Morpho-lexical Representations in Naming

Laudanna, Alessandro; Cermele, Antonella; Caramazza, Alfonso

doi:10.1080/016909697386907

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He also distinguished between affixed and pseudoaffixed words (see Clinical Investigations) by making affixation errors only on the former. Both pieces of evidence are consistent with the view that assumes representations in which morphologically complex words are decomposed into stem and affix at some level of the lexical derivation (e.g., Badecker & Caramazza, 1991;Caramazza, Laudanna, & Romani, 1988;Laudanna, Cermele, & Caramazza, 1997).…”

Section: Morphologically Complex Wordssupporting

confidence: 70%

The syntax of single words: Evidence from a patient with a selective function word reading deficit

Druks¹,

Froud²

2002

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the reading performance of a patient who has selective deficits for reading nonwords, function words, and morphologically complex words in isolation. His reading of highly abstract nouns and verbs, however, is relatively well preserved. He can recognise and comprehend the meaning of written function words, of derivational morphology, and of most inflectional morphology. We suggest that his deficit in reading grammatical morphemes is unrelated to his problems in reading nonwords and cannot be explained by their low semanticity and imageability. The patient's speech is ungrammatical but is not devoid of grammatical morphemes and his reading of functional elements improves when these are presented within the context of sentences. We argue that syntactic information relevant to individual lexical items including information about how the word may potentially be used within a phrase must be accessed during single word reading tasks (e.g., Levelt, 1989). This is particularly difficult for function words due to their linguistic specification, which is different from that of lexical categories (Chomsky, 1995). Both linguistic theory and Garrett's (e.g., 1982) model of sentence processing account for the patient's improved reading of function words in the context of sentences.

show abstract

Section: Morphologically Complex Wordssupporting

confidence: 70%

The syntax of single words: Evidence from a patient with a selective function word reading deficit

Druks¹,

Froud²

2002

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further point of interest is that, while morphological decomposition has been reported before (e.g., Laudanna, Cermele, & Caramazza, 1997;see Semenza, 1999 for a review), it has never been described for derived adjectives. Indeed, the only study (Del Rizzo et al, 1999) specifically addressing this question could not demonstrate convincing decomposition for a large variety of Italian complex adjectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Derivation by Prefixation in Slovenian: Two Aphasia Case Studies

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The activation of lexical representations has also been demonstrated in Italian adults naming pseudowords (Arduino & Burani, unpublished;Job, Peressotti, & Cusinato, 1998). Furthermore, evidence for recourse to the morphological structure of stimuli (i.e., morpheme-based lexical reading) has been reported (Burani, Dovetto, Spuntarelli, & Thornton, 1999;Burani, Dovetto, Thornton, & Laudanna, 1997;Burani & Laudanna, in press;Laudanna, Cermele, & Caramazza, 1997): Adult readers were quicker and more accurate in naming pseudowords which included morphemes (roots and affixes) relative to pseudowords which did not have morphological constituency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%