Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 587–610 | Cite as

Computational Modeling of Morphological Effects in Bangla Visual Word Recognition

  • Tirthankar Dasgupta
  • Manjira Sinha
  • Anupam Basu
Article

Abstract

In this paper we aim to model the organization and processing of Bangla polymorphemic words in the mental lexicon. Our objective is to determine whether the mental lexicon accesses a polymorphemic word as a whole or decomposes the word into its constituent morphemes and then recognize them accordingly. To address this issue, we adopted two different strategies. First, we conduct a masked priming experiment over native speakers. Analysis of reaction time (RT) and error rates indicates that in general, morphologically derived words are accessed via decomposition process. Next, based on the collected RT data we have developed a computational model that can explain the processing phenomena of the access and representation of Bangla derivationally suffixed words. In order to do so, we first explored the individual roles of different linguistic features of a Bangla morphologically complex word and observed that processing of Bangla morphologically complex words depends upon several factors like, the base and surface word frequency, suffix type/token ratio, suffix family size and suffix productivity. Accordingly, we have proposed different feature models. Finally, we combine these feature models together and came up with a new model that takes the advantage of the individual feature models and successfully explain the processing phenomena of most of the Bangla morphologically derived words. Our proposed model shows an accuracy of around 80 % which outperforms the other related frequency models.

Keywords

Mental lexicon Morphological decomposition Masked priming  Visual word recognition Frequency effects  Suffix productivity 

References

  1. Aitchison, J. (2005). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  2. Ambati, B., Dulam, G., Husain, S., & Indurkhya, B. (2009). Effect of jumbling the order of letters in a word on reading ability for indian languages: An eye-tracking study: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  3. Baayen, H. (2000). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Booij, G., van Marle, J. (eds.) Yearbook of morphology, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
  4. Baayen, R., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 290–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentin, S., & Feldman, L. (1990). The contribution of morphological and semantic relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evidence from hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42(4), 693–711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2000a). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. (2000b). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodner, G., & Masson, M. (1997). Masked repetition priming of words and nonwords: Evidence for a nonlexical basis for priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 268–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley, D. (1980). Lexical representation of derivational relation. Juncture, pp. 37–55.Google Scholar
  11. Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(3–4), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burani, C., & Laudanna, A. (1992). Units of representation for derived words in the lexicon. Advances in Psychology, 94, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burani, C., Salmaso, D., & Caramazza, A. (1984). Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Language, 18(4), 342–352.Google Scholar
  14. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlisle, J. F., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing, 19(7), 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L. (2010). ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dasgupta, T., Choudhury, M., Bali, K., & Basu, A. (2010). Mental representation and access of polymorphemic words in bangla: Evidence from cross-modal priming experiments. In International conference on natural language processing.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, M., & Rastle, K. (2010). Form and meaning in early morphological processing: Comment on feldman, o’connor, and moscoso del prado martn (2009). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 749–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Harald Baayen, R. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 329–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(5), 1098.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fellbaum, C. (2010). Wordnet. Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications, pp. 231–243.Google Scholar
  23. Ford, M., Davis, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forster, K., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 680.Google Scholar
  25. Frost, R., Forster, K., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(3), 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hay, J. & Baayen, H.( 2001). Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of morphology, p. 35.Google Scholar
  28. Hay, J., & Plag, I. (2004). What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(3), 565–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jo, E. (2000). Crowding affects reading in peripheral vision. Intel Science Talent Search, 1–15.Google Scholar
  30. Marslen-Wilson, W., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 394–421.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L., et al. (1997). Dissociating types of mental computation. Nature, 387(6633), 592–593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the english mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Zhou, X. (1999). Abstractness, allomorphy, and lexical architecture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(4), 321–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, R. (2009). Paradigms bit by bit: An information-theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, pp. 214–252.Google Scholar
  35. Moscoso del Prado Martn, F., Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Schreuder, R., De Jong, N. H., et al. (2005). Changing places: A cross-language perspective on frequency and family size in dutch and hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(4), 496–512.Google Scholar
  36. Pylkkänen, L., Feintuch, S., Hopkins, E., & Marantz, A. (2004). Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: An meg study. Cognition, 91(3), B35–B45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rastle, K., Davis, M., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(4), 745–765.Google Scholar
  40. Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tirthankar Dasgupta
    • 1
  • Manjira Sinha
    • 1
  • Anupam Basu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations