Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In a visual lexical decision task, recognition is shown in two experiments to be harder for possessional adjectives that look like they are inflected verbs (e.g., ) than for genuine inflected verbs (e.g., ), especially when the nonword distractors have real-word stems (e.g., ). Such a result implies that inflected words do not have a form-based whole word representation, but are recognized when functional information associated with their stem and affix is recombined after decomposition. A third experiment goes on to demonstrate that the addition of the verb suffix - to the noun stem of such pseudo-verb-stem words (i.e., ) leads to more erroneous classifications as a real word than when the stem is another type of noun (e.g., ). Moreover, a negative correlation is observed between the accuracy of recognition of the pseudo-verb-stem words and the classification as a nonword of the - version of their stems. On the basis of these experiments, a model is proposed in which a pseudo-verb-stem word is recognized through a lexical representation of its stem that corresponds to a bound ornative verb and which is different to the representation used to recognize its free-standing noun version.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, V.
    (2014) Complex words in English. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis eBooks.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipovic Durdevic, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M.
    (2011) An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–481. 10.1037/a0023851
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023851 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
    (1993) The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2000) The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homophony, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 489–511. doi:  10.1037/0278‑7393.26.2.489
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.489 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E.
    (2012) Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0190‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0190-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Spuntarelli, A., & Thornton, A. M.
    (1999) Morpholexical access and naming: The semantic interpretability of new root–suffix combinations. Brain and Language, 68, 333–339. 10.1006/brln.1999.2073
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2073 [Google Scholar]
  8. Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L.
    (2010) ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 83–99. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Diependaele, K., Morris, J., Serota, R. M., Bertrand, D., & Grainger, J.
    (2013) Breaking boundaries: Letter transpositions and morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 988–1003. 10.1080/01690965.2012.719082
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.719082 [Google Scholar]
  10. Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R.
    (1999) Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 777–799. 10.1037/0033‑2909.125.6.777
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777 [Google Scholar]
  11. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C.
    (2003) DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. 10.3758/BF03195503
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hirtle, W. H.
    (1970) -Ed Adjectives like ‘verandahed’ and ‘blue-eyed’. Journal of Linguistics, 6, 19–36. 10.1017/S0022226700002334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700002334 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hudson, R. A.
    (1975) Problems in the analysis of ed-adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 11, 69–72. 10.1017/S002222670000428X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670000428X [Google Scholar]
  14. Jespersen, 0.
    (1954) A Modern English Grammar, Parts II and VI. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R.
    (2014) LmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models. R package, version 2.0–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S.
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38. 10.1017/S0140525X99001776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  17. Longtin, C. M. and Meunier, F.
    (2005) Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 26–41. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K.
    (2007) Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 823–836. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2091
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2091 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
    (1995) Modeling morphological processing. InL. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Taft, M.
    (1994) Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294. 10.1080/01690969408402120
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402120 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2004) Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765. 10.1080/02724980343000477
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477 [Google Scholar]
  22. Taft
    Taft (2015) The nature of lexical representation in visual word recognition. InA. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.) Handbook on Reading. Pp.99–113. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.4
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.4 [Google Scholar]
  23. Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S.
    (2006) Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 183–199. 10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M.
    (2010) A sticky stick: The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 277–296. 10.1080/01690960903043261
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903043261 [Google Scholar]
  26. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., and Cappa, S. F.
    (2011) Nouns and verbs in the brain? A review of behavioural, electrophysiological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 35, 407–426. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007 [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