Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 293–315 | Cite as

On the interplay between family and series effects in morphological masked priming

  • Serena Dal MasoEmail author
  • Hélène Giraudo
Article

Abstract

The aim of our research is to further investigate the role of suffixes in morphological processing and to verify whether morphological series (i.e., paradigms of complex words sharing the same suffix) play a role in lexical representation and processing, as suggested by paradigm-based approaches (Bybee 1988, 1995; Booij 2010). The premise of our study is that, while the relationship between words belonging to the same morphological family has been extensively confirmed by psycholinguistic research, experimental studies on the relationship between words belonging to the same morphological series have been scarce so far and produced inconsistent results. On such premises, we carried a series of masked priming experiments on Italian, which consider truly suffixed words with respect to words with non-morphological endings (it. inquina-mento ‘pollution’–cemento ‘cement’) and we focused on series which display different degrees of internal consistency. Crucially, in order to facilitate the emergence of the series effect, we used a semantic categorization task associated with the masked priming technique, instead of the traditional lexical decision (LDT). Our results show that when the masked priming effects are not inhibited by formal factors (as happens with LDT), the facilitation induced by the words organization in series emerges more easily, although it is affected by series consistency in different ways. Firstly, while the series effect approaches significance for consistent series, it fails to emerge for non-consistent ones (Exp. 1). Secondly, the base effect is more robust and clear-cut in consistent than in non-consistent series. Thirdly, in more consistent series the interference of formal/orthographic factors is absent or reduced, while it significantly affects processing in less consistent series (Exp. 2). All in all, our results demonstrate that the paradigmatic effects are inherently graded as they crucially depend on series internal consistency and that they crucially interact with family effects during word access.

Keywords

Morphological masked priming Series and family effects Semantic categorization Word processing Lexical access Visual recognition Mental lexicon 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors’ contributions: S.D.M. conceived and designed the study with the support of H.G. for methodological aspects. S.D.M. created the materials, recruited the participants, conducted the experimental sessions, and wrote the first draft of the paper. H.G. ran the statistical analysis, contributed to results interpretation, and revised the paper critically for important intellectual content.

References

  1. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  2. Aronoff, M., Berg, K., & Heyer, V. (2016). Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 164–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, R. H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. V. Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertram, R., Baayen, H., & Schreuder, R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 390–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, D. C. (1979). Lexical representation of derivational relation. In M. Aronoff & M. L. Kean (Eds.), Juncture (pp. 37–55). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  7. Burani, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 157–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology (pp. 119–141). San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  9. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (2000). The morphological size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 329–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jong Ni, H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, H. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological, and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81, 555–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1002–1020. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 1–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferro M., Pezzulo, G., & Pirrelli, V. (2010). Morphology, memory and the mental lexicon. Lingue E Linguaggio, IX(2), 199–238. Google Scholar
  16. Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forster, K. I. (1999). The microgenesis of priming effects in lexical access. Brain and Language, 68, 5–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giraudo, H., & Dal Maso, S. (2016). Suffix perceptual salience in morphological masked priming. Lingue E Linguaggio, XV,1, 85–106. Google Scholar
  21. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2003). On the role of derivational affixes in recognizing complex words: Evidence from masked affix priming. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 209–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, M. & Rainer, F. (Eds.) (2004). La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  23. Hathout, N. (2009). Acquisition of morphological families and derivational series from a machine readable dictionary. In Décembrettes (Vol. 6, pp. 166–180). Bordeaux, France: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 2008. Google Scholar
  24. Hay, J., & Baayen, H. R. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 342–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howell, D. C. (2010). In Statistical methods for psychology, 7th edition, Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Google Scholar
  26. Juhasz, B. J., & Berkowitz, R. N. (2011). Effects of morphological families on English compound word recognition: A multitask investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 653–682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2012). Task-dependent masked priming effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 3, 178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional properties of derivational affixes: Implications for processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 335–364). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  30. Lázaro, M., Illera, V., & Sainz, J. (2015). The suffix priming effect in Spanish: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic parsing regardless of semantic content. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 197–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Cognition, 53(1), 26–41. Google Scholar
  32. Marì-Beffa, P., Fuentes, L. J., Catena, A., & Houghton, G. (2000). Semantic Priming in the prime task effect: Evidence of automatic semantic processing distractors. Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 635–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2004). Alterazione. In M. Grossmann & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano (pp. 264–292). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  34. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Kostic, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: an information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94, 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (2014). Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 59–84. CrossRefGoogle 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, 35–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Phaf, R. H. (1999). Part-list cuing revisited: Testing the sampling-bias hypothesis. In C. Izawa (Ed.), On memory: Evolution, progress and reflection on the 30th anniversary of the Atkinson–Shiffrin model (pp. 87–104). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  38. 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, 1090–1098. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vannest, J., & Boland, J. E. (1999). Lexical morphology and lexical access. Brain and Language, 68, 324–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vannest, J., Newport, E. L., Newman, A. J., & Bavelier, D. (2011). Interplay between morphology and frequency in lexical access: The case of the base frequency effect. Brain Research, 1373, 144–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Voga, M., & Giraudo, H. (2017). Word and beyond-word issues in morphological processing. Word Structure, 10(2), 235–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Culture e CiviltàUniversità di VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.CLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UT2JToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations