Article published In: The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:2 (2020) ► pp.295–329
Variability and its limits in bilingual word recognition
A morphological priming study
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 6 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20013.cla
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20013.cla
Abstract
This study examines the processing of morphologically complex words focusing on how morphological (in addition to
orthographic and semantic) factors affect bilingual word recognition. We report findings from a large experimental study with groups of
bilingual (Turkish/German) speakers using the visual masked-priming technique. We found morphologically mediated effects on the response
speed and the inter-individual variability within the bilingual participant group. We conclude that the grammar (qua morphological parsing)
not only enhances speed of processing in bilingual language processing but also yields more uniform performance and thereby constrains
variability within a group of otherwise heterogeneous individuals.
Keywords: German, inflection, morphology, L2 processing, masked priming
Article outline
- Previous research on morphological priming
- The present study
- Methods
- Participants
- Materials
- Procedure
- Data analysis
- Results
- Priming effects
- Variability effects
- Discussion
- Effects of morphological relatedness on response speed and variability
- Mechanisms of morphological processing
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
References
References (51)
Akamatsu, N. (2008). The effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(2), 175–193.
Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 31, 232.
Andrews, S., & Lo, S. (2013). Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 279–296.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Package ‘lme4’. Available at: [URL]
Beyersmann, E., Casalis, S., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2015). Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1054–1061.
Bosch, S., Veríssimo, J., & Clahsen, H. (2019). Inflectional morphology in bilingual language processing: An age-of-acquisition study. Language Acquisition, 26(3), 339–360.
Clahsen, H., Sonnenstuhl, I., Hadler, M. & Eisenbeiss, S. (2001). The mental representation of inflected words: an experimental study of adjectives and verbs in German. Language, 771: 510–543.
Clahsen, H. (2016). Contributions of linguistic typology to psycholinguistics. Linguistic Typology 201: 599–614.
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2015). Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 524–542.
Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L. (2010). ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 83–99.
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behaviour Research Methods, 371, 65–70.
Davis, C. J., & Bowers, J. S. (2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 535–557.
Farhy, Y., Veríssimo, J., & Clahsen, H. (2018). Do late bilinguals access pure morphology during word recognition? A masked-priming study on Hebrew as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 945–951.
Feldman, L. B., Milin, P., Cho, K. W., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., & O’Connor, P. A. (2015). Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 91, 111.
Feldman, L. B., Kostić, A., Basnight-Brown, D. M., Đurđević, D. F., & Pastizzo, M. J. (2010). Morphological facilitation for regular and irregular verb formations in native and non-native speakers: Little evidence for two distinct mechanisms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 119–135.
Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., & del Prado Martín, F. M. (2009). Early morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 684–691.
Foote, R. (2017). The storage and processing of morphologically complex words in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 735–767.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787–814.
Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 323–345.
Grainger, J., & Beyersmann, E. (2017). Edge-aligned embedded word activation initiates morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 671, 285–317.
Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6(1), 147–168.
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 555–582.
Jacob, G., Heyer, V., & Veríssimo, J. (2018). Aiming at the same target: A masked priming study directly comparing derivation and inflection in the second language. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(6), 619–637.
Kielar, A., Joanisse, M. F., & Hare, M. L. (2008). Priming English past tense verbs: Rules or statistics? Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 327–346.
Kim, A. E., Oines, L., & Miyake, A. (2018). Individual differences in verbal working memory underlie a tradeoff between semantic and structural processing difficulty during language comprehension: An ERP investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 406–420.
Kırkıcı, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 776–791.
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1247–1282.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2007). Processes in language comprehension. In M. G. Gaskell, G. T. M. Altmann, G. Altmann, & P. Bloom (Eds), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, (495–524). Oxford University Press.
Meunier, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Regularity and irregularity in French verbal inflection. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(4), 561–580.
Michael, E. B., & Gollan, T. H. (2005). Being and becoming bilingual. In J. Kroll, & A. de Groot (Eds), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (389–407). Oxford University Press.
Neubauer, K., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Decomposition of inflected words in a second language: An experimental study of German participles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 403–435.
Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B. (2002). Discrepancies between orthographic and unrelated baselines in masked priming undermine a decompositional account of morphological facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 244–249.
Phillips, N. A., Segalowitz, N., O’Brien, I., & Yamasaki, N. (2004). Semantic priming in a first and second language: Evidence from reaction time variability and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(2–3), 237–262.
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098.
Rastle, K., Lavric, A., Elchlepp, H., & Crepaldi, D. (2015). Processing differences across regular and irregular inflections revealed through ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(3), 747–760.
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed second language acquisition. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(4), 295–319.
Sassenhagen, J., & Alday, P. M. (2016). A common misapplication of statistical inference: Nuisance control with null-hypothesis significance tests. Brain and Language, 1621, 42–45.
Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385.
Segalowitz, S. J., Segalowitz, N. S., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(1), 53–67.
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245–260.
Solovyeva, K., & DeKeyser, R. (2018). Response time variability signatures of novel word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 225–239.
Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., Hernon, W. P., & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 399–412.
Stockall, L., & Marantz, A. (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1(1), 85–123.
Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 561, 289–301.
telc gGmbH (Hrsg.), Kompetenzcheck Deutsch Beruf A1/A2/B1/B2/C1. Frankfurt am Main, 1. Auflage 2015.
Veríssimo, J. (2018). Taking it a level higher: The LEIA model of complex word recognition. Poster presented at ‘Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing’ (AMLaP), Berlin, Germany.
Voga, M., Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, A., & Giraudo, H. (2014). Does morphology play a role in L2 processing?: Two masked priming experiments with Greek speakers of ESL. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 338–352.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Jafari, Mohammad-Reza, Hamideh Marefat & Ehsan Solaimani
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.
