A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 277-296

  Taft, Marcus ^a   Nguyen Hoan, Minh ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Lemma; Lexical representation; Morphemic representation; Morphological processing; Semantic priming

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MENTAL TASK; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; THINKING; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 77951186478     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960903043261     Document Type: Article

References (40)

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.
2. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117.
3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
4. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 419-463.
5. Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship and task demands. Memory and Cognition, 36, 882-898.
6. 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, 75-114.
7. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 35(1), 116-124.
8. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Prime word frequency in masked morphological and orthographic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421-444.
9. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2003). A supralexical model for French derivational morphology. In E. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 139-157). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
10. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
11. Lavric, A., Clapp, A., & Rastle, K. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866-877.
12. 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.
13. Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Halle, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313-334.
14. Marslen-Wilson, W., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394-421.
15. McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Is there a 'fete' in 'fetish'? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 307-326.
16. Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
17. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
18. Perea, M., & Gotor, A. (1997). Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short stimulus-onset asynchronies in lexical decision and naming. Cognition, 62, 223-240.
19. Plaut, D., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445-485.
20. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
21. Rapp, B. C. (1992). The nature of sublexical orthographic organization: The bigram trough hypothesis examined. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 33-53.
22. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942-971.
23. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother's brothel: Morphoorthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 1090-1098.
24. Raveh, M. (2002). The contribution of frequency and semantic similarity to morphological processing. Brain and Language, 81, 312-325.
25. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
26. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
27. Rueckl, J. G., & Raveh, M. (1999). The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network. Brain and Language, 68, 110-117.
28. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
29. Seidenberg, M. S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance, XII. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
30. Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353-361.
31. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
32. Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161-184.
33. Taft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 21-39.
34. Taft, M. (1987). Morphographic processing. The BOSS re-emerges. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance, XII. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
35. Taft, M. (2001). Processing of orthographic structure by adults of different reading ability. Language and Speech, 44, 351-376.
36. Taft, M. (2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In E. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 113-137). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
37. Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745-765.
38. Taft, M. (2006). A localist-cum-distributed (LCD) framework for lexical processing. In S. M. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 76-94). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
39. Taft, M., & Ardisinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 183-199.
40. Taft, M., & Kougious, P. (2004). The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 90, 9-16.