Interactive Activation Accounts of Morphological Decomposition: Finding the Trap in Mousetrap?

Andrews, Sally; Davis, Colin J.

doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2067

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, these findings suggest that confusability of affixes of dual membership tend to hamper or delay the processing of the derived words that include them. Our study results offer additional supporting evidence for the effect of homophony of affixes (Andrews & Davis, 1999;Hay & Baayen, 2003;Järvikivi et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…To be specific, the greater the perceptual affixal salience, the more likely the morphological decomposition into base and affix is to operate in the processing of derived words. A variety of factors affecting affixal salience have been studied including orthographic length of affix, type and token frequency of affix, productivity of affix, confusability or homonymy of affix (Andrews & Davis, 1999;Baayen, 1994;Hay & Baayen, 2003;Järvikivi, Bertram, & Niemi, 2006). For instance, Järvikivi, Bertram and Niemi (2006) showed that affixes with fewer allomorphs increase affixal salience and thus enhance morphological decomposition in processing Finnish derived words.…”

Section: Costs or Benefits Of Processing Of Complex Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lexical Processing of English Derived Words by Korean EFL Learners and NSE

Yun¹

2019

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate has continued about how L1 speakers process morphologically complex words. Consensus has been divided between single-and dual-route processing models. We conducted lexical decision experiments with a wide variety of English derived words to investigate how Korean EFL learners and L1 English speakers access complex words. First, we show that English prefixed or suffixed words are processed with greater cost than simplex words for both English L1 speakers and EFL learners. Second, suffixed words are processed with faster response times and higher accuracy than prefixed words. Third, complex words are accessed differently in terms of affixal salience according to the individual affixes that belong to the same morphological classes. Finally, the homophony of affixes with dual membership induces Korean EFL learners, not English L1 speakers to process complex words with more difficulty than those with single-membership affixes. These results suggest that derived words are processed via morphological decomposition into stems and affixes whereas simplex words are directly accessed as whole word units, supporting the dual-route processing models. Additionally, this study implies that prefixes are more likely to be parsed from the bases than suffixes. Furthermore, it is suggested that the processing efficiency of derivational words varies according to each affix type, which complements the formal structural theory of lexical morphology. Finally, it is indicated that the confusability of affixes with dual membership hinders the processing of the derivational words.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Costs or Benefits Of Processing Of Complex Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical Processing of English Derived Words by Korean EFL Learners and NSE

Yun¹

2019

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, a familiar stem can be identified even when it is presented in conjunction with another stem or affix. This property is critical for achieving segmentation-through-recognition, whereby morphological decomposition is achieved via recognition of the internal constituents (e.g., Andrews & Davis, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing stems everywhere: Position-independent identification of stem morphemes.

Crepaldi¹,

Rastle²,

Davis³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is broad consensus that printed complex words are identified on the basis of their constituent morphemes. This fact raises the issue of how the word identification system codes for morpheme position, hence allowing it to distinguish between words like overhang and hangover, and to recognize that preheat is a word, whereas heatpre is not. Recent data have shown that suffixes are identified as morphemes only when they occur at the end of letter strings (Crepaldi, Rastle, & Davis, 2010, "Morphemes in Their Place: Evidence for Position-Specific Identification of Suffixes," Memory & Cognition, 38, 312-321), which supports the general proposal that the word identification system is sensitive to morpheme positional constraints. This proposal leads to the prediction that the identification of free stems should occur in a position-independent fashion, given that free stems can occur anywhere within complex words (e.g., overdress and dresser). In Experiment 1, we show that the rejection time of transposed-constituent pseudocompounds (e.g., moonhoney) is longer than that of matched control nonwords (e.g., moonbasin), suggesting that honey and moon are identified within moonhoney, and that these morpheme representations activate the representation for the word honeymoon. In Experiments 2 and 3, we demonstrate that the masked presentation of transposed-constituent pseudocompounds (e.g., moonhoney) facilitates the identification of compound words (honeymoon). In contrast, monomorphemic control pairs do not produce a similar pattern (i.e., rickmave did not prime maverick), indicating that the effect for moonhoney pairs is genuinely morphological in nature. These results demonstrate that stem representations differ from affix representations in terms of their positional constraints, providing a challenge to all existing theories of morphological processing.

show abstract

“…A wide range of studies have proposed dimensions that increase affixal salience and elicit different processing times for words with salient versus non-salient affixes, or give way to interactions of affixal salience with derived word frequency and base frequency. These dimensions include: orthographic properties of affixes (e.g., affix length, affixal confusability and transitional probabilities of ngrams near the morphemic boundary, e.g., Andrews & Davis (1999); Laudanna & Burani (1995)), their phonological and phonotactic properties (e.g., co-occurrence probabilities of n-phones and of discontinuous patterns across the morphemic boundary, e.g., Hay & Baayen, 2003), and their lexical properties (e.g., word formation type of the affix, existence of inflectional allomorphs or homonyms for the affix, cf. Baayen, 1994;Bertram et al, 2000c;Bertram, Laine, & Karvinen, 1999;Bertram, Laine, Baayen, Schreuder, & Hyönä, 2000b;Järvikivi, Bertram, & Niemi, 2006;Sereno & Jongman, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words

Kuperman

Bertram

Baayen

2010

Journal of Memory and Language

108

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis eye-tracking study explores visual recognition of Dutch suffixed words (e.g., plaats+ing ''placing") embedded in sentential contexts, and provides new evidence on the interplay between storage and computation in morphological processing. We show that suffix length crucially moderates the use of morphological properties. In words with shorter suffixes, we observe a stronger effect of full-forms (derived word frequency) on reading times than in words with longer suffixes. Also, processing times increase if the base word (plaats) and the suffix (-ing) differ in the amount of information carried by their morphological families (sets of words that share the base or the suffix). We model this imbalance of informativeness in the morphological families with the information-theoretical measure of relative entropy and demonstrate its predictivity for the processing times. The observed processing trade-offs are discussed in the context of current models of morphological processing.

show abstract

Interactive Activation Accounts of Morphological Decomposition: Finding the Trap in Mousetrap?

Cited by 18 publications

References 14 publications

Lexical Processing of English Derived Words by Korean EFL Learners and NSE

Lexical Processing of English Derived Words by Korean EFL Learners and NSE

Seeing stems everywhere: Position-independent identification of stem morphemes.

Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About