The Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms of Morphological Processing During Word Recognition

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1570-1577
Author(s):  
Lijuan ZOU ◽  
Hua SHU
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Neural Mechanisms

scholarly journals Priming effects in the recognition of simple and complex words and pseudowords

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-222
Author(s):  
Miguel Lázaro ◽  
Víctor Illera ◽  
Javier Sainz
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Orthographic Processing ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
The Third ◽  
Complex Words ◽  
Intense Debate

AbstractWhether morphological processing of complex words occurs beyond orthographic processing is a matter of intense debate. In this study, morphological processing is examined by presenting complex words (brujería -> brujo –witchcraft -> witch), as well as simple (brujaña->brujo) and complex pseudowords (brujanza ->brujo), as primes in three masked lexical decision tasks. In the first experiment, the three experimental conditions facilitated word recognition in comparison to the control condition, but no differences emerged between them. Given the importance of the surface frequency effect observed, a second experiment was conducted. The results fully replicate those observed in the first one, but this time with low frequency targets. In the third experiment, vowels were removed from the stems of primes to reduce the orthographic overlap between primes and targets and, therefore, the influence of the embedded stem effect. The results show facilitative effects only for complex words. However, paired comparisons show no differences between experimental conditions. The overall results show the central role played by the processing of stems in visual word recognition and are explained in terms of current models of morphological processing.

scholarly journals Early morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 684-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Beth Feldman ◽  
Patrick A. O’Connor ◽  
Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Morphological Processing

scholarly journals Hebrew Brain vs. English Brain: Language Modulates the Way It Is Processed

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 2280-2290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atira S. Bick ◽  
Gadi Goelman ◽  
Ram Frost
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Morphological Structure ◽  
Neural Correlates ◽  
Neural Circuitry ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
European Language ◽  
Semitic Language ◽  
Language Influence ◽  
The Way

Is language processing universal? How do the specific properties of each language influence the way it is processed? In this study, we compare the neural correlates of morphological processing in Hebrew—a Semitic language with a rich and systematic morphology, to those revealed in English—an Indo-European language with a linear morphology. Using fMRI, we show that while in the bilingual brain both languages involve a common neural circuitry in processing morphological structure, this activation is significantly modulated by the different aspects of language. Whereas in Hebrew, morphological processing is independent of semantics, in English, morphological activation is clearly modulated by semantic overlap. These findings suggest that the processes involved in reading words are not universal, and therefore impose important constraints on current models of visual word recognition.

How Simple Complex Words Can Be: Morphological Processing and Word Representations

1988 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke W. Bergman ◽  
Patrick T. W. Hudson ◽  
Paul A. T. M. Eling
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Morphological Structure ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Affect Recognition ◽  
Simple Complex ◽  
Morphological Complexity ◽  
Complex Words ◽  
Prefixed Words ◽  
Do So

In four lexical decision experiments we studied the effect of morphological complexity on word recognition. Some potentially relevant linguistic aspects of derived nouns were varied: the location of the affix (prefix vs. suffix); the genuineness of the affix (real vs. pseudo); the orthographic legality of pseudo-stems; semantic compositionality; the nature of the stem (free vs. bound); the origin of the complex word (Latinate vs. Germanic); the currency of the stem (current vs. moribund). Furthermore, in the first two experiments, we systematically varied the proportion of complex and simple words to see whether strategies influence morphological effects on recognition times. Consistent with Taft's notion of affix stripping, pseudoprefixed words show longer mean decision times and higher error rates than truly prefixed words. Further, the prefixed and nonprefixed (but not pseudoprefixed) words are processed equally rapidly, indicating that a decompositional process is efficient. No differences were found, however, for suffixed, pseudosuffixed, and nonsuffixed words. There was no effect of the proportion of simple and complex words. There are some indications that the etymological origin of words may affect recognition times, but no other linguistic aspects of derivations do so. The results of the four experiments are interpreted as supporting a left-to-right process for word recognition in which morphemes are extracted automatically. During this process information encoded by morphological structure becomes available for other processes.

scholarly journals The time course of morphological processing during spoken word recognition in Chinese

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 1957-1963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Shen ◽  
Qingqing Qu ◽  
Aiping Ni ◽  
Junyi Zhou ◽  
Xingshan Li
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Spoken Word Recognition ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Morphological Processing

Morphological Development in Normal and Clinical Populations

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 1250-1258
Author(s):  
Joanna Morris
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Recognition System ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
Morphological Development ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Language Difficulties ◽  
Skilled Reading ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Clinical Populations

Purpose The goal of this review article is to summarize what is currently known about morphological processing in both normal and clinical populations in order to present unexplored opportunities to focus remediation efforts for children with language difficulties. Method Existing evidence was collected via a computerized database search, and the data were summarized in a narrative review. Conclusions Strong, precise lexical representations are key to skilled reading and writing performance, and the available evidence suggests that, in order to become efficient readers, English-speaking children must acquire a rapid and flexible word recognition system that can accommodate the quasiregular morpho-orthographic to semantic mappings that characterize English. Individual differences may affect how easily children are able to discover these regularities on the basis of linguistic experience and make use of sublexical morphemic constituents in visual word recognition.

scholarly journals Do late bilinguals access pure morphology during word recognition? A masked-priming study on Hebrew as a second language

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 945-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
YAEL FARHY ◽  
JOÃO VERÍSSIMO ◽  
HARALD CLAHSEN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Root Extraction ◽  
Shallow Structure Hypothesis ◽  
Shallow Structure ◽  
Language Type ◽  
Late Bilinguals

This study extends research on morphological processing in late bilinguals to a rarely examined language type, Semitic, by reporting results from a masked-priming experiment with 58 non-native, advanced, second-language (L2) speakers of Hebrew in comparison with native (L1) speakers. We took advantage of a case of ‘pure morphology’ in Hebrew, the so-called binyanim, which represent (essentially arbitrary) morphological classes for verbs. Our results revealed a non-native priming pattern for the L2 group, with root-priming effects restricted to non-finite prime words irrespective of binyanim type. We conclude that root extraction in L2 Hebrew word recognition is less sensitive to both morphological and morphosyntactic cues than in the L1, in line with the Shallow-Structure Hypothesis of L2 processing.

L1 AND L2 WORD RECOGNITION IN FINNISH

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seppo Vainio ◽  
Anneli Pajunen ◽  
Jukka Hyönä
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Visual Word Recognition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Morphological Decomposition ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
L1 And L2

This study investigated the effect of the first language (L1) on the visual word recognition of inflected nouns in second language (L2) Finnish by native Russian and Chinese speakers. Case inflection is common in Russian and in Finnish but nonexistent in Chinese. Several models have been posited to describe L2 morphological processing. The unified competition model (UCM; MacWhinney, 2005) predicts L1-L2 transfer, whereas processability theory (Pienemann, 1998) posits a universal hierarchy in L2 acquisition regardless of the L1. The morphological decomposition deficiency hypothesis (Ullman, 2001b; VanPatten, 2004) claims that nonnatives cannot morphologically decompose words. Finally, DeKeyser (2005) proposes that morphophonological transparency affects nonnative processing. The current study explores which model best accounts for the processing of L2 Finnish by native Russian and Chinese speakers. The materials included simple nouns, transparently inflected nouns, and semitransparently inflected nouns. The results showed that Finns and Russians had longer reaction times (RTs) for morphologically complex nouns, but Chinese had longer RTs for semitransparent nouns. The RT results support the UCM by showing a L1-L2 transfer. Furthermore, transparency influenced word recognition among nonnatives; they made the most errors with semitransparent nouns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document