Recognizing Morphologically Complex Words in Turkish

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Target Word Word Recognition Completion Task Visual Word Recognition Complex Word 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aghababian, V., & Nazir, T. A. (2000). Developing normal reading skills: Aspects of the visual processes underlying word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 123–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Burani, C. & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and cognitive processes, 2/3, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Chialat & Caramazza (1995). In L.B. Feldman (Ed.). Morphological aspects of language processing. (pp. 55–78), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  6. Colé, P., Beuvillain, C, & Segui, J. (1987). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grainger, J., Colé, P. & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Murrell, G.A. & Morton, J. (1974). Word recognition and morphemic structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 963–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Napps, S.E. (1989). Morphemic relationships in the lexicon: Are they distinct from semantic and formal relationships? Memory & Cognition, 17, 729–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rapp, B.C. (1992). The nature of sublexical orthographic organization: The bigram trough hypothesis examined. Journal of Memory and Language. 31, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rubin, G.S., Becker, C.A. & Freeman, R.H. (1979). Morphological structure and its effect on visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations