Advertisement

A Supralexical Model for French Derivational Morphology

  • Hélène Giraudo
  • Jonathan Grainger
Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 22)

Abstract

Today there is a growing consensus among psycholinguists that morphological information plays a critical role in the highly automatized process of word recognition. At a linguistic level of analysis, morphology describes the word formation rules of a given language. A morphologically complex word, such as banker, represents the combination of at least two morphemes: the root bank and the suffix -er in the given example. As a consequence, from each root morpheme (e.g., bank) one can derive numerous morphologically complex words by adding another morpheme to the root (i.e., -er, -ing, -s, -rupt... to form the words banker, banking, banks, bankrupt...etc.). Thus, from a linguistic point of view, the accent is often placed on productivity when discussing the role of morphological information. Morphemic components (roots and affixes) can be used to create new word forms in production and to understand novel forms in comprehension. For example, someone who had never heard or read the word dimness before, but has knowledge of the root dim and the suffix — ness, could derive the meaning of the novel whole-word from the meaning and function of the component morphemes.

Keywords

Target Word Word Recognition Lexical Decision Visual Word Recognition Prime 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. Beauvillain, C. (1996). The integration of morphological information and whole-word form information during eye fixations on prefixed and suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 801–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burton, A.M. (1998). In J. Grainger & A.M. Jacobs, Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical Representation. Language Production, 2, 257–295.Google Scholar
  4. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colé, P., Beauvillain, C, Pavard, B., & Segui, J. (1986). Organisation morphologique et accès au lexique. L’Année Psychologique, 86, 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colé, P., Beauvillain, C, & Segui, J. (1989).On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. I. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24,1238–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1098–1116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 680–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forster, K. I., Davis, C, Schoknecht, C, & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 211–251.Google Scholar
  11. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frost, R., Forster, K., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew ? A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1–28.Google Scholar
  13. Gardes-Tamines, J. (1988). La grammaire: phonologie, morphologie, lexicologie, Tome 1. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  14. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, in press.Google Scholar
  16. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2002). On the role of derivational affixes in recognizing complex words: Evidence from masked priming. Manuscript submitted for publication. Google Scholar
  17. Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grainger, J. & Ferrand, L. (1994). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A., M. (1998). Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Henderson, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, D. (1984). Morphemic structure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance, X (pp.221–224). Hillsdale, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Laudanna, A., Burani, C, & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes as processing units. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laudanna, A., Cermele, A., & Caramazza, A. (1997). Morpho-lexical representations in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, B., Kostic, A., & Turvey, M.T. (1980). Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon. Memory & Cognition, 8, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manelis, L., & Tharp, D. (1977). The processing of affixed words. Memory & Cognition, 5, 690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meunier, F. & Segui, J. (1999). Frequency effects in auditory word recognition: The case of suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pillon, A. (1998). The pseudo-prefixation effect in visual word recognition: A true-neither strategic nor orthographic-morphemic effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 85–120.Google Scholar
  30. Rastle, K., Davis, M.H., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., and Tyler, L.K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1994). Prefix stripping re-revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modelling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schriefers, H., Zwitserlood, P., & Roelofs, A. (1991). The identification of morphologically complex spoken words: Continuous processing or decomposition? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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, 65–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taft, M. (1981). Prefix stripping revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 20, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Linguistique et Psychologie CognitiveUniversité de Reims Champagne-ArdenneReims cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations