Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 69–85 | Cite as

Morphological processing during visual word recognition in Hebrew as a first and a second language

  • Tal Norman
  • Tamar Degani
  • Orna Peleg
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The present study examined whether sublexical morphological processing takes place during visual word-recognition in Hebrew, and whether morphological decomposition of written words depends on lexical activation of the complete word. Furthermore, it examined whether morphological processing is similar when reading Hebrew as a first language (L1) or as a second language (L2), and whether L1’s morphological background, Semitic or Indo-European, modulates morphological processing in L2 Hebrew (a Semitic language), among proficient readers. To reveal the sublexical processing of the Hebrew morphemes, the Root (R) and the Pattern (P), a lexical-decision task was conducted, in which all critical stimuli were non-word letter-strings manipulated to include or exclude real Hebrew morphemes. Different combinations of real (+) and pseudo (−) morphemes yielded four types of non-words (+R+P; +R−P; −R+P, −R−P). Three groups of proficient Hebrew readers were tested: L1 Hebrew, L1 English-L2 Hebrew, and L1 Arabic-L2 Hebrew. Results demonstrated significant differences in latency and accuracy of responses to the four morphological conditions, indicating that sublexical morphological processing occurs during visual word-recognition of morphologically structured letter-strings in Hebrew. Importantly, the activation of real Hebrew morphemes occurred in non-word stimuli, indicating that morphological processing in Hebrew is separable from lexical activation. Moreover, the same pattern of results was observed in all three L1 groups, indicating that proficient L2 readers exhibit morphological processing strategies that are tuned to the L2 morphology, regardless of their L1 background.

Keywords

Morphological processing L1 transfer Visual word recognition Hebrew 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

During the writing of this manuscript, T. D. was supported by EU-FP7 Grant CIG-322016.

References

  1. Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effect in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-On, A., & Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological analysis in learning to read pseudowords in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 553–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bick, A. S., Goelman, G., & Frost, R. (2011). Hebrew Brain vs. English Brain: Language modulates the way it is processed. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2280–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carreiras, M., Armstrong, B. C., Perea, M., & Frost, R. (2014). The what, when, where and how of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creistianson, K., Johnson, R., & Rayner, K. (2005). Letter transpositions within and across morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1327–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pelleg, S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2005). Morphological parafoveal preview benefit effects in reading: Evidence from Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 179–201). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dipendaele, K., Dunabeitia, J. A., Morris, J., & Keuleers, E. (2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Science, 35, 263–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frost, R., Grainger, J., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Advances in morphological processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 933–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1293–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psyconomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64, 160–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liang, L., & Chen, B. (2014). Processing morphologically complex words in second-language learners: The effect of proficiency. Acta Psychologica, 150, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, R. T. (2011). Impact of L2 reading proficiency on L1 transfer in visual word recognition. In G. Granena, et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2010 second language research forum (Vol. 2617, pp. 78–90). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  20. Norman, T., Degani, T., & Peleg, O. (2016). Transfer of L1 visual word recognition strategies during early stages of L2 learning: Evidence from Hebrew learners whose first language is either Semitic or Indo-European. Second Language Research, 32, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Lam, K., & Luo, Y. C. (2011). Cross-language transfer of morphological awareness in Chinese–English bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory and Cognition, 31, 829–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rueckl, J. G., & Rimzhim, A. (2011). On the interaction of letter transpositions and morphemic boundaries. Language and cognitive processes, 26, 482–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schiff, R., & Calif, S. (2007). Role of phonological and morphological awareness in L2 oral word reading. Language Learning, 57, 271–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Velan, H., Deutsch, A., & Frost, R. (2013). The flexibility of letter-position flexibility: evidence from eye-movments in reading Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1143–1152.Google Scholar
  29. Velan, H., & Frost, R. (2011). Words with and without internal structure: What determines the nature of orthographic and morphological processing? Cognition, 118, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: a comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Program of Cognitive Studies of Language Use, School of Cultural StudiesTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Communication Sciences and DisordersUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.The Program of Cognitive Studies of Language Use, School of Cultural Studies and Sagol School of NeuroscienceTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options