Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis

Feldman, Laurie Beth; Milin, Petar; Cho, Kit W.; Martín, Fermín Moscoso del Prado; O’Connor, Patrick

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111

Cited by 59 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies showing masked morphological priming effects without semantic relationships have been broadly replicated in various languages (Spanish: Sánchez-Casas et al, 2003; German and French: Diependaele et al, 2005, 2009; French: Giraudo and Voga, 2013; Arabic: Boudelaa and Marslen-Wilson, 2004a,b, 2005; English: Lavric et al, 2007; Marslen-Wilson et al, 2008; Feldman et al, 2009, 2015; McCormick et al, 2009; Lehtonen et al, 2011 1 ; Finnish: Järvikivi and Pyykkönen, 2011 and Russian: Kazanina et al, 2008; Kazanina, 2011). …”

Section: Evidence Taken To Support the Decompositional Approachmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, when compared to an orthographic non-word condition (e.g., danom ), pseudoprefixed primes do not differ from orthographic primes, suggesting a strong formal component in surface morphological priming with semantics. Finally, Feldman et al (2015) tracked the time course of processing of the interaction between form and meaning using different prime exposure durations (increasing from 34 to 100 ms). They observed that the time course of facilitation varies for similar forms with and without semantic similarity, the transparency effect being evident even at an SOA of 34 ms (Experiment 3).…”

Section: Objections To the Decompositional Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Salience of Complex Words and Their Parts: Which Comes First?

Giraudo

Maso

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the impact of the salience of complex words and their constituent parts on lexical access. While almost 40 years of psycholinguistic studies have focused on the relevance of morphological structure for word recognition, little attention has been devoted to the relationship between the word as a whole unit and its constituent morphemes. Depending on the theoretical approach adopted, complex words have been seen either in the light of their paradigmatic environment (i.e., from a paradigmatic view), or in terms of their internal structure (i.e., from a syntagmatic view). These two competing views have strongly determined the choice of experimental factors manipulated in studies on morphological processing (mainly different lexical frequencies, word/non-word structure, and morphological family size). Moreover, work on various kinds of more or less segmentable items (from genuinely morphologically complex words like hunter to words exhibiting only a surface morphological structure like corner and irregular forms like thieves) has given rise to two competing hypotheses on the cognitive role of morphology. The first hypothesis claims that morphology organizes whole words into morphological families and series, while the second sets morphology at a pre-lexical level, with morphemes standing as access units to the mental lexicon. The present paper examines more deeply the notion of morphological salience and its implications for theories and models of morphological processing.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Taken To Support the Decompositional Approachmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Objections To the Decompositional Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Salience of Complex Words and Their Parts: Which Comes First?

Giraudo

Maso

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some studies have reported significantly greater priming for transparent than for opaque primes (e.g., Diependaele et al, 2005;Feldman et al, 2015), these empirical differences can probably be attributed to methodological differences (see Davis & Rastle, 2010). In particular, the difference between transparent and opaque primes is modulated by prime duration: opaque forms.…”

Section: Masked Priming With Word Primesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic interpretability does not influence masked priming effects

Tseng

Lindsay

Davis

2020

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the recent masked nonword priming literature demonstrates no difference in priming between affixed and non-affixed nonword primes (e.g., maskity-MASK vs. maskond-MASK). A possible explanation for the absence of a difference is that studies have used affixed primes which were semantically uninterpretable. Therefore, this explanation indicates semantic interpretability plays a fundamental role in masked priming. To test this account, we conducted an experiment using the masked priming paradigm in the lexical decision task. We compared responses with targets which were preceded by one of four primes types: (1) interpretable affixed nonwords (e.g., maskless-MASK), (2) uninterpretable affixed nonwords (e.g., maskity-MASK), (3) non-affixed nonwords (e.g., maskond-MASK), and (4) unrelated words (e.g., tubeful-MASK). Our results follow the trend of finding no difference between affixed and non-affixed primes. Critically, however, we observed no difference in priming between uninterpretable and interpretable affixed primes. Thus, our results suggest that semantic interpretability does not influence masked priming.

show abstract

“…Lavric, Elchlepp & Rastle, 2012) or applying more advanced statistical analyses (e.g. Feldman, Milin, Cho, Moscoso del Prado Martín & O'Connor, 2015), this issue has not been resolved yet.…”

Section: Morphographic Spelling and Language Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing

Aronoff

Berg

Heyer³

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In alphabetic writing systems, the most consistent correspondences hold between written and spoken segments. Although English spelling uses the Roman alphabet and is thus largely phonographic, it also encodes non-phonological distinctions such as those among homophonic words (e.g., pair, pare, pear). We review evidence that English spelling is to some extent morphographic at the level of suffixes: some suffixes (e.g. -s and -ed) have a single constant spelling (‹-s› and ‹ed›), despite the fact that they vary in phonological realization (-s is realized as [z], [s], or [əz], depending on the preceding segment); while other suffixes (e.g. ‑ic) are spelled differently from homophonous word-final phonological sequences (e.g. ‹relic› vs. ‹relick›). We explore the implications of our research for psycholinguistic findings on morphological processing of written English, with a special focus on ‘affix stripping’ processes. Psycholinguistic research has largely assumed the straightforward linguistic validity of morphographic spelling, without appreciating either its typologically unusual nature or the subtle and complex relation that it bears to morphology, phonology, and semantics.

show abstract

Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis

Cited by 59 publications

References 81 publications

The Salience of Complex Words and Their Parts: Which Comes First?

The Salience of Complex Words and Their Parts: Which Comes First?

Semantic interpretability does not influence masked priming effects

Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About