Cover not available

Article published In: The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 14:3 (2019) ► pp.357–380

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The fundamental role of position in affix identity

Positional constraints on the identification of prefixes and suffixes in Spanish

 | Universidad de Buenos Aires
 | Universidad de Buenos Aires | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
 | Université René Descartes | Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
 | Universidad de Buenos Aires
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19009.car
Abstract
Previous research suggests that while free morpheme identification during visual word recognition is position-independent, suffixes are activated only when they occur after the stem. Surprisingly, prefix position coding has not yet been assessed. This point is important given that some experimental studies demonstrated clear processing differences between prefixes and suffixes. In this study we examined whether Spanish suffixes and prefixes are recognized independently of their position by adapting the Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., and Davis, C. J. (2010). Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position-specific identification of suffixes. Memory & Cognition, 381, 312–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar experimental paradigm. We observed that morphologically structured nonwords in which the affix occurs in its typical position (e.g., curiosura, disgrave) are rejected more slowly and less accurately than their matched orthographic controls (e.g., curiosula, dusgrave). Crucially, such morpheme interference effect is completely absent when the morphemes are inverted (i.e., uracurios and gravedis are rejected as easily as ulacurios and gravedus). Our data provide strong support to the hypothesis that all affix processing is sensitive to position.
Article outline
  • Experiment 1
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials and procedure
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • References
References (42)
References
Amenta, S., and Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 31, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 591, 390–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bai, C., Cai, S., and Schumacher, P. B. (2011). Reversibility in Chinese word formation influences target identification. Neuroscience Letters, 4991, 14–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beauvillain, C. (1996). The integration of morphological and whole-word form information during eye fixations on prefixed and suffixed words. Journal of Memory & Language, 351, 801–820. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W., and Eling, P. A. T. M. (1988). How simple complex words can be: Morphological processing and word representations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 401, 41–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beyersmann, E., Ziegler, J. C., and Grainger, J. (2015). Differences in the processing of prefixes and suffixes revealed by a letter-search task. Scientific Studies of Reading, 191, 360–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Thornton, A. M., and Laudanna, A. (1996). Accessing and naming suffixed pseudo-words. In G. E. Booij and J. Van Marie (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., and Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 281, 297–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., and Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: a differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 281, 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crepaldi, D., Hemsworth, L., Davis, C. J., and Rastle, K. (2016). Masked suffix priming and morpheme positional constraints. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 691, 113–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., and Davis, C. J. (2010). Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position-specific identification of suffixes. Memory & Cognition, 381, 312–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Davis, C. J., and Lupker, S. J. (2013). Seeing stems everywhere: Position-independent identification of stem morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 510–525.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, C. J., and Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 665–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domínguez, A., Cuetos, F., and Segui, J. (2000). Morphological processing in word recognition: A review with particular reference to Spanish data. Psicológica, 211, 375–401.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Laka, I., Perea, M., and Carreiras, M. (2009). Is Milkman a superhero like Batman? Constituent morphological priming in compound words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 211, 615–640. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, L. B., and Larabee, J. (2001). Morphological facilitation following prefixed but not suffixed primes: Lexical architecture or modality-specific processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 680–691.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., and Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 351, 116–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giraudo, H., and Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 81, 127–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). On the role of derivational affixes in recognizing complex words: Evidence from masked affix priming. In R. H. Baayen and R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, (pp. 209–232). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grainger, J., and Beyersmann, E. (2017). Edge-aligned embedded word activation initiates morpho-orthographic segmentation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 285–317). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grainger, J., Colé, P., and Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language & Speech, 301, 370–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harm, M. W., and Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662–720. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heathcote, L., Nation, K., Castles, A., and Beyersmann, E. (2017). Do ‘blacheap’ and ‘subcheap’ both prime ‘cheap’? An investigation of morphemic status and position in early visual word processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(8), 1645–1654. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaichenco, V., and Wilson, M. (2013). El rol de la morfología en el proceso de aprendizaje de la lectura en español. Interdisciplinaria, 30(1), 85–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, S. Y., Wang, M., and Taft, M. (2015). Morphological decomposition in the recognition of prefixed and suffixed words: Evidence from Korean. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 183–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., and Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meunier, F., and Segui, J. (2002). Cross-modal morphological priming in French. Brain and Language, 811, 89–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K., and Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 231, 942–971. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria.: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Real Academia Española (1931). Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rueckl, J. G., and Raveh, M. (1999). The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network. Brain and Language, 681, 110–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., and Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Science, 41, 353–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shoolman, N. and Andrews, S. (2003). Racehorses, reindeers and sparrows: Using masked priming to investigate morphological influences on word identification. In S. Kinoshita and S. Lupker (Eds.), Masked Priming: The State of the Art (pp. 241–278). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, M. (1985). The decoding of words in lexical access: A review of the morphographic approach. In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, and G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading Research: Advances in Theory and Practice (pp. 83–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, M., and Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 638–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 151, 607–620. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, M., Zhu, X., and Peng, D. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 401, 498–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Val Álvaro, J. F. (1999). La composición. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (pp. 4757–4841). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varela Ortega, Soledad. (1990). Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varela, S., and Martín García, J. (1999). La prefijación. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (pp. 4993–5040). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Lázaro, Miguel, Teresa Simón, Ainoa Escalonilla & Trinidad Ruiz
2024. Mind the suffix: Pseudoword processing in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 245 ► pp. 105977 ff. DOI logo
Lázaro, Miguel, Ana García-Gutiérrez, Lorena García & José Antonio Hinojosa
2023. Pupillary Responses to Pseudowords With Different Morphological and Imageability Features. Journal of Psychophysiology 37:4 ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Lázaro, Miguel, Víctor Illera, Seila García & José María Ruíz Sánchez de León
2022. Morphological processing of complex and simple pseudo-words in adults and older adults. Language and Cognition 14:3 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Stevens, Patience & David C. Plaut
2022. From decomposition to distributed theories of morphological processing in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:5 ► pp. 1673 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue