What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing

According to an obligatory decomposition account of polymorphemic word recognition, a nonword that is composed of a real word plus derivational affix (e.g., teachen) should prime its stem (TEACH) to the same extent that a truly suffixed word does (e.g., teacher). The stem will be activated in both c...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marcus Taft, Sonny Li, Elisabeth Beyersmann
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Ubiquity Press 2018-07-01
Series:Journal of Cognition
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.journalofcognition.org/articles/39
id doaj-bc9ed9453c8946cb91b66b7aaa67b965
record_format Article
spelling doaj-bc9ed9453c8946cb91b66b7aaa67b9652020-11-24T22:39:36ZengUbiquity PressJournal of Cognition2514-48202018-07-011110.5334/joc.3938What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical ProcessingMarcus Taft0Sonny Li1Elisabeth Beyersmann2UNSW, SydneyUNSW, SydneyDepartment of Cognitive Science and ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, SydneyAccording to an obligatory decomposition account of polymorphemic word recognition, a nonword that is composed of a real word plus derivational affix (e.g., teachen) should prime its stem (TEACH) to the same extent that a truly suffixed word does (e.g., teacher). The stem will be activated in both cases after the suffix is removed prior to the lexical status of the letter-string being of relevance. Importantly, disruption to the stem and suffix through letter transposition should have the same impact on the nonwords and words, with teacehn and teacehr equally priming TEACH. However, an experiment by Diependaele, Morris, Serota, Bertrand, and Grainger (2013) found that the equivalent priming for nonwords and words only occurred when they were intact. When letters were transposed, only the truly derived words showed priming. Since such a result cannot be handled by an obligatory decomposition account, it is important to replicate it. Therefore, the present study repeated the conditions of Diependaele et al. (2013), along with a nonword condition where the stem was followed by a non-suffix (e.g., teachin or teacihn). It was found that priming was maintained across all conditions regardless of letter transposition, hence maintaining obligatory decomposition as a viable account. However, the findings with the non-suffixed nonwords led to the conclusion that morphological structure does not control decomposition, but rather, has its impact after form-based components of the letter-string have been activated.https://www.journalofcognition.org/articles/39ReadingVisual word processingWord processing
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Marcus Taft
Sonny Li
Elisabeth Beyersmann
spellingShingle Marcus Taft
Sonny Li
Elisabeth Beyersmann
What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing
Journal of Cognition
Reading
Visual word processing
Word processing
author_facet Marcus Taft
Sonny Li
Elisabeth Beyersmann
author_sort Marcus Taft
title What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing
title_short What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing
title_full What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing
title_fullStr What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing
title_full_unstemmed What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing
title_sort what cross-morphemic letter transposition in derived nonwords tells us about lexical processing
publisher Ubiquity Press
series Journal of Cognition
issn 2514-4820
publishDate 2018-07-01
description According to an obligatory decomposition account of polymorphemic word recognition, a nonword that is composed of a real word plus derivational affix (e.g., teachen) should prime its stem (TEACH) to the same extent that a truly suffixed word does (e.g., teacher). The stem will be activated in both cases after the suffix is removed prior to the lexical status of the letter-string being of relevance. Importantly, disruption to the stem and suffix through letter transposition should have the same impact on the nonwords and words, with teacehn and teacehr equally priming TEACH. However, an experiment by Diependaele, Morris, Serota, Bertrand, and Grainger (2013) found that the equivalent priming for nonwords and words only occurred when they were intact. When letters were transposed, only the truly derived words showed priming. Since such a result cannot be handled by an obligatory decomposition account, it is important to replicate it. Therefore, the present study repeated the conditions of Diependaele et al. (2013), along with a nonword condition where the stem was followed by a non-suffix (e.g., teachin or teacihn). It was found that priming was maintained across all conditions regardless of letter transposition, hence maintaining obligatory decomposition as a viable account. However, the findings with the non-suffixed nonwords led to the conclusion that morphological structure does not control decomposition, but rather, has its impact after form-based components of the letter-string have been activated.
topic Reading
Visual word processing
Word processing
url https://www.journalofcognition.org/articles/39
work_keys_str_mv AT marcustaft whatcrossmorphemiclettertranspositioninderivednonwordstellsusaboutlexicalprocessing
AT sonnyli whatcrossmorphemiclettertranspositioninderivednonwordstellsusaboutlexicalprocessing
AT elisabethbeyersmann whatcrossmorphemiclettertranspositioninderivednonwordstellsusaboutlexicalprocessing
_version_ 1725708052762460160