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.
KeywordsBigram frequency Syllables Morphemes Word naming Lexical decision
- Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Fudge, E. (1984). English Word Stress. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
- Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). A dual route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Language Sciences. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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