Morphological Representation as a Correlation Between form and Meaning

Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 22)


Lexical memory exists for the purpose of mapping meaning onto word form. It interfaces with the world via a level of representation that corresponds to the presented form of the word (either orthographic or auditory), and access to this representation makes available the semantic information associated with it. Such a form-to-meaning association has been built up over repeated occurrences of the same form referring to the same thing. That is, the lexical system captures the correlation that can be found between a form and the context in which it occurs. For example, the word form cat is consistently found in a context that refers to a furry, whiskered pet that says “miaow”, even though this context might vary markedly in other ways (e.g., when referring to a cat stuck up a tree, a cat owned in one’s childhood, or a cat chasing a mouse).


Semantic Feature Form Level Compound Word Complex Word Form Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or non-lexical effects? Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 726–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R, & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homophony, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleasdale, F. A. (1987). Concreteness-dependent associative priming: Separate lexical organization for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 582–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burani, C, Salmaso, D., & Caramazza, A. (1984). Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Language, 18, 342–352.Google Scholar
  6. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and paral-lel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emmorey, K. (1989). Auditory morphological priming in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Libben, G. (1994). How is morphological decomposition achieved? Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lima, S. D., & Pollatsek, A. (1983). Lexical access via an orthographic code? The Basic Orthographic Syllabic (BOSS) reconsidered. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 310–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L.K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Modern Chinese frequency dictionary [Xianda huayupinlu zidian] (1985). Beijing, China: Beijing Language Institute Press.Google Scholar
  13. Norris, D. (1994). A quantitative multiple-levels model of reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1212–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Page, M. (1999). Connectionist modelling in psychology: A localist manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23. Google Scholar
  15. Plaut, D. C, McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 529–567.Google Scholar
  17. Sandra, D. (1994). The morphology of the mental lexicon: Word structure viewed from a psycholinguistic perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 227–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modelling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Schreuder, R., Burani, C, & Baayen, R. H. (this volume) Parsing and semantic opacity.Google Scholar
  20. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 82–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taft, M. (1987). Morphographic processing. The BOSS re-emerges. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance, XII. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Limited.Google Scholar
  24. Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taft, M., Huang, J., & Zhu, X. (1994). The influence of character frequency on word recognition responses in Chinese. In H. W. Chang, J.-T. Huang, C.-W. Hue, & O. Tzeng (Eds.), Advances in the study of Chinese language processing (Vol. 1, pp. 59–73). Taipei: National Taiwan University.Google Scholar
  29. Taft, M., Liu, Y., & Zhu, X. (1999). Morphemic processing in reading Chinese. In A. Inhoff, J. Wang, & H.-C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese Script: A cognitive analysis . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Taft, M., & Zhu, X. (1997). Using masked priming to examine lexical storage of Chinese compound words. In H.-C. Chen (Ed.), The cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 233–241): Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Zhang, B. Y., & Peng, D. L. (1992). Decomposed storage in the Chinese lexicon. In H.-C. Chen & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 131–149). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of New South WalesSydney New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations