Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 7, pp 1669–1684 | Cite as

Morphological effects in word identification: tracking the developmental trajectory of derivational suffixes in Spanish

  • Miguel Lázaro
  • Víctor Illera
  • Joana Acha
  • Ainoa Escalonilla
  • Seila García
  • Javier S. Sainz
Article
First Online:
  • 144 Downloads

Abstract

The role of morphological processing has been shown to be highly relevant in learning to read. However, there is little evidence on the processing of derivational suffixes from a developmental perspective. The aim of this study is to assess the developmental emergence of suffixes as meaningful processing units in word recognition. To that aim, 96 children from fourth, fifth and sixth grade, as well as adults, took part in a masked priming lexical decision task (go/no-go version). Complex and simple words were primed by other words sharing the suffix (as in lechero/milkman/-> jornalero/laborer/) and word ending (as in araña/spider/->España/Spain/) or by words not sharing an ending (surfista/surfer/->jornalero/laborer/; carpeta/folder/->España/Spain/). Results in adults replicate previous studies by showing that only the related condition of complex words elicits a significant facilitation (see Duñabeitia, Perea, & Carreiras, 2008). With respect to children, only sixth graders generated a similar pattern to adults. Children in fourth and fifth grade showed no morphological effect. Our data reveal a progressive sensitivity to derivational suffixes in visual word processing. Results are interpreted from a developmental perspective of current findings on morphological processing.

Keywords

Derivational suffixes Go/no-go lexical decision task Masked priming Morphological processing Reading development Suffix priming effect 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.
  6. Beyersmann, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(7), 1306–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyersmann, E., Grainger, J., Casalis, S., & Ziegler, J. C. (2015). Effects of reading proficiency on embedded stem priming in primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 115–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyersmann, E., Ziegler, J. C., Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Kezilas, Y., & Grainger, J. (2016). Morpho-orthographic segmentation without semantics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosse, M. L., Chaves, N., Largy, P., & Valdois, S. (2015). Orthographic learning during reading: The role of whole-word visual processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(2), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burani, C., Marcolini, S., De Luca, M., & Zoccolotti, P. (2008). Morpheme-based reading aloud: Evidence from dyslexic and skilled Italian readers. Cognition, 108(1), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlisle, J. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casalis, S., Quémart, P., & Duncan, L. G. (2015). How language affects children’s use of derivational morphology in visual word and pseudoword processing: Evidence from a cross-language study. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452.Google Scholar
  16. Colé, P., Bouton, S., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2012). Stem and derivational-suffix processing during reading by French second and third graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corral, S., Ferrero, M., & Goikoetxea, E. (2009). LEXIN: A lexical database from Spanish kindergarten and first-grade readers. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1009–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crepaldi, D., Hemsworth, L., Davis, C. J., & Rastle, K. (2016). Masked suffix priming and morpheme positional constraints. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 113–128.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1027713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deacon, S. H., Whalen, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2011). Do children see the danger in dangerous? Grade 4, 6, and 8 children’s reading of morphologically complex words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunabeitia, J., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 1002–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, L. G., Gray, E., Quémart, P., & Casalis, S. (2011). Do good and poor readers make use of morphemic structure in English word recognition? Journal of Portuguese Linguistics.  https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.104.Google Scholar
  22. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellis, N. C., & Hooper, A. M. (2001). Why learning to read is easier in Welsh than in English: Orthographic transparency effects evinced with frequency-matched tests. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 571–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, L. B. (2000). Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 26(6), 1431–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, 35(1), 116–124.Google Scholar
  26. Frost, R. (1994). Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shallow orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 116–129.Google Scholar
  27. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2003). A supralexical model for French derivational morphology. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading Complex Words (pp. 139–157). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grainger, J., & Beyersmann, E. (2017). Edge-aligned embedded word activation initiates morpho-orthographic segmentation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 285–317). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. (2011). A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 54.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hasenäcker, J., Beyersmann, E., & Schroeder, S. (2016). Masked morphological priming in German-speaking adults and children: Evidence from response time distributions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 929.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models; 2013. R package version 2.0–20.Google Scholar
  34. Lallier, M., Acha, J., & Carreiras, M. (2016). Cross-linguistic interactions influence reading development in bilinguals: a comparison between early balanced French-Basque and Spanish-Basque bilingual children. Developmental Science, 19(1), 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lázaro, M., Acha, J., Rosa, S., García, S., & Sainz, J. (2016). Exploring the derivative suffix frequency effect in Spanish speaking children. Reading and Writing, 1(30), 163–185.Google Scholar
  36. Lázaro, M., & Calvo, J. A. (2013). Rehabilitación morfológica en trastornos del lenguaje: necesidad clínica avalada por evidencia experimental. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 45, 111–120.Google Scholar
  37. Lázaro, M., Camacho, L., & Burani, C. (2013). Morphological processing in reading disabled and skilled Spanish children. Dyslexia, 19(3), 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R Package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Medeiros, J., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2016). Not everybody sees the ness in the darkness: Individual differences in masked suffix priming. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01585.Google Scholar
  40. Moret-Tatay, C., & Perea, M. (2011). Do serifs provide an advantage in the recognition of written words? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perea, M., Gómez, P., & Fraga, I. (2010). Masked nonword repetition effects in yes/no and go/no-go lexical decision: A test of the evidence accumulation and deadline accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy, 11, 67–86.Google Scholar
  45. Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2011). The role of form and meaning in the processing of written morphology: A priming study in French developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 478–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Duncan, L. G. (2012). Exploring the role of bases and suffixes when reading familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence from French young readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(5), 424–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 942–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., & Castles, A. (2013). Phonological decoding or direct access? Regularity effects in lexical decisions of grade 3 and 4 children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(2), 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 219–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suárez-Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2013). The role of morphology in reading in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia. The Spanish Journal of Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.58.Google Scholar
  54. Traficante, D. (2012). From graphemes to morphemes: An alternative way to improve skills in children with dyslexia. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 2, 163–185.Google Scholar
  55. Traficante, D., Marcolini, S., Luci, A., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2011). How do roots and suffixes influence reading of pseudowords: A study of young Italian readers with and without dyslexia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 777–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko UnibertsitateaDonostiaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options