Access and reaccess in lexical processing: Evidence from form-priming

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne C. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason W. Gullifer ◽  
Paola E. Dussias ◽  
Judith F. Kroll

Cortex ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 240-254
Author(s):  
A. Banaszkiewicz ◽  
Ł. Bola ◽  
J. Matuszewski ◽  
M. Szczepanik ◽  
B. Kossowski ◽  
...  

Morphology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-199
Author(s):  
Fabian Tomaschek ◽  
Benjamin V. Tucker ◽  
Michael Ramscar ◽  
R. Harald Baayen

AbstractMany theories of word structure in linguistics and morphological processing in cognitive psychology are grounded in a compositional perspective on the (mental) lexicon in which complex words are built up during speech production from sublexical elements such as morphemes, stems, and exponents. When combined with the hypothesis that storage in the lexicon is restricted to the irregular, the prediction follows that properties specific to regular inflected words cannot co-determine the phonetic realization of these inflected words. This study shows that the stem vowels of regular English inflected verb forms that are more frequent in their paradigm are produced with more enhanced articulatory gestures in the midsaggital plane, challenging compositional models of lexical processing. The effect of paradigmatic probability dovetails well with the Paradigmatic Enhancement Hypothesis and is consistent with a growing body of research indicating that the whole is more than its parts.


Cognition ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 25 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 213-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael K. Tanenhaus ◽  
Margery M. Lucas

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bonin ◽  
Sandra Collay ◽  
Michel Payola ◽  
Alain Méot

2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692110188
Author(s):  
Filiz Mergen ◽  
Gulmira Kuruoglu

Aims and objectives: This study aims to investigate how lexical processing (LP) is organized in early Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Methodology: We used a visual hemifield paradigm where bilingual ( n = 48) and monolingual ( n = 53) participants performed a lexical decision task. Bilingual participants performed the task in both their languages. Data and analysis: We recorded response times (RTs) and the accuracy rates (ARs) of the participants. An analysis of variance and t-test were run to analyze the bilingual and monolingual data, respectively. Findings: The results obtained from the analysis of the RTs and ARs for the Turkish and English words showed a balanced hemispheric organization in LP in bilingual speakers. The RTs for Turkish words in the monolingual group provided supportive evidence for the predominant role of the left hemisphere in LP. However, no significant difference was found in the accuracy of their answers, suggesting that the monolingual participants’ performance was not influenced by visual field of presentation of the words. Finally, the comparison of the two groups revealed that bilingual participants’ performance was inferior to monolinguals’ in speed and accuracy of processing of words presented in both visual fields. This result gives further support for the differential representation of LP in monolinguals and bilinguals. Originality: The psycholinguistic literature abounds with studies of LP in bilinguals and monolinguals from a variety of language backgrounds; however, there is much less data regarding the brain correlates of LP in Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Implications: Since Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals are underrepresented in the literature as compared to the population who speak other languages with alphabetic writing, this study provides preliminary data for future studies. Limitations: We did not control for gender or lexical factors such as orthographic neighbors when designing the word sets used as stimuli.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document