Memory & Cognition

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 312–321 | Cite as

Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position-specific identification of suffixes

  • Davide Crepaldi
  • Kathleen Rastle
  • Colin J. Davis


Previous research strongly suggests that morphologically complex words are recognized in terms of their constituent morphemes. A question thus arises as to how the recognition system codes for morpheme position within words, given that it needs to distinguish morphological anagrams like overhang and hangover. The present study focused specifically on whether the recognition of suffixes occurs in a position-specific fashion. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that morphologically complex nonwords (gasful ) are rejected more slowly than orthographic controls (gasfil ) but that the same interference effect is not present when the morphemic constituents are reversed ( fulgas vs. filgas). Experiment 3 went further in demonstrating that reversing the morphemes within words (e.g., nesskind) does not yield morpheme interference effects against orthographic controls (e.g., nusskind). These results strongly suggest that suffix identification is position specific, which imposes important constraints on the further development of models of morphological processing.


  1. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 94–117. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley, D. (1980). Lexical representation of derivational relation. In M. Aronoff & M.-L. Kean (Eds.), Juncture: A collection of original papers (pp. 37–55). Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
  3. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332. doi:10.1016/ 0010-0277(88)90017-0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, C. J. (2006). Orthographic input coding: A review of behavioural data and current models. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 180–206). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, C. J., & Bowers, J. S. (2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1098–1116. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, L. B., Barac-Cikoja, D., & Kostić, A. (2002). Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory & Cognition, 30, 629–636.Google Scholar
  8. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.Google Scholar
  9. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 127–131.Google Scholar
  10. Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 1–35. doi:10.1080/ 01690960701578013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 370–384. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90042-ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grainger, J., & Whitney, C. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 58–59. doi:10.1016/ j.tics.2003.11.006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kazanina, N., Dukova-Zheleva, G., Geber, D., Kharlamov, V., & Tonciulescu, K. (2008). Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: A masked priming study of Russian nouns. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 800–823. doi:10.1080/ 01690960701799635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. doi:10.1080/01690960244000036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421. doi:10.1080/01690960701588004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 568–585. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 97–120). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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 & Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537. doi:10.1080/01690960050119689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Shoolman, N., & Andrews, S. (2003). Racehorses, reindeer, and sparrows: Using masked priming to investigate morphological influences on compound word identification. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 241–278). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Taft, M. (1985). The decoding of words in lexical access: A review of the morphographic approach. In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 83–126). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taft, M., Zhu, X., & Peng, D. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 498–519. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (1994). Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 34–80. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.123.1.34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.5.971CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Crepaldi
    • 1
  • Kathleen Rastle
    • 2
  • Colin J. Davis
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations