1 / 45

The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words.

The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Marcus Taft & Paul Kougious School of Psychology University of New South Wales Sydney, AUSTRALIA. Are these polymorphemic words?. ACTOR. TIDAL. MOSTLY YES. ARTIST. ORIGINATE. What about these?. DONATE. VIRUS. MOSTLY NO.

dandre
Download Presentation

The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Marcus Taft&Paul Kougious School of PsychologyUniversity of New South WalesSydney, AUSTRALIA

  2. Are these polymorphemic words? ACTOR TIDAL MOSTLYYES ARTIST ORIGINATE

  3. What about these? DONATE VIRUS MOSTLY NO FLORA FINISH

  4. And these? DONOR VIRAL SOME YES SOME NO FLORIST ADHESIVE

  5. So, VIRUSis not a polymorphemic word, butVIRALmight be. DONATE is not a polymorphemic word, but DONOR might be.

  6. But VIRUS and VIRAL are clearly related, and they are related through VIR. Does this mean that VIR is a (bound) stem morpheme?

  7. Similarly isDONa stem morpheme in DONATE and DONOR, even though the former is not considered to be polymorphemic? IsFLORa stem morpheme in FLORA and FLORIST? IsFINa stem morpheme in FINISH and FINAL?

  8. Basically, we cannot define what is and is not a morpheme and this is a problem for any model of lexical processing that has all-or-none morphemic representations.

  9. An alternative suggestion: • Sublexical form units. • A lemma representation for words, mediating between form and meaning. • Lemma representations for sublexical units depending on the correlation of their form with meaning across different contexts.

  10. Sublexical form units. Taft (1979, 1987, 2001, 2002)claimed that polymorphemic words are represented in terms of theirBASIC ORTHOGRAPHIC SYLLABIC STRUCTURE (BOSS). BOSS = Maximization of the coda of the first syllable

  11. Examples: LAB + EL (not LA + BEL) VIR + US (not VI + RUS) DON + ATE (not DO + NATE) SPLEND + ID (not SPLEN + DID) MAT + URE (not MA + TURE)

  12. SEMANTICS labour label LEMMAS EL LAB OUR ORTHOGRAPHY • A lemma representation for words, mediating between form and meaning.

  13. Lemma representations for sublexical units depending on the correlation of their form with meaning across different contexts. So, there is a lemma that captures the correlation between the form unit VIR and the meaning that is consistent across VIRUS and VIRAL.

  14. SEMANTICS virus LEMMAS vir viral VIR AL US ORTHOGRAPHY

  15. virus vir US VIR Predictions: Prior presentation of VIRUS

  16. viral vir vir VIR AL VIR Prediction: Prior presentation of VIRUS should facilitate lexical decision responses to VIRAL.

  17. EL label LAB Prediction: Prior presentation of LABEL

  18. LAB OUR LAB Prediction: Prior presentation of LABEL might not facilitate lexical decision responses to LABOUR. labour

  19. 50 ms VIRAL virus ##### 500 ms Masked priming experiment:

  20. Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 5.02 Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 4.84 Semantically related (+S)Orthographic overlap (+O) Phonological overlap (+P) e.g.virus VIRAL splendid SPLENDOUR donate DONOR captiveCAPTURE Semantically related (+S)Orthographic overlap (+O) No phonological overlap (-P) e.g.final FINISH memento MEMORY stable STABILITY legal LEGISLATE

  21. Compared to control condition: Not semantically related (-S)No orthographic overlap (-O) No phonological overlap (-P) e.g.major VIRAL tangle SPLENDOUR drama FINISH jacket MEMORY

  22. 20 words in each condition. Participants divided into 2 groups with half the targets of one condition being primed and half being non-primed for each group. Nonwords preceded either by +O prime or -O prime, which was either a word or a nonword. e.g. family FAMURE guitar DEABIN lomour LOMITY pinible DONESKAN

  23. RTs 25 22 • Significant facilitation • No interaction with phonological consistency

  24. % Error 4.6 2.6 • Significant facilitation • No interaction with phonological consistency

  25. Semantically related (+S)No orthographic overlap (-O) No phonological overlap (-P) e.g.tired FATIGUE pursue FOLLOW compost MANURE trembleSHIVER Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 5.29 To check whether the priming arose purely from semantic relatedness:

  26. RTs 5 • No pure semantic priming

  27. % Error -2.3 • No pure semantic priming

  28. Is there any pure orthographic priming?

  29. Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 1.70 Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 1.71 Not semantically related (-S)Orthographic overlap (+O) Phonological overlap (+P) e.g.label LABOUR carnival CARNATION mature MATERIAL totalTOTEM Not semantically related (-S)Orthographic overlap (+O) No phonological overlap (-P) e.g.saliva SALAD radar RADICAL river RIVAL capital CAPABLE

  30. RTs 6 14 • No pure orthographic effect

  31. % Error -4.0 -2.0 • No pure orthographic effect

  32. primed control % Error

  33. virus viral vir labour label EL LAB AL OUR VIR US

  34. VIRUS LABEL LABOUR VIRAL Simpler alternative: Priming comes from shared semanticsBUT…

  35. TIRED FATIGUE No pure semantic priming.

  36. Also, there are experiments showing the BOSS to be a structural unit in the processing of words like LABEL. e.g.Taft (2001, 2001) lab elfaster to recognize than la bel(at least for better readers)

  37. CONCLUSIONS • Consistency between form and meaning determines the existence of lemmas. When a lemma is clear-cut, it is usually labeled as a “morpheme”, but that decision is arbitrary. • Words that share form and meaning are activated via the same lemma. • Words that share only form are activated via the same form unit. • Phonology is not involved in visual word recognition.

  38. SEMANTICS labour label LEMMAS EL OUR LAB ORTHOGRAPHY Maybe inhibitory links between competing lemmas:

  39. SEMANTICS virus LEMMAS vir viral VIR AL US ORTHOGRAPHY Perhaps:

  40. virus vir US VIR Predictions: Prior presentation of VIRUS

  41. virus viral vir US VIR Predictions: Prior presentation of VIRUS

  42. viral viral vir vir VIR AL VIR Prediction: Prior presentation of VIRUS should facilitate lexical decision responses to VIRAL.

  43. label EL LAB Prediction: Prior presentation of LABEL labour

  44. LAB OUR LAB Prediction: Prior presentation of LABEL might not facilitate lexical decision responses to LABOUR. labour

More Related