Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study examines whether the lexical processing of German particle verbs differs from their processing in a semantic network. To this end, we explored whether the processing of particle verbs induces access to the stem (Experiment 1) and to a semantic associate of the stem (Experiment 2). In two cross-modal priming experiments, participants listened to particle verbs that were (a) semantically transparent (e.g. , ‘listen to’), (b) semantically opaque (e.g. , ‘stop’), or (c) form-related (e.g. , ‘mold’) with respect to their stem (e.g., , ‘hear’). Participants made lexical decisions about visually presented stems (e.g., , ‘hear’) and about semantic associates to the stem (e.g., , ‘music’) in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.

Relative to form controls, semantically transparent and opaque particle verbs induced equivalent stem priming (Experiment 1), indicating that the lexical processing of particle verbs occurs via the stem regardless of semantic transparency. However, neither semantically transparent nor opaque particle verbs primed semantic associates of the stem (Experiment 2). These findings indicate that stem access during lexical processing does not extend to a semantic level where the meaning of the stem is processed. We discuss these findings regarding present models of lexical processing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M.
    (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P.
    (2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. 10.21500/20112084.807
    https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
    (1993) The CELEX lexical database (on CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H., & Smolka, E.
    (2019) Modeling morphological priming without morphemes. Manuscript submitted for publication.   10.31234/osf.io/nj39v
    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nj39v [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, D.
    (2005) Fitting linear mixed models in R. R news, 5(1), 27–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. J.
    (2003) Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 645–652. 10.3758/BF03196527
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196527 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2009) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Amsterdam. Retrieved fromwww.praat.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunel, N., & Lavigne, F.
    (2009) Semantic priming in a cortical network model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(12), 2300–2319. doi:  10.1162/jocn.2008.21156
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21156 [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F.
    (1975) A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. 10.1037/0033‑295X.82.6.407
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., & Schriefers, H.
    (2019) Processing derived verbs: the role of motor-relatedness and type of morphological priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(8), 973–990. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2019.1599129
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1599129 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dell, G. S.
    (1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. 10.1037/0033‑295X.93.3.283
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J.
    (2005) Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 75–114. 10.1080/01690960444000197
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000197 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2009) Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: the case of prefixed words. Memory and Cognition, 37(6), 895–908. 10.3758/MC.37.6.895
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.895 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dudenredaktion
    Dudenredaktion (2009) Die deutsche Rechtschreibung. Das umfassende Standardwerk auf der Grundlage der neuen amtlichen Regeln (25th ed). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisenberg, P.
    (2004) Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort (2nd ed.Vol.1). Stuttgart-Weimar: J. B. Metzler. 10.1007/978‑3‑476‑03763‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-03763-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Feldman, L. B., Barac-Cikoja, D., & Kostić, A.
    (2002) Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory and Cognition, 30, 629–636. 10.3758/BF03194964
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194964 [Google Scholar]
  17. Feldman, L. B., & Larabee, J.
    (2001) Morphological facilitation following prefixed but not suffixed primes: Lexical architecture or modality-specific processes?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 680–691.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Feldman, L. B., & Soltano, E. G.
    (1999) Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency, and affix position. Brain and Language, 68, 33–39. 10.1006/brln.1999.2077
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2077 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fickel, J. & Smolka, E.
    (2014) The processing of German stems in zero derivation, Umlaut, and Ablaut. International Conference on theCross-Linguistic Comparison of Indo-Germanic and Semitic Languages (CoGS), Konstanz, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fleischer, W., & Barz, I.
    (1992) Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S.
    (2007) Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 323–345. 10.1037/0096‑3445.136.2.323
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.323 [Google Scholar]
  22. Günther, F., Smolka, E., & Marelli, M.
    (2019) ‘Understanding’ differs between English and German: Capturing systematic language differences of complex words. Cortex, 116, 158–175. doi:  10.1016/j.cortex.2018.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Longtin, C., Segui, J., & Hallé, P.
    (2003) Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. 10.1080/01690960244000036
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000036 [Google Scholar]
  25. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L.
    (1994) Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Milin, P., Smolka, E., & Feldman, L. B.
    (2017) Models of Lexical Access and Morphological Processing. InE. M. Fernandéz & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp.240–268). Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118829516.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B.
    (2002) Does prime modality influence morphological processing?Brain and Language, 81, 28–41. 10.1006/brln.2001.2504
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2504 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K.
    (2000) Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537. 10.1080/01690960050119689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119689 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rueckl, J. G., & Galantucci, B.
    (2005) The locus and time course of long-term morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 115–138. 10.1080/01690960444000188
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000188 [Google Scholar]
  30. Smolka, E., Gondan, M., & Rösler, F.
    (2015) Take a stand on understanding: Electrophysiological evidence for stem access in German complex verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(62). doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2015.00062
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00062 [Google Scholar]
  31. Smolka, E., Komlósi, S., & Rösler, F.
    (2009) When semantics means less than morphology: Processing of German prefixed verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(3), 337–375. 10.1080/01690960802075497
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802075497 [Google Scholar]
  32. Smolka, E., & Libben, G.
    (2017) ‘Can you wash off the hogwash?’ – semantic transparency of first and second constituents in the processing of German compounds. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 32(4), 514–531. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2016.1256492
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1256492 [Google Scholar]
  33. Smolka, E., Libben, G., & Dressler, W. U.
    (2019) When Morphological Structure Overrides Meaning: Evidence from German Prefix and Particle Verbs. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(5), 599–614. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2018.1552006
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1552006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Smolka, E., & Eulitz, C.
    (2018) Psycholinguistic measures for German verb pairs: Semantic trans-parency, semantic relatedness, verb family size, and age of reading acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1540–1562. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑018‑1052‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1052-5 [Google Scholar]
  35. Smolka, E., Preller, K., & Eulitz, C.
    (2014) ‘Verstehen’ (‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’ (‘stand’): Morphological Structure Overrides Semantic Compositionality in the Lexical Representation of German Complex Verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 16–36. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  36. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I.
    (1975) Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80051‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X [Google Scholar]
  37. Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M.
    (2010) A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 277–296. 10.1080/01690960903043261
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903043261 [Google Scholar]
  38. Xu, J., & Taft, M.
    (2015) The effects of semantic transparency and base frequency on the recognition of English complex words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(3), 904–910.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Zwitserlood, P., Bolwiender, A., & Drews, E.
    (2005) Priming morphologically complex verbs by sentence contexts: Effects of semantic transparency and ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 395–415. 10.1080/01690960444000160
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000160 [Google Scholar]
  40. Zwitserlood, P., Drews, E., Bolwiender, A., & Neuwinger, E.
    (1996) Kann man Geschenke umbringen? Assoziative Bahnungsexperimente zur Bedeutungsheterogenität von Verben. InC. Habel & S. Kanngießer (Eds.), Perspektiven der kognitiven Linguistik: Modelle und Methoden (pp.211–232). 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑07678‑0_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07678-0_9 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error