The processing of affixed words

Manelis, Leon; Tharp, David A.

doi:10.3758/bf03197417

Cited by 163 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present data are thus inconsistent with full-listing accounts (e.g., Butterworth, 1983;Manelis & Tharp, 1977) that reject the decomposition hypothesis. Our results are also incompatible with purely postlexical accounts of morphological decomposition, which assume that access to morphemic subunits does not occur until after whole-word representations have been accessed (Giraudo & Grainger, 2001.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…Three different classes of theory have been proposed. Full-listing theories consider the lexicon as a store of full forms, in which lexical representations of morphologically complex words are accessed only by whole-word representations (e.g., Butterworth, 1983;Manelis & Tharp, 1977). Purelymorphological-access theories claim that lexical representations of morphologically complex words are accessed only by the representations of the word's constituent morphemes (e.g., Longtin & Meunier, 2005;Rastle, Davis, & New, 2004;Taft & Forster, 1975).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early morphological decomposition during visual word recognition: Evidence from masked transposed-letter priming

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiments were designed to explore the theory of early morpho-orthographic segmentation (Rastle, Davis, & New, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11,1090-1098, which postulates that written words with a true morphologically complex structure (cleaner) and those with a morphological pseudostructure (corner) are both decomposed into affix and stem morphemes. We used masked complex transposed-letter (TL) nonword primes in a lexical decision task. Experiment 1 replicated the wellknown masked TL-priming effect using monomorphemic nonword primes (e.g., wran-WARN). Experiment 2 used the same nonword TL stems as in Experiment 1, but combined them with real suffixes (e.g., ish as in wranish-WARN). Priming was compared with that from nonsuffixed primes in which the real suffixes were replaced with nonmorphemic endings (e.g., el as in wranel-WARN). Significant priming was found in the suffixed but not in the nonsuffixed condition, suggesting that affix-stripping occurs at prelexical stages in visual word recognition and operates over early letter-position encoding mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Early morphological decomposition during visual word recognition: Evidence from masked transposed-letter priming

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the identical letter grouping (e.g., "er") has a different morphological function in each member of an item pair, this conflict could increase recognition times, but only if the words are morphologically analyzed. Manelis and Tharp (1977) attempt to explain this result quite differently, in terms of semantic relatedness (cf. Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The possible effect on recognition times of the frequency of prefixed word sterns has been used by Manelis and Tharp (1977) to, in fact, dispute the conclusions drawn by Taft and Forster (1975). Taft and Forster base their conclusion that nonword sterns have lexical status on the finding that lexical decision times to nonwords that are sterns of prefixed words (e.g., "vive" from "revive") are longer than those to nonwords that are parts of, but not sterns of, nonprefixed words (e.g., "lish" from "relish").…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments are reported in which the word frequency effect is used as a diagnostic for determining whether affixed words coming from the same stem are stored together or separately in the lexicon. Prefixed words are examined in the first experiment, inflected words in the second and third. In the first two experiments, two types of word are compared where the words in each condition are matched on surface or presented frequency but are varied on the frequency of their stems or base frequency. It is found that lexical decision times are influenced by base frequency, thus indicating that words related by affixation are stored together in the lexicon. The third experiment, however, demonstrates that when base frequency is held constant and surface frequency is varied, lexical decision times are influenced by surface frequency. The results are accounted for by a model of word recognition whereby frequency has its effect at two different stages of the recognition process.In a paper by Taft and Forster (1975), evidenee was presented to support the view that visually presented prefixed words are analyzed into their separate morphemes [prefix and stern) when they are to be reeognized. For example, the reeognition of the word "unhook" would involve the stripping off of the prefix "un" and the subsequent loeation of the lexical entry for "hook." That is, "hook" and "unhook" would be aeeessed through the same lexical entry. The results obtained by Taft and Forster implied, furthermore, that a prefixed ward is aeeessed via its stern even when tbis stern is not a word in its own right (as "hook" is). For example, the prefixed word "persuade" would be reeognized after the prefix "per" was stripped off and the stern "suade" was loeated in the lexicon. Tbus, it is claimed that the nonword "suade" is stored in the lexicon for the purpose of recognizing "persuade." It would also be stored for the purpose of reeognizing "dissuade." Does this mean, then, that "persuade" and "dissuade" are aeeessed through the same lexical entry, "suade," or are there two separate entries for "suade"? This is the question that will be addressed in the first experiment to be reported.The idea bebind tbis experiment is similar to that of Rosenberg, Coyle, and Porter (1966), as well as Experiment 5 of Taft and Forster (1976). Rosenberg et al. employed a free reeal! task for lists of adverbs that were derived either from common adjectives (e.g., brightly) or uneommon adjectives (e.g., briskly). These two types of item were equated for frequeney of oeeurrenee of their adverbial forms, that is, the form in which the words were presented. It was found that the ease of recall of the adverbs was influeneed by the frequency of their adjectival sterns. Thus, "brightly" was presumably encoded in this episodic task as "bright ," and "briskly" as "brisk.".The frequency effect was similarly employed by Taft and Forster (1976), but this time, the task was a lexical one rather than an episodic one. In addition, compound words were examined rather than derived...

show abstract

References

2017

The Handbook of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The processing of affixed words

Cited by 163 publications

References 10 publications

Early morphological decomposition during visual word recognition: Evidence from masked transposed-letter priming

Early morphological decomposition during visual word recognition: Evidence from masked transposed-letter priming

Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About