Recognizing Morphologically Complex Words in Turkish
In order to recognize a written or spoken word, information coming through the senses has to be compared to an internal representation. There has been considerable research on the internal representation of morphologically simple words (for a review see, Balota, 1994). The length, frequency, imageability of the word, as well as the number of its neighbors in the rime family have all been found to affect how fast an internal representation is accessed. However, the recognition of morphologically complex words, especially the nature of their internal representation, has been harder to describe. Some researchers have assumed that complex words are first decomposed into their constituent morphemes and then compared with the stored representations of stems and affixes (Taft & Forster, 1975, 1976). The support for such a model comes from experiments comparing truly prefixed words (RETURN) and pseudoprefixed words (RELISH). According to this model, morphological decomposition precedes lexical access. Both truly prefixed and pseudo-prefixed words are stripped before searching the lexicon. Because pseudoprefixed words have no lexical entry once the prefix is stripped (-LISH of relish), the cognitive system needs to reassemble the components and conduct another search in the lexicon, thus producing longer reaction times for pseudoprefixed words. However, other studies have questioned whether affix stripping was an obligatory process.
KeywordsTarget Word Word Recognition Completion Task Visual Word Recognition Complex Word
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Balota, D.A. (1994). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning. in M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.). Handbook ofPsycholinguistics. (303–358). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Bybee, J. (1995). Diachronic and typological properties of morphology, and their implications for representation. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.). Morphological aspects of language processing. (pp.225–226), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chialat & Caramazza (1995). In L.B. Feldman (Ed.). Morphological aspects of language processing. (pp. 55–78), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
- Hankamer, J. (1992). Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.) Lexical representation and process. (pp. 392–408). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hudson, P.T.W. & Buijs, D. (1995). Left-to-right processing of derivational morphology. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.). Morphological aspects of language processing. (pp. 383–396), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Seidenberg, M.S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? In M. Coltheart (ed.). Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Solak, A. (1991). Turkce metinlerde sozcuk yazimi kontrolunun tasarimi ve gerceklestirimi [Design and implementation of a spelling checker for Turkish]. M.S. thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
- Stolz, J.A., & Feldman, L.B. (1995). The role of orthographic and semantic transparency of the base morpheme in morphological processing. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.). Morphological aspects of language processing. (pp. 109–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar