Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 241–254 | Cite as

Bigram Frequency, Number of Syllables and Morphemes and Their Effects on Lexical Decision and Word Naming



There has been an increasing volume of evidence supporting the role of the syllable in word processing tasks. Recently it has also been shown that orthographic redundancy, related to the pattern of bigram frequencies, could not explain the syllable number effect on lexical decision times. This was demonstrated on a large sample of words taken from the British Lexicon Project. In this study we extend this research by examining both lexical decision and word naming times taken from the English Lexicon Project . There was a syllable number effect for both tasks in the expected direction, and this effect was independent of the presence of a bigram trough. The research also examined the role of other bigram related variables and the number of morphemes on lexical decision and word naming times. The number of morphemes had a significant effect on both word processing tasks, with words with more morphemes producing faster reaction times and also fewer errors. This pattern was reversed for nonword lexical decision times. The results are discussed in the light of recent developments in models of reading.


Bigram frequency Syllables Morphemes Word naming Lexical decision 


  1. Adams, J. W., Stone, M., Vincent, R. D., & Muncer, S. J. (2011). The role of syllables in anagram solution: A Rasch analysis. The Journal of General Psychology, 138(2), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arciuli, J., & Cupples, L. (2012). The processing of lexical stress during visual word recognition: Typicality effects and orthographic correlates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 920–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant, P., Nunes, T., & Bindman, M. (1997). Children’s understanding of the connection between grammar and spelling. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations o f reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 979–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carreiras, M., Alvarez, C. J., & De Vega, M. (1993). Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 766–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conrad, M., Carreiras, M., Tamm, S., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). Syllables and bigrams: Orthographic redundancy and syllabic units affect word recognition at different processing levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 461–479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2013). Seeing stems everywhere: Position-independent identification of stem morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 510–525Google Scholar
  12. Doignon, N., & Zagar, D. (2005). Illusory conjunctions in French: The nature of sublexical units in visual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doignon-Camus, N., Zagar, D., & Mathey, S. (2009). Can we see syllables in monosyllabic words? A study with illusory conjunctions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrand, L., & New, B. (2002). Syllabic length effects in visual word recognition and naming. Acta Psychologica, 113, 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzsimmons, G., & Drieghe, D. (2011). The influence of number of syllables on word skipping during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 736–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford, A., & Singh, R. (1991). Propedeutique morphologique. Folia Linguistica, 25, 549–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forster, K. L., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 12, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fowler, A. E., & Liberman, I. Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Fowler, C. A., Napps, S. E., & Feldman, L. (1985). Relations among regular and irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming. Memory & Cognition, 13(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fudge, E. (1984). English Word Stress. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Goldsmith, J. (2001). Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics, 27(2), 153–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). A dual route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Language Sciences. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054.
  24. Harris, Z. S. (1955). From phoneme to morpheme. Language, 31, 190–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kandel, S., Peereman, R., Grosjacques, G., & Fayol, M. (2011). For a psycholinguistic model of handwriting production: Testing the syllable-bigram controversy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 92–105.Google Scholar
  26. Keuleers, M., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British lexicon project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 287–304.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight, D., & Muncer, S. J. (2011). Type and token bigram frequencies for two-through nine letter words and the prediction of anagram difficulty. Behaviour Research Methods, 43(2), 491–498.Google Scholar
  28. Macizo, P., & Van Petten, C. (2007). Syllable frequency in lexical decision and naming of English words. Reading and Writing, 20, 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muncer, S. J., & Jandreau, S. (1984). Morphemes, syllables, words and reading. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59(1), 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muncer, S. J., & Knight, D. C. (2011). The syllable effect in anagram solution: Unrecognised evidence from past studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 111–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muncer, S. J., & Knight, D. (2012). The bigram trough and the syllable number effect in lexical decision. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.697176.
  32. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Pscyhology, 98(1), 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Napps, S. E. (1989). Morphemic relationships in the lexicon: Are they distinct from semantic and formal relationships. Memory & Cognition, 17(6), 729–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neuvel, S., & Fulop, S. A. (2002). Unsupervised learning of morphology without morphemes. ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (SIGPHON), Philadelphia, Morphological and phonological learning: proceedings of the 6th workshop of the association for, computational linguistics pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
  35. New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence form the English lexicon project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Novick, L. R., & Sherman, S. J. (2008). The effects of superficial and structural information on on-line problems solving for good versus poor anagram solvers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1098–1120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 106–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prinzmetal, W., Trieman, R., & Rho, S. H. (1986). How to see a reading unit. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rapp, B. (1992). The nature of sub-lexical orthographic organization: The bigram trough hypothesis examined. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (2000). Lexical and nonlexical print-to-sound translation of disyllabic words and nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 342–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26(6), 1270–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seidenberg, M. S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? In M. Colteart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 245–263). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  44. Singson, M., Mahoney, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relationship between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solso, R. L., & Juel, C. L. (1980). Positional frequency and versatility of bigrams for two- through nine-letter English words. Behaviour Research Methods, 12, 297–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage retrieval for prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Treiman, R., Mullenix, J., Bijelac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vannest, J., Newport, E. L., Newman, A. J., & Bavelier, D. (2011). Interplay between morphology and frequency in lexical access: The case of the base frequency effect. Brain Research, 1373, 144–159.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 502–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yap, Y., Tan, S. E., & Pexman, P. M. (2011). Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 742–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Muncer
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Knight
    • 1
  • John W. Adams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK
  2. 2.Clinical PsychologyTeesside UniversityMiddlesbroughUK

Personalised recommendations