1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A growing body of psycholinguistic research suggests that visual and auditory word recognition involve morphological decomposition: Individual morphemes are extracted and lexically accessed when participants are presented with multi-morphemic stimuli. This view is supported by the Morpheme Interference Effect (MIE), where responses to pseudowords that contain real morphemes are slower and less accurate than responses to pseudowords that contain invented morphemes. The MIE was previously demonstrated primarily for visually presented stimuli. Here, we examine whether individuals’ sensitivity to morphological structure generalizes across modalities. Participants performed a lexical decision task on visually and auditorily presented Hebrew stimuli, including pseudowords derived from real or invented roots. The results show robust MIEs in both modalities. We further show that visual MIE is consistently stronger than auditory MIE, both at the group level and at the individual level. Finally, the data show a significant correlation between visual and auditory MIEs at the individual level. These findings suggest that the MIE reflects a general sensitivity to morphological structure, which varies considerably across individuals, but is largely consistent across modalities within individuals. Thus, we propose that the MIE captures an important aspect of language processing, rather than a property specific to visual word recognition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.18020.gaf
2019-11-11
2020-06-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D.
    (2012) Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 232. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232 [Google Scholar]
  2. Audacity Team
    Audacity Team (2018) Audacity(R): Free Audio Editor and Recorder. Retrieved fromhttps://audacityteam.org
  3. 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(4), 390–412. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2012) Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition, 125(1), 80–106. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J.
    (2004) Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. doi:  10.1037/0096‑3445.133.2.283
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y.
    (1995) Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. doi: 10.2307/2346101
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2346101 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berent, I., Vaknin, V., & Marcus, G. F.
    (2007) Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew. Cognition, 104(2), 254–286. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2006.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2015) Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Retrieved fromwww.praat.org
  9. Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H., & White, J.-S. S.
    (2008) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(3), 127–135. doi:  10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M.
    (2018) Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–20. doi:  10.5334/joc.10
    https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 [Google Scholar]
  11. Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Thornton, A. M., & Laudanna, A.
    (1997) Accessing and naming affixed pseudo-words. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996 (pp.55–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3718‑0_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3718-0_5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C.
    (1988) Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297–332. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlisle, J. F.
    (2000) Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190. doi:  10.1023/A:1008131926604
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604 [Google Scholar]
  14. Casalis, S., Quémart, P., & Duncan, L. G.
    (2015) How language affects children’s use of derivational morphology in visual word and pseudoword processing: Evidence from a cross-language study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–10. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, T., & Besner, D.
    (1977) Access to the internal lexicon. InS. Dornič (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp.535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., & Davis, C. J.
    (2010) Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position-specific identification of suffixes. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 312–321. doi:  10.3758/MC.38.3.312
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.312 [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis, C. J.
    (2005) N-watch: a program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 65–70. doi:  10.3758/BF03206399
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206399 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dawson, N., Rastle, K., & Ricketts, J.
    (2018) Morphological Effects in Visual Word Recognition: Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 44(4), 645–654. doi:  10.1037/xlm0000485
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000485 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Pasquarella, A.
    (2013) Reciprocal relationship:Children’s morphological awareness and their reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1113–1126. doi:  10.1037/a0029474
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029474 [Google Scholar]
  20. Deacon, S. H., Kieffer, M. J., & Laroche, A.
    (2014) The Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Mediation and Longitudinal Models. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(6), 432–451. doi:  10.1080/10888438.2014.926907
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.926907 [Google Scholar]
  21. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I.
    (2000) Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 751–765. doi:  10.1037/0278‑7393.26.3.751
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.751 [Google Scholar]
  22. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & 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(4), 829–856. 10.1037/0278‑7393.23.4.829
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.4.829 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gafni, C.
    (2015) Child Phonology Analyzer: processing and analyzing transcribed speech. InThe Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. (pp.1–5, paper number 531). Glasgow, UK: the University of Glasgow. ISBN978-0-85261-941-4
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2019) General Lexicons of Hebrew: Resources for Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Research (version 1.0). Retrieved fromhttps://chengafni.wordpress.com/resources/heblex/
  25. Goral, M., & Obler, L. K.
    (2003) Root-morpheme processing during word recognition in Hebrew speakers across the adult life span. InJ. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and aquisition in languages of semitic, root-based, morphology (pp.223–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/lald.28.12gor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.28.12gor [Google Scholar]
  26. Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., & Quinlan, P. T.
    (1990) Orthographic processing in visual word identification. Cognitive Psychology, 560, 517–560. Retrieved fromwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001002859090012S
    [Google Scholar]
  27. IBM Corp.
    IBM Corp. (2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  28. Jarvella, R. J., & Wennstedt, O.
    (1993) Recognition of partial regularity in words and sentences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 34(1), 76–85. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9450.1993.tb01102.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1993.tb01102.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Kavé, G., & Levy, Y.
    (2004) Preserved Morphological Decomposition in Persons With Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 47(4), 835. doi:  10.1044/1092‑4388(2004/062)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/062) [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) The Processing of Morphology in Old Age. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1442. doi:  10.1044/1092‑4388(2005/100)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/100) [Google Scholar]
  31. Keuleers, E.
    (2013) vwr: Useful functions for visual word recognition research. R package version 0.3.0. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/package=vwr
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L., & Parrila, R.
    (2012) Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 389–410. doi:  10.1007/s11145‑010‑9276‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9276-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kruk, R. S., & Bergman, K.
    (2013) The reciprocal relations between morphological processes and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 10–34. doi:  10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). doi:  10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  35. Laudanna, A., Cermele, A., & Caramazza, A.
    (1997) Morpho-lexical Representations in Naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(1), 49–66. doi:  10.1080/016909697386907
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386907 [Google Scholar]
  36. Law, J. M., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P.
    (2015) Morphological Awareness and Its Role in Compensation in Adults with Dyslexia. Dyslexia, 21(3), 254–272. doi:  10.1002/dys.1495
    https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1495 [Google Scholar]
  37. Luce, P. A.
    (1986) A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 39(3), 155–158. doi:  10.3758/BF03212485
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212485 [Google Scholar]
  38. Luke, S. G.
    (2017) Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑016‑0809‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y [Google Scholar]
  39. Marslen-Wilson, W. D.
    (1987) Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25(1–2), 71–102. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0277(87)90005‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9 [Google Scholar]
  40. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Zwitserlood, P.
    (1989) Accessing Spoken Words: The Importance of Word Onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 576–585. doi:  10.1037/0096‑1523.15.3.576
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.576 [Google Scholar]
  41. Norman, T., Degani, T., & Peleg, O.
    (2016) Transfer of L1 visual word recognition strategies during early stages of L2 learning: Evidence from Hebrew learners whose first language is either Semitic or Indo-European. Second Language Research, 32(1), 109–122. doi:  10.1177/0267658315608913
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315608913 [Google Scholar]
  42. Oganyan, M., Wright, R., & Herschensohn, J.
    (2018) The role of the root in auditory word recognition of Hebrew. Cortex, 1–8. doi:  10.1016/j.cortex.2018.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Oldfield, R. C.
    (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. doi:  10.1016/0028‑3932(71)90067‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Psychology Software Tools
    Psychology Software Tools (2015) E-Prime 2.0. Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved fromwww.pstnet.com
    [Google Scholar]
  45. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.r-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ravid, D., & Bar-On, A.
    (2005) Manipulating written hebrew roots across development: The interface of semantic, phonological and orthographic factors. Reading and Writing, 18(3), 231–256. doi:  10.1007/s11145‑005‑1802‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-1802-5 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ravid, D., & Mashraki, Y. E.
    (2007) Prosodic reading, reading comprehension and morphological skills in Hebrew-speaking fourth graders. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(2), 140–156. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2007.00340.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00340.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Schiff, R., Cohen, M., Ben-Artzi, E., Sasson, A., & Ravid, D.
    (2016) Auditory Morphological Knowledge Among Children With Developmental Dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(2), 140–154. doi:  10.1080/10888438.2015.1094074
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1094074 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schiff, R., & Ravid, D.
    (2007) Morphological analogies in Hebrew-speaking university students with dyslexia compared with typically developing gradeschoolers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(3), 237–253. doi:  10.1007/s10936‑006‑9043‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9043-6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schiff, R., Schwartz-Nahshon, S., & Nagar, R.
    (2011) Effect of phonological and morphological awareness on reading comprehension in Hebrew-speaking adolescents with reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61(1), 44–63. doi:  10.1007/s11881‑010‑0046‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0046-5 [Google Scholar]
  51. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I.
    (1975) Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. doi:  10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80051‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X [Google Scholar]
  52. Taft, M., Hambly, G., & Kinoshita, S.
    (1986) Visual and Auditory Recognition of Prefixed Words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 38(3), 351–365. doi:  10.1080/14640748608401603
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748608401603 [Google Scholar]
  53. Traficante, D., Marcolini, S., Luci, A., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C.
    (2011) How do roots and suffixes influence reading of pseudowords: A study of young Italian readers with and without dyslexia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 777–793. doi:  10.1080/01690965.2010.496553
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.496553 [Google Scholar]
  54. Velan, H., Deutsch, A., & Frost, R.
    (2013) The flexibility of letter-position flexibility: Evidence from eye movements in reading Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 39(4), 1143–1152. doi:  10.1037/a0031075
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031075 [Google Scholar]
  55. Velan, H., & Frost, R.
    (2009) Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 285–302. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A.
    (1999) Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 374–408. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1998.2618
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2618 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wurm, L. H.
    (2000) Auditory Processing of Polymorphemic Pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 255–271. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1999.2678
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2678 [Google Scholar]
  58. Yablonski, M., & Ben-Shachar, M.
    (2016) The Morpheme Interference Effect in Hebrew. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 277–307. doi:  10.1075/ml.11.2.05yab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.05yab [Google Scholar]
  59. Yablonski, M., Polat, U., Bonneh, Y. S., & Ben-Shachar, M.
    (2017) Microsaccades are sensitive to word structure: A novel approach to study language processing. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–11. doi:  10.1038/s41598‑017‑04391‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04391-4 [Google Scholar]
  60. Yablonski, M., Rastle, K., Taylor, J. S. H., & Ben-Shachar, M.
    (2019) Structural properties of the ventral reading pathways are associated with morphological processing in adult English readers. Cortex, 116, 268–285. doi:  10.1016/j.cortex.2018.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  61. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M.
    (2008) Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: a new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971–979. doi:  10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971 [Google Scholar]
  62. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.18020.gaf
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.18020.gaf
Loading

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