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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
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.
Burani, C. & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and cognitive processes, 2/3, 217–227.
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.
Chialat & Caramazza (1995). In L.B. Feldman (Ed.). Morphological aspects of language processing. (pp. 55–78), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
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.
Grainger, J., Colé, P. & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384.
Hankamer, J. (1992). Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.) Lexical representation and process. (pp. 392–408). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Murrell, G.A. & Morton, J. (1974). Word recognition and morphemic structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 963–968.
Napps, S.E. (1989). Morphemic relationships in the lexicon: Are they distinct from semantic and formal relationships? Memory & Cognition, 17, 729–739.
Rapp, B.C. (1992). The nature of sublexical orthographic organization: The bigram trough hypothesis examined. Journal of Memory and Language. 31, 33–53.
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.
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.
Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
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.
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 Associates
Taft, M. & Forster, K.I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Durgunoğlu, A.Y. (2003). Recognizing Morphologically Complex Words in Turkish. In: Assink, E.M.H., Sandra, D. (eds) Reading Complex Words. Neuropsychology and Cognition, vol 22. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3720-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3720-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-3397-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3720-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive