Advertisement

Towards a Constructional Approach of L2 Morphological Processing

  • Hélène Giraudo
  • Serena Dal Maso
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

Following Silva & Clahsen seminal work, psycholinguistic research on L2 morphological processing has mainly adopted a morpheme-based, decompositional dual route approach suggesting that L2 learners have a limited access to morphological representation during processing and consequently rely more on lexical storage (Clahsen H, Felser C, Neubauer K, Sato M, Silva R, Lang Learn 60:21–43, 2010; Clahsen and Felser, 2017). Therefore, experimental research, which largely used the masked priming paradigm, mainly focused on the distinction between storage and computation as two alternative, mutually exclusive and competing mechanisms. In this paper, we claim that a word-based approach, which considers morphology in terms of constructional schemas, allows us to overcome the rule vs. list fallacy and therefore reshapes the dichotomy between L1 and L2 processing mechanisms. Although a consistent proposal is still out of reach, given that data on L2 processing are limited, we will discuss the advantages of a model which jointly considers formal and semantic similarities, as well as paradigmatic proprieties.

Keywords

Second language acquisition L1-L2 morphological processing Masked priming 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abutalebi, J., and D.W. Green. 2008. Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S.R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612.Google Scholar
  3. Basnight-Brown, D., H. Chen, H. Shu, A. Kostić, and L.B. Feldman. 2007. Monolingual and bilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Does sensitivity to word form vary with language experience? Journal of Memory and Language 57: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudelaa, S., and W.D. Marslen-Wilson. 2011. Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language & Cognitive Processes 26: 624–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of morphology 1995, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bosch, S., and H. Clahsen. 2016. Accessing morphosyntax in L1 and L2 word recognition: A priming study of inflected German adjectives. The Mental Lexicon 11: 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burani, C., and A. Caramazza. 1987. Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burani, C., and A.M. Thornton. 2003. The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In Morphological structure in language processing, ed. R.H. Baayen and R. Schreuder, 157–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caramazza, A., A. Laudanna, and C. Romani. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition 28: 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, L., H. Shu, J. Liu Zhao, and P. Li. 2007. ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10: 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clahsen, H., and C. Felser. 2006. How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Science 10: 564–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clahsen, H., and C. Felser. 2017. Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000250.
  15. Clahsen, H., and Y. Ikemoto. 2012. The mental representation of derived words: An experimental study of –sa and –mi nominals in Japanese. The Mental Lexicon 7: 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clahsen, H., and K. Neubauer. 2010. Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and non-native speakers. Lingua 120: 2627–2637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clahsen, H., I. Sonnensthul, and J.P. Blevins. 2003. Derivational morphology in the mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In Morphological structure in language processing, ed. R.H. Baayen and R. Schreuder, 125–155. Berlin/New York: Mouton-De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Clahsen, H., C. Felser, K. Neubauer, M. Sato, and R. Silva. 2010. Morphological structure in native and non-native language processing. Language Learning 60: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colé, P., C. Beauvillain, and J. Segui. 1989. 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
  20. Coughlin, C., and A. Tremblay. 2015. Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dal Maso, S., and H. Giraudo. 2014. Masked morphological priming in Italian L2: Evidence from masked priming. Lingvisticae Investigationes 37: 322–337.Google Scholar
  22. Dal Maso, S., and H. Giraudo. submitted. On the interplay of family and series effects in visual word recognition. Morphology, Special Issue: Paradigms in Word-formation.Google Scholar
  23. Diependaele, K., J.A. Duñabeitia, J. Morris, and E. Keuleers. 2011. Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 64: 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diependaele, K., J. Grainger, and D. Sandra. 2012. Derivational morphology and skilled reading: An empirical overview. In The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. M. Spivey, K. McRae, and M. Joanisse, 311–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ding, G., D. Peng, and M. Taft. 2004. The nature of the mental representation of radicals in Chinese: A priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30: 530–539.Google Scholar
  26. Domínguez, A., J. Segui, and F. Cuetos. 2002. The time-course of inflectional morphological priming. Linguistics 40: 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10.Google Scholar
  28. Drews, E., and P. Zwitserlood. 1995. Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 1098–1116.Google Scholar
  29. Ellis, N.C. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 305–352.Google Scholar
  30. Feldman, L.B. 2000. Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26: 1431–1444.Google Scholar
  31. Feldman L.B., D. Barac-Cikoja, and A. Kostić. 2000. Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society, November, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  32. Feldman, L.B., A. Kostić, D.M. Basnight-Brown, D.F. Đurđević, and M.J. Pastizzo. 2010. Morphological facilitation for regular and irregular verb formations in native and non-native speakers: Little evidence for two distinct mechanisms. Journal of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13: 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foote, R. 2015. The storage and processing of morphologically complex words in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Forster, K.I. 1998. The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Forster, K.I., and C. Davis. 1984. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10: 680–698.Google Scholar
  36. Fowler, C.A., S.E. Napps, and L.B. Feldman. 1985. Relations among regular and irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming. Memory and Cognition 13: 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Giraudo, H., and S. Dal Maso. 2016a. Suffix perceptual salience in masked morphological priming. Lingue e Linguaggio 15: 85–103.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2016b. The salience of complex words and their parts: Which comes first? Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Giraudo, H., and J. Grainger. 2000. Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 15: 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ———. 2001. Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8: 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Giraudo, H., and M. Voga. 2007. Lexeme-based model vs. morpheme-based model from psycholinguistic perspectives. In Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, ed. F. Montermini, G. Boyé, and N. Hathout, 108–114. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2014. Measuring morphology: The tip of the iceberg? A retrospective on 10 years of morphological processing. Carnets de Grammaire 22: 136–167.Google Scholar
  43. Giraudo, H., S. Dal Maso, and S. Piccinin. 2016. The role of stem frequency in morphological processing. In On-line proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM10), Quo vadis morphology? Grammar, Cognition and Computation, 64–72.Google Scholar
  44. Gonnerman, L.M., M.S. Seidenberg, and E.S. Andersen. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136: 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gor, K., and S. Cook. 2010. Non-native processing of verbal morphology: In search of regularity. Language Learning 60 (1): 88–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gor, K., and S. Jackson. 2013. Morphological decomposition and lexical access in a native and second language: A nesting doll effect. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 1065–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Henderson, L. 1985. Towards a psychology of morphemes. In Progress in the psychology of language, ed. A.W. Ellis, vol. I, 15–68. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Heyer, V., and H. Clahsen. 2015. Late bilinguals see a scan in scanner AND in scandal: Dissecting formal overlap from morphological priming in the processing of derived words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18: 543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacob, G., E. Fleischhauer, and H. Clahsen. 2013. Allomorphy and affixation in morphological processing: A cross-modal priming study with late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16: 924–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacob, G., V. Heyer, and J. Veríssimo. 2017. Aiming at the same target: A masked priming study directly comparing derivation and inflection in the second language. International Journal of Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916688333.
  51. Kim, S.Y., M. Wang, and M. Taft. 2015. Morphological decomposition in the recognition of prefixed and suffixed words: Evidence from Korean. Scientific Studies of Reading 19: 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kirkici, B., and H. Clahsen. 2013. Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16: 776–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kroll, J., and E. Stewart. 1994. Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. MacWhinney, B. 2011. Language development. In Developmental science: An advanced textbook, ed. M. Bornstein and M. Lamb, 389–424. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  56. Marslen-Wilson, W.D., and L.K. Tyler. 1997. Dissociating types of mental computation. Nature 387: 592–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McDonald, J.L. 2006. Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morris, J., J. Grainger, and P.J. Holcomb. 2013. Tracking the consequences of morpho-orthographic decomposition using ERPs. Brain Research 1529: 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Neubauer, K., and H. Clahsen. 2009. Decomposition of inflected words in a second language: An experimental study of German participles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 403–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nikolova, R., and G. Jarema. 2002. Interaction of morphological structure and prefix transparency in the processing of Bulgarian aspectual verb forms. Brain and Language 81: 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Orihuela, K., and H. Giraudo. submitted. Reversing the surface frequencies of prime-target morphologically related pairs: Implications for the decompositional and holistic approaches of lexical access.Google Scholar
  62. Pastizzo, M.J., and L.B. Feldman. 2002. Discrepancies between orthographic and unrelated baselines in masked priming undermine a decompositional account of morphological facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 28: 244–249.Google Scholar
  63. Perani, D., and J. Abutalebi. 2005. The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15: 202–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perlmutter, D.M. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Theoretical morphology, ed. M. Hammond and M. Noonan, 79–100. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  65. Pinker, S. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253: 530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinker, S., and A. Prince. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed model of language acquisition. Cognition 28: 73–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Plank, F. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. R.E. Asher, vol. 3, 1671–1678. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  68. Portin, M., M. Lehtonen, and M. Laine. 2007. Processing of inflected nouns in late bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 28: 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rastle, K., and M.H. Davis. 2008. Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 942–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raveh, M., and J. Rueckl. 2000. Equivalent effects of inflected and derived primes: Long-term morphological priming in fragment completion and lexical decision. Journal or Memory and Language 42: 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sabourin, L., and M. Haverkort. 2003. Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition, ed. R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, and R. Towell, 175–195. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schreuder, R., and R.H. Baayen. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In Morphological aspects of language processing, ed. L.B. Feldman, 131–154. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  73. Sereno, J., and A. Jongman. 1997. Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition 25: 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Silva, R., and H. Clahsen. 2008. Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11: 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stanners, R.F., J.J. Neiser, W.P. Hernon, and R. Hall. 1979. Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ———. 1985. The lexical account of word naming considered further. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8: 689–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ———. 1994. Interactive activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 9: 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taft, M., and K.I. Forster. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ullman, M. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92: 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. ———. 2006. The declarative/procedural model and the shallow-structure hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 97–105.Google Scholar
  81. Voga, M., and J. Grainger. 2004. Masked morphological priming with varying levels of form overlap: Evidence from Greek verbs. Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain & Cognition 13 (2): 1–10.Google Scholar
  82. Voga, M. 2005. Amorçage masqué cognate inter-alphabet: rôle des facteurs morphologique et phonologique. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle 19: 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Voga, M., A. Anastassiadis-Syméonidis, and H. Giraudo. 2014. Does morphology play a role in L2 processing? Two masked priming experiments with Greek speakers of ESL. Lingvisticae Investigationes 37: 338–352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hélène Giraudo
    • 1
  • Serena Dal Maso
    • 2
  1. 1.CLLEUniversité de Toulouse, CNRSToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department ‘Culture e Civiltà’, University of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options