in Finnish, a morphologically rich language. We studied monomorphemic (boy), inflected (boy+’s), and derived (boy+hood) words in three tasks. Simple span, immediate serial recall of words, in Experiment 1, is assumed to mainly rely on information in the focus of attention. Sentence span, a dual task combining sentence reading with recall of the last word (Experiment 2) or of a word not included in the sentence (Experiment 3) is assumed to involve establishment of a search set in long-term memory for fast activation into the focus of attention. Recall was best for monomorphemic and worst for inflected word forms with performance on derived words in between. However, there was an interaction between word type and experiment, suggesting that complex span is more sensitive to morphological complexity in derivations than simple span. This was explored in a within-subjects Experiment 4 combining all three tasks. An interaction between morphological complexity and task was replicated. Both inflected and derived forms increased load in WM. In simple span, recall of inflectional forms resulted in form errors. Complex span tasks were more sensitive to morphological load in derived words, possibly resulting from interference from morphological neighbors in the mental lexicon. The results are best understood as involving competition among inflectional forms when binding words from input into an output structure, and competition from morphological neighbors in secondary memory during cumulative retrieval-encoding cycles. Models of verbal recall need to be able to represent morphological as well as phonological and semantic information.

Recalling Arabic and English Prefixed and Suffixed Verbs among Arabic-English Bilingual Speakers: An Experimental Study in Relation to Working Memory

“…There is a substantial body of research on word recall in relation to WM and how WM processes simple and complex words. Further, many studies have been conducted on prefixed and suffixed words and how they are recalled in WM (Carroll, 2008;Cohen-Mimran, Adwan-Mansour, & Sapir, 2013;Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 2007;McKinnon, Allen, & Osterhout, 2003;Rastle & Davis, 2008;Service & Maury 2014;Service & Tujulin, 2002;Taft & Forster, 1975;Veinovic, Milin, & Zdravcoic, 2010) . Further, in the past several decades, many studies have been conducted on the relationship between WM and L1 and L2.…”

“…In addition, in the past several decades, many studies have been conducted on how morphologically complex words are processed and decomposed in the brain (Cohen-Mimran et al, 2013;Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 2007;McKinnon et al, 2003;Rastle & Davis, 2008;Service & Maury , 2014;Service & Tujulin, 2002;Taft & Foster, 1975). These researchers claim that prefixes and suffixes have an effect on WM performance to recall words.…”

Effects of salience and working memory on L2 processing of english relative clauses with past participles and past participial reduced relative clauses by L1 Thai learners

“…(e.g., Rungrojsuwan, 2015;Service & Maury, 2015) and salience (e.g., Wolfram & Hatfield, 1984;Wolfram, 1985;Bayley, 1994;Solt et al, 2003;Klein et al, 2004).…”