Effects of Sublexical Frequency and Meaning in Prefixed Words

  • Harold T. Nefs
  • Egbert M. H. Assink
  • Paul P. N. A. Knuijt
Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 22)

Abstract

Since the early seventies, when Taft and Forster (1975) started their research, the question has been raised how morphologically complex words are recognized by skilled and beginning readers. Several morphological word processing models have been proposed. Broadly speaking, three frameworks can be distinguished: the Prelexical Morphological Decomposition model (Taft & Forster, 1975), the full-listing model (Butterworth, 1983; Henderson, 1985), and the interactive models (AAM model (Caramazza, Laudanna & Romani, 1988), and the Interactive Activation model (Taft, 1994)).

Keywords

Response Latency Skilled Reader Real Word 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. Assink, E.M.H., Vooijs, C. & Knuijt, P.P.N.A. (2000). Prefixes as Access Units in Visual Word Recognition: a Comparison of Italian and Dutch Data. Reading and Writing, 12, 149–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R. & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  3. Bergman, W.M. (1988). The visual recognition of word structure: Left to right processing of derivational morphology. Doctoral thesis Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Enschede: sneldruk Enschede.Google Scholar
  4. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical Representation. In Butterworth, B. (Ed.). Language Production, vol II. London, etc: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A. & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, C, Jonasson, J. & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and Performance VI (pp. 535–556). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ehri, L.C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In Gough, P., Ehri, L. & Treiman (Eds.) Reading acquisition, 107–143. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Grainger, J. & Jacob, A.M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple readout model. Psychological review, 103(3), 518–565. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grainger, J., Colt, J, P. & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of memory and language, 30, 370–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson, L. (1985). Toward a psychology of morphemes. In Ellis, A.W. (Ed.) Progress in the psychology of language (vol. 1. pp 15–72). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Jarvella, R.J., Job, R., Sandstrom, G. & Schreuder, R. (1987). Morphological constraints on word recognition. In: A. Allport, D.G. MacKay, W. Prinz & E. Schreerer (Eds). Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading, and writing (pp. 245–265). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Keppel, G. (1982). Design and Analysis. A Researcher’s Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Laudanna, A., Burani, C. & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes as processing units. Language and cognitive processes, 9(3), 295–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orden, G.C. van & Goldfinger, S.D.(1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 20(6), 1269–1291. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reitsma, P. (1983). Phonemic and Graphemic codes in learning to read. Doctoral thesis. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Utrecht: Elinkwijk bv.Google Scholar
  16. Rolf, P.C. & van Rijnsoever, R.J. (1984). Positionele letterfrekwenties van het Nederlands. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  17. Sandra, D. (1994). The morphology of the mental lexicon: internal word structure viewed from a psycho-linguistic perspective. Language and cognition, 9 (3), 227–269. Google Scholar
  18. Schreuder, R. (1991). Woordherkenning en morfologie. In Thomassen, A.J.W.M., Noordman, L. & Eling, P. (1991). Lezen en Begrijpen: De psychologie van het leesproces. pp. 69–83. Amsterdam/Lisse. Swets & Zeitlinger bv.Google Scholar
  19. Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R.H. (1994). Prefix stripping Re-revisited. Journal of memory and language, 33, 357–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schreuder, R. & Baayen, H.R. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.) Morphological aspects in language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Schreuder, R., Grendel, M., Poulisse, N., Roelofs, A. & Voort, M. van de (1990). Lexical processing, morphological complexity and reading. In Balota, D.A., Flores d’Arcais, G.B. & Rayner, K. (Eds.)(1990). Comprehension processes in reading, (pp. 125–141). Hove, London: Lawrence -Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Seidenberg, M.S. & McClelland (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Segui, J. & Grainger, J. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance, 16 (1), 65–76. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory User’s Guide: Computer Techniques for Real Time Psychological Experimentation. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and cognition, 9 (3), 271–294. Google 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. Uit den Boogaart, P. (1975). Woordfrequenties (word frequencies). Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
  28. Zwitserlood, P. (1994). The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of dutch compounds. Language and cognitive processes, 9 (3), 341–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomassen, A.J.W.M., Noordman, L.G.M. & Eling, P.A.T.M. (Eds.). (1991). Lezen en begrijpen: De psychologie van het leesproces. Amsterdam, Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold T. Nefs
    • 1
  • Egbert M. H. Assink
    • 1
  • Paul P. N. A. Knuijt
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations