Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 575–597 | Cite as

Morphological Decomposition in Japanese De-adjectival Nominals: Masked and Overt Priming Evidence

  • Robert Fiorentino
  • Yuka Naito-Billen
  • Utako Minai
Article

Abstract

Whether morpheme-based processing extends to relatively unproductive derived words remains a matter of debate. Although whole-word storage and access has been proposed for some derived words, such as Japanese de-adjectival nominals with the unproductive (-mi) suffix (e.g., Hagiwara et al. in Language 75:739–763, 1999), Clahsen and Ikemoto (Ment Lex 7:147–182, 2012) found masked priming from de-adjectival nominals with productive (-sa) and unproductive (-mi) suffixes to their adjectivally-inflected base morpheme. Using masked and unmasked priming, we examine whether adjectivally-inflected base morpheme primes facilitate the processing of Japanese de-adjectival nominal targets with a productive or unproductive affix, including an orthographic-overlap condition and semantic relatedness measure that Clahsen and Ikemoto (2012) did not include. Our results replicate and extend Clahsen and Ikemoto (2012), revealing significant, statistically-equivalent morphological priming effects for -sa and -mi affixed targets, independent of orthographic and semantic relatednesss, suggesting that the processing of derived words with the unproductive -mi affix makes recourse to morpheme-level representations.

Keywords

Masked priming Morphology Productivity Japanese 

References

  1. Allen, M., & Badecker, W. (1999). Stem homograph inhibition and stem allomorphy: Representing and processing inflected forms in a multi-level lexical system. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amano, S., & Kondo, T. (2003). NTT Database Series, Nihongo-no Goitokusei [Lexical Properties of Japanese], CD-ROM Edition. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
  3. Anshen, F., & Aronoff, M. (1988). Producing morphologically complex words. Linguistics, 26, 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronoff, M., & Schvaneveldt, R. (1978). Testing morphological productivity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 318, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baayen, R. H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baayen, R. H. (1994). Productivity in language production. Language & Cognitive Processes, 9, 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Badecker, W., & Allen, M. (2002). Morphological parsing and the perception of lexical identity: A masked priming study of stem-homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2014). \(\_\text{ lme4 }\): Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and \(\text{ S4 }\_.\) R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  10. Bauer, L. (2005). Productivity: Theories. In P. Stekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory (Vol. 64, pp. 315–334). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Berent, I., Pinker, S., & Shimron, J. (2002). The nature of regularity and irregularity: Evidence from Hebrew nominal inflection. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 459–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). 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, 489–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multi-disciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clahsen, H., & Ikemoto, Y. (2012). The mental representation of derived words: An experimental study of -sa and -mi nominals in Japanese. The Mental Lexicon, 7, 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clahsen, H., Sonnenstuhl, I., & Blevins, J. P. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual-mechanism account. In H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 125–155). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, M. H., & Rastle, K. (2009). Form and meaning in early morphological processing: Comment on Feldman, O’Connor, and Moscoso del Prado Martin. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 749–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2009). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: The case of prefixed words. Memory & Cognition, 37, 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2005). Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1098–1116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). Early morphological processing is morpho-semantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of lexical recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 684–691.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, L. B., Soltano, E. G., Pastizzo, M. J., & Francis, S. E. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing? Brain and Language, 90, 17–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Forster, K. I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 3–37). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Forster, K. I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hagiwara, H., Sugioka, Y., Ito, T., Kawamura, M., & Shiota, J.-I. (1999). Neurolinguistic evidence for rule-based nominal suffixation. Language, 75, 739–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Havas, V., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & Clahsen, H. (2012). Brain potentials for derivational morphology: An ERP study of de-adjectival nominalizations in Spanish. Brain & Language, 120, 332–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heyer, V., & Clahsen, H. (2014). Late bilinguals see a scan in scanner AND in scandal: Dissecting formal overlap from morphological priming in the processing of derived words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi:10.1017/S1366728914000662.
  33. Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Ford, M., Older, L., & Zhou, X. (1996). The combinatorial lexicon: Priming derivational affixes. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 223–227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Masson, M., & Bodner, G. E. (2003). A retrospective view of masked priming: Toward a unified account of masked and long-term repetition priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 57–94). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  38. McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B. (2002). Does prime modality influence morphological processing? Brain and Language, 81, 28–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 456–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 507–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  45. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 1090–1098.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Sonnenstuhl, I., Eisenbeiss, S., & Clahsen, H. (1999). Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition, 72, 203–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Stockall, L., & Marantz, A. (2006). A single-route, full-decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sugioka, Y. (2000). Rule vs. analogy in word formation. Keio Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 171–203.Google Scholar
  52. Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang, C. (2005). On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 5, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zwitserlood, P. (1994). The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Fiorentino
    • 1
  • Yuka Naito-Billen
    • 2
  • Utako Minai
    • 3
  1. 1.Neurolinguistics and Language Processing Laboratory, Department of LinguisticsUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Center for East Asian StudiesUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Developmental Psycholinguistics Laboratory, Department of LinguisticsUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations