Masked suffix priming and morpheme positional constraints

Although masked stem priming (e.g., dealer–DEAL) is one of the most established effects in visual word identification, it is less clear whether primes and targets sharing a suffix (e.g., kindness–WILDNESS) also yield facilitation. In a new take on this issue, we show that prime nonwords facilitate lexical decisions to target words ending with the same suffix (sheeter–TEACHER) compared to a condition where the critical suffix was substituted by another one (sheetal–TEACHER) or by an unrelated nonmorphological ending (sheetub– TEACHER). We also show that this effect is genuinely morphological, as no priming emerged in noncomplex items with the same orthographic characteristics (sportel–BROTHEL vs. sportic–BROTHEL vs. sportur–BROTHEL). In a further experiment, we took advantage of these results to assess whether suffixes are recognized in a position-specific fashion. Masked suffix priming did not emerge when the relative order of stems and suffixes was reversed in the prime nonwords—ersheet did not yield any time saving in the identification of teacher as compared to either alsheet or obsheet. We take these results to show that –er was not identified as a morpheme in ersheet, thus indicating that suffix identification is position specific. This conclusion is in line with data on interference effects in nonword rejection and strongly constrains theoretical proposals on how complex words are identified. In particular, because these findings were reported in a masked priming paradigm, they suggest that positional constraints operate early, most likely at a prelexical level of morpho-orthographic analysis.

[1]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography , 2008 .

[2]  R. Baayen,et al.  Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model , 1997 .

[3]  Sally Andrews,et al.  Racehorses, reindeer, and sparrows: Using masked priming to investigate morphological influences on compound word identification , 2003 .

[4]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Adore-able not adorable? Orthographic underspecification studied with masked repetition priming , 2009 .

[5]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words , 1975 .

[6]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[7]  Jeffrey S Bowers,et al.  Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: evidence from orthographic similarity effects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Is there a ‘fete’ in ‘fetish’? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition , 2008 .

[9]  R. Baayen,et al.  Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[11]  C. Buss,et al.  Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[12]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  J. Segui,et al.  Morphological priming without morphological relationship , 2003 .

[14]  M. Coltheart,et al.  358,534 nonwords: The ARC Nonword Database , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  I. Laka,et al.  Is Milkman a superhero like Batman? Constituent morphological priming in compound words , 2009 .

[16]  J. Grainger,et al.  Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. , 1991 .

[17]  K. Forster,et al.  Masked priming for prefixed words with bound stems: Does submit prime permit? , 2000 .

[18]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[19]  Paul Kiparsky,et al.  Word-formation and the lexicon , 1982 .

[20]  Sally Andrews,et al.  Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary , 2013 .

[21]  May How to Say , 2005 .

[22]  Davide Crepaldi,et al.  Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position-specific identification of suffixes , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception , 2004 .

[24]  C. Davis N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[25]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Subtlex-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  S. Lupker,et al.  Masked inhibitory priming in english: evidence for lexical inhibition. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Marcus Taft,et al.  Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing , 1994 .

[28]  F. Meunier,et al.  Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing , 2005 .

[29]  J. Pine,et al.  Chunking mechanisms in human learning , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  J Grainger,et al.  Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. , 1996, Psychological review.

[31]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Word Formation in Generative Grammar , 1979 .

[32]  Fernando Cuetos,et al.  The contribution of prefixes to morphological processing of Spanish words , 2010 .

[33]  J. Grainger,et al.  Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: effects of relative prime-target frequency. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  L. J. Wilson Conflict in personal relationships: Dudley D. Cahn, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994 , 1995 .

[35]  Dan Chateau,et al.  Masked Priming of Prefixes and the Influence of Spelling–Meaning Consistency , 2002, Brain and Language.

[36]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[37]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  How to say "no" to a nonword: a leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  J. Grainger,et al.  Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  Andrew Spencer,et al.  Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar , 1991 .

[40]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[41]  M. Taft Morphological Decomposition and the Reverse Base Frequency Effect , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[42]  Davide Crepaldi,et al.  Morphological Processing as We Know It: An Analytical Review of Morphological Effects in Visual Word Identification , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[43]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[44]  Dennis Norris,et al.  The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. , 2006, Psychological review.

[45]  P. Zwitserlood,et al.  Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  H A Simon,et al.  How Big Is a Chunk? , 1974, Science.

[47]  Nina Kazanina,et al.  Decomposition of prefixed words in Russian. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  Séverine Casalis,et al.  Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[49]  R. F. Stanners,et al.  Memory representation for morphologically related words. , 1979 .

[50]  L. Feldman,et al.  Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Contextual Diversity, Not Word Frequency, Determines Word-Naming and Lexical Decision Times , 2006, Psychological science.

[52]  K. Forster,et al.  What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  A. Raftery Bayes Factors and BIC , 1999 .

[54]  K. Forster,et al.  REPETITION PRIMING AND FREQUENCY ATTENUATION IN LEXICAL ACCESS , 1984 .

[55]  M. Raveh The Contribution of Frequency and Semantic Similarity to Morphological Processing , 2002, Brain and Language.

[56]  K. Rastle,et al.  The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English , 2004 .

[57]  Colin J. Davis,et al.  The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. , 2001 .

[58]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[59]  R. Holloway The broth in my brother ’ s brothel : Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition , 2005 .

[60]  Sachiko Kinoshita,et al.  Masked priming : the state of the art , 2003 .

[61]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects , 2008 .

[62]  J. Grainger,et al.  Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[63]  Colin J Davis,et al.  The spatial coding model of visual word identification. , 2010, Psychological review.

[64]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. , 1976 .

[65]  M. Coltheart,et al.  ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes , 2010 .

[66]  Davide Crepaldi,et al.  Seeing stems everywhere: position-independent identification of stem morphemes. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[67]  Marcus Taft,et al.  A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon , 2010 .

[68]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. , 2004, Psychological review.

[69]  Manuel Perea,et al.  The overlap model: a model of letter position coding. , 2008, Psychological review.

[70]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study , 2000 .

[71]  R. Ulrich,et al.  Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[72]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. , 1994 .