Advertisement

MorphoLex-FR: A derivational morphological database for 38,840 French words

  • Hugo Mailhot
  • Maximiliano A. WilsonEmail author
  • Joël Macoir
  • S. Hélène Deacon
  • Claudia Sánchez-GutiérrezEmail author
Article

Abstract

Studies on morphological processing in French, as in other languages, have shown disparate results. We argue that a critical and long-overlooked factor that could underlie these diverging results is the methodological differences in the calculation of morphological variables across studies. To address the need for a common morphological database, we present MorphoLex-FR, a sizeable and freely available database with 12 variables for prefixes, roots, and suffixes for the 38,840 words of the French Lexicon Project. MorphoLex-FR constitutes a first step to render future studies addressing morphological processing in French comparable. The procedure we used for morphological segmentation and variable computation is effectively the same as that in MorphoLex, an English morphological database. This will allow for cross-linguistic comparisons of future studies in French and English that will contribute to our understanding of how morphologically complex words are processed. To validate these variables, we explored their influence on lexical decision latencies for morphologically complex nouns in a series of hierarchical regression models. The results indicated that only morphological variables related to the suffix explained lexical decision latencies. The frequency and family size of the suffix exerted facilitatory effects, whereas the percentage of more frequent words in the morphological family of the suffix was inhibitory. Our results are in line with previous studies conducted in French and in English. In conclusion, this database represents a valuable resource for studies on the effect of morphology in visual word processing in French.

Keywords

Morphology Psycholinguistic variables Lexical decision Database Visual word recognition French 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Insight Development Grant awarded to M.A.W., S.H.D., and C.S.G. by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (CRSH) of Canada, grant number 430-2015-00699.

References

  1. Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 41–61.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 232:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apothéloz, D. (2002). La construction du lexique français: principes de morphologie dérivationnelle. Paris, France: Ophrys.Google Scholar
  4. Auclair-Ouellet, N., Fossard, M., Houde, M., Laforce, R., & Macoir, J. (2016). Production of morphologically derived words in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia: preserved decomposition and composition but impaired validation. Neurocase, 22, 170–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2015.1081391 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Auclair-Ouellet, N., Fossard, M., Laforce, R., Bier, N., & Macoir, J. (2017). Conception or *conceivation? The processing of derivational morphology in semantic dementia. Aphasiology, 31, 166–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1168918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words. A regression study across tasks and modalities. Mental Lexicon, 2, 419–463.  https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balling, L., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1159–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802201010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word Families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6, 253–279.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/6.4.253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beauvillain, C. (1996). The integration of morphological and whole-word form information during eye fixations on prefixed and suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 801–820.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 390–405.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beyersmann, E., Casalis, S., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2015). Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1054–1061.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0752-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beyersmann, E., Cavalli, E., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2016). Embedded stem priming effects in prefixed and suffixed pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 220–230.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1140769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beyersmann, E., Iakimova, G., Ziegler, J. C., & Colé, P. (2014). Semantic processing during morphological priming: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1579, 45–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2018). Concreteness norms for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and word recognition times. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2366–2387.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1014-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Booij, G. E. (2005). Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In W. U. Dressler, F. Rainer, D. Kastovsky, & O. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Booij, G. E. (2006). Inflection and derivation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd, pp. 654–661). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boukadi, M., Zouaidi, C., & Wilson, M. A. (2016). Norms for name agreement, familiarity, subjective frequency, and imageability for 348 object names in Tunisian Arabic. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 585–599.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0602-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-027790017-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2006). Affixation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd, pp. 83–88). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cartoni, B., & Lefer, M. A. (2010). The MuLeXFoR database: Representing word-formation processes in a multilingual lexicographic environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
  25. Cavalli, E., Colé, P., Pattamadilok, C., Badier, J. M., Zielinski, C., Chanoine, V., & Ziegler, J. C. (2017). Spatiotemporal reorganization of the reading network in adult dyslexia. Cortex, 92, 204–221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.04.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90025-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Corbin, D. (2004). La formation des mots: Horizons actuels. Villeneuve d’Ascq, France: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
  29. Cortese, M. J., & Schock, J. (2013). Imageability and age of acquisition effects in disyllabic word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 946–972.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.722660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. D’Alessio, M. J., Jaichenco, V., & Wilson, M. A. (2018). The role of morphology in word naming in Spanish-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 1065–1093.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716418000127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Deacon, S. H., & Francis, K. A. (2017). How children become sensitive to the morphological structure of the words that they read. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1469.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01469 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Deacon, S. H., Kieffer, M. J., & Laroche, A. (2014). The relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal models. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 432–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Desrochers, A., & Thompson, G. L. (2009). Subjective frequency and imageability ratings for 3,600 French nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 546–557.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.546 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Emmorey, K. D. (1989). Auditory morphological priming in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 73–92.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Feldman, L. B., & Milin, P. (2018). Psycholinguistic studies of word morphology and their implications for models of the mental lexicon and lexical processing. In R. Berthiaume, D. Daigle, & A. Desrochers (Eds.), Morphological processing and literacy development: Current issues and research (pp. 16–47). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feldman, L. B., Milin, P., Cho, K. W., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., & O’Connor, P. A. (2015). Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 111.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P., Méot, A., … Pallier, C. (2010). The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 488–496.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Forster, K. I., & Azuma, T. (2000). Masked priming for prefixed words with bound stems: Does submit prime permit? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 539–561.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gala, N., & Rey, V. (2008, June). Polymots: Une base de données de constructions dérivationnelles en français à partir de radicaux phonologiques. Paper presented at the Conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles—TALN, Senlis, France.Google Scholar
  42. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Giraudo, H., & Voga, M. (2016). Words matter more than morphemes: An investigation of masked priming effects with complex words and non-words. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 49–78.Google Scholar
  44. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  45. Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York, NY: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, H. (2010). Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802193688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lachaud, C. M. (2007). CHACQFAM: Une base de données renseignant l’âge d’acquisition estimé et la familiarité pour 1225 mots monosyllabiques et bisyllabiques du français. Année Psychologique, 107, 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional properties of derivational affixes: Implications for processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 345–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Lázaro, M., & Sainz, J. S. (2012). The effect of family size on Spanish simple and complex words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9186-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Lehtonen, M., Niska, H., Wande, E., Niemi, J., & Laine, M. (2006). Recognition of inflected words in a morphologically limited language: Frequency effects in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 121–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9008-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 156–166.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2011). Stem and whole-word frequency effects in the processing of inflected verbs in and out of a sentence context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1173–1192.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.510359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marcolini, S., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2011). Word frequency modulates morpheme-based reading in poor and skilled Italian readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 513–532.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marslen-Wilson, W. (2006). Morphology and language processing. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd, pp. 295–300). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McCormick, S. F., Brysbaert, M., & Rastle, K. (2009). Is morphological decomposition limited to low-frequency words? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1706–1715.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902849991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meunier, F., & Longtin, C. M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457–471.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meunier, F., & Segui, J. (1999). Frequency effects in auditory word recognition: The case of suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 327–344.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morris, J., Porter, J. H., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2011). Effects of lexical status and morphological complexity in masked priming: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 558–599.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.495482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Bertram, R., Häikiö, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 1271–1278.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509967 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Namer, F. (2003). Automatiser l’analyse morpho-sémantique non affixale: Le système DériF [To automatize non-affixal morpho-syntactic analysis: The DériF system]. In N. Hathout, M. Roché, & N. Serna (Eds.), Cahiers de grammaire (pp. 31–48). Toulouse, France: ERSS.Google Scholar
  66. Namer, F. (2013). A rule-based morphosemantic analyzer for French for a fine-grained semantic annotation of texts. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 380, 92–114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40486-3_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. New, B., Brysbaert, M., Véronis, J., & Pallier, C. (2007). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 661–677.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640707035X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. New, B., Pallier, C., & Ferrand, L. (2005). Lexique 3 [Database]. Retrieved from www.lexique.org
  70. Oganyan, M., Wright, R., & Herschensohn, J. (2019). The role of the root in auditory word recognition of Hebrew. Cortex, 116, 286–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.06.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Paice, C. D. (2006). Stemming. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd, pp. 149–150). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B. (2004). Morphological processing: A comparison between free and bound stem facilitation. Brain and Language, 90, 31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00417-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Peereman, R., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Messaoud-Galusi, S. (2013). The contribution of morphology to the consistency of spelling-to-sound relations: A quantitative analysis based on French elementary school readers. Année Psychologique, 113, 3–33.  https://doi.org/10.4074/s0003503313001012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Quémart, P., & Casalis, S. (2015). Visual processing of derivational morphology in children with developmental dyslexia: Insights from masked priming. 36, 345–376.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641300026X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rey-Debove, J. (1984). Le domaine de la morphologie lexicale. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 45, 3–19.Google Scholar
  79. Romary, L., Salmon-Alt, S., & Francopoulo, G. (2004). Standards going concrete: From LMF to Morphalou. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics—COLING 2004, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  80. Sánchez Gutiérrez, C. (2013). Contribución de la conciencia morfológica a la mejora de la ortografía: Un estudio evolutivo con niños de tercero a sexto de primaria. Sintagma, 25, 33–46.Google Scholar
  81. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C., & Hernández-Muñoz, N. (2018). Development of derivational morphological awareness in anglophone learners of Spanish: A relational knowledge study. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 369–388.  https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. H., Mailhot, H., Deacon, S. E., & Wilson, M. A. (2018). MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1568–1580.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How simplex complex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-661301515-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Sparks, E., & Deacon, S. H. (2015). Morphological awareness and vocabulary acquisition: A longitudinal examination of their relationship in English-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 299–321.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stemberger, J. P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14, 17–26.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Suárez-Coalla, P., Martínez-García, C., & Cuetos, F. (2017). Morpheme-based reading and writing in Spanish children with dyslexia, 8, 1952.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. Mental Lexicon, 1, 183–199.  https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 607–620.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-537190054-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilson, M. A., Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. H., Mailhot, H., & Deacon, S. H. (2019). The importance of being earnest in earnestness: The influence of root morphology in complex noun processing. In S. Sulpizio, L. Barca, S. Primativo, & L. S. Arduino (Eds.), Word recognition, morphology and lexical reading: Essays in honour of Cristina Burani (pp. 134–143). London, UK: College Publications.Google Scholar
  91. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 502–529.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.  https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.5.971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Mailhot
    • 1
  • Maximiliano A. Wilson
    • 2
    Email author
  • Joël Macoir
    • 2
  • S. Hélène Deacon
    • 3
  • Claudia Sánchez-Gutiérrez
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Centre de recherche CERVO et Département de réadaptationUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Dalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  4. 4.Department of Spanish and PortugueseUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations