Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Ubiquity Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6634602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517209 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.39 |
_version_ | 1783435799024369664 |
---|---|
author | Taft, Marcus Li, Sonny Beyersmann, Elisabeth |
author_facet | Taft, Marcus Li, Sonny Beyersmann, Elisabeth |
author_sort | Taft, Marcus |
collection | PubMed |
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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6634602 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Ubiquity Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66346022019-09-12 What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing Taft, Marcus Li, Sonny Beyersmann, Elisabeth J Cogn Research Article 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. Ubiquity Press 2018-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6634602/ /pubmed/31517209 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.39 Text en Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Taft, Marcus Li, Sonny Beyersmann, Elisabeth What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing |
title | 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_short | 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 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6634602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517209 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.39 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taftmarcus whatcrossmorphemiclettertranspositioninderivednonwordstellsusaboutlexicalprocessing AT lisonny whatcrossmorphemiclettertranspositioninderivednonwordstellsusaboutlexicalprocessing AT beyersmannelisabeth whatcrossmorphemiclettertranspositioninderivednonwordstellsusaboutlexicalprocessing |