Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Masked Morphological Priming and Sensitivity to the Statistical Structure of Form–to–Meaning Mapping in L2 Cover

Masked Morphological Priming and Sensitivity to the Statistical Structure of Form–to–Meaning Mapping in L2

Journal of Cognition
Volume 5 (2022): Issue 1
By: Eva Viviani and  Davide Crepaldi  
Open Access
|May 2022

References

  1. 1Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723. DOI: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
    Back to article
  2. 2Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: an analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 232. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232
    Back to article
  3. 3Amenta, S., Crepaldi, D., & Marelli, M. (2020). Consistency measures individuate dissociating semantic modulations in priming paradigms: A new look on semantics in the processing of (complex) words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. DOI: 10.1177/1747021820927663
    Back to article
  4. 4Amenta, S., Marelli, M., & Crepaldi, D. (2015). The fruitless effort of growing a fruitless tree: Early morphoorthographic and morpho-semantic effects in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1587–1596. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000104
    Back to article
  5. 5Amenta, S., Marelli, M., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). From sound to meaning: Phonology-to-Semantics mapping in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 887–893. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1152-0
    Back to article
  6. 6Andrews, S., & Hersch, J. (2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: Individual differences in masked neighbor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 299. DOI: 10.1037/a0018366
    Back to article
  7. 7Andrews, 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, 279–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.001
    Back to article
  8. 8Ang, R. P. (1998). Use of the jackknife statistic to evaluate result replicability. The Journal of General Psychology, 125, 218–228. DOI: 10.1080/00221309809595546
    Back to article
  9. 9Baayen, 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    Back to article
  10. 10Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Durđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological review, 118, 438. DOI: 10.1037/a0023851
    Back to article
  11. 11Balota, D. A., Aschenbrenner, A. J., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: The influence of trial history and data transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1563. DOI: 10.1037/a0032186
    Back to article
  12. 12Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    Back to article
  13. 13Belsley, D. A. (1980). On the efficient computation of the nonlinear full-information maximum-likelihood estimator. Journal of Econometrics, 14, 203–225. DOI: 10.1016/0304-4076(80)90091-3
    Back to article
  14. 14Beyersmann, E., Casalis, S., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2015a). Language proficiency and morphoorthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1054–1061. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0752-9
    Back to article
  15. 15Beyersmann, E., Grainger, J., Casalis, S., & Ziegler, J. C. (2015b). Effects of reading proficiency on embedded stem priming in primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 115–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.001
    Back to article
  16. 16Beyersmann, E., Mousikou, P., Javourey-Drevet, L., Schroeder, S., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2020). Morphological processing across modalities and languages. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24, 500–519. DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2020.1730847
    Back to article
  17. 17Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., McCormick, S. F., & Keuleers, E. (2018). Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas. Behavior research methods (pp. 1–13). DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1077-9
    Back to article
  18. 18Burt, J. S., & Tate, H. (2002). Does a reading lexicon provide orthographic representations for spelling? Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 518–543. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2818
    Back to article
  19. 19Castles, A., Davis, C., Cavalot, P., & Forster, K. (2007). Tracking the acquisition of orthographic skills in developing readers: Masked priming effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 165–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2007.01.006
    Back to article
  20. 20Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716406060024
    Back to article
  21. 21Coughlin, C. E., Fiorentino, R., Royle, P., & Steinhauer, K. (2019). Sensitivity to inflectional morphology in a non-native language: evidence from ERPs. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 21. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00021
    Back to article
  22. 22Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2014). Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 18, 524–542. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728914000200
    Back to article
  23. 23Crepaldi, D., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Subtlex-it: A new frequency list for Italian based on movie subtitles URL: http://crr.ugent.be/subtlex-it/
    Back to article
  24. 24Crepaldi, 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, 83–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.002
    Back to article
  25. 25Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713. DOI: 10.1037/a0019738
    Back to article
  26. 26Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in english: Evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 668. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.668
    Back to article
  27. 27Davis, M. H., & Rastle, K. (2010). Form and meaning in early morphological processing: Comment on Feldman, O’Connor, and Moscoso del Prado Martín (2009). Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17, 749–755. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.749
    Back to article
  28. 28Dawson, N., Rastle, K., & Ricketts, J. (2017). Morphological effects in visual word recognition: Children, Adolescents and Adults. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000485
    Back to article
  29. 29Diependaele, K., Duñabeitia, J. A., Morris, J., & Keuleers, E. (2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 344–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.003
    Back to article
  30. 30Feldman, L. B., Kostić, A., Basnight-Brown, D. M., Filipović Durđević, D., & 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, 119–135. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728909990459
    Back to article
  31. 31Feldman, L. B., Kostić, A., Gvozdenović, V., O’Connor, P. A., & del Prado Martín, F. M. (2012). Semantic similarity influences early morphological priming in Serbian: A challenge to form-thenmeaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 668–676. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0250-x
    Back to article
  32. 32Feldman, 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, 684–691. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.684
    Back to article
  33. 33Foote, R. (2015). The production of gender agreement in native and L2 Spanish: The role of morphophonological form. Second Language Research, 31, 343–373. DOI: 10.1177/0267658314565691
    Back to article
  34. 34Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 39, 211–251. DOI: 10.1080/14640748708401785
    Back to article
  35. 35Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Form-priming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 498. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.498
    Back to article
  36. 36Fox, J., & Hong, J. (2009). Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32, 1–24. URL: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v32/i01/. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v032.i01
    Back to article
  37. 37Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression. Third ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. URL: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/
    Back to article
  38. 38Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89, 105–132. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00070-2
    Back to article
  39. 39Grainger, J., & Beyersmann, E. (2017). Edge-aligned embedded word activation initiates morphoorthographic segmentation. In: Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Elsevier, 67, 285–317. DOI: 10.1016/bs.plm.2017.03.009
    Back to article
  40. 40Grainger, J., & Beyersmann, E. (2020). Effects of lexicality and pseudo-morphological complexity on embedded word priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000878
    Back to article
  41. 41Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90042-I
    Back to article
  42. 42Hasenäcker, J., Beyersmann, E., Schroeder, S., et al. (2015). Language proficiency moderates morphological priming in children and adults. In: NetWordS, pp. 132–135.
    Back to article
  43. 43Hersch, J., & Andrews, S. (2012). Lexical quality and reading skill: Bottom-up and top-down contributions to sentence processing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 240–262. DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2011.564244
    Back to article
  44. 44Heyer, V., & Clahsen, H. (2015). Late bilinguals see a scan in scanner AND in scandal: dissecting formal overlap from morphological priming in the processing of derived words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 543–550. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728914000662
    Back to article
  45. 45Jared, D., Jouravlev, O., & Joanisse, M. F. (2017). The effect of semantic transparency on the processing of morphologically derived words: Evidence from decision latencies and event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 422–450. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000316
    Back to article
  46. 46Kazanina, N. (2011). Decomposition of prefixed words in Russian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1371–1390. DOI: 10.1037/a0024335
    Back to article
  47. 47Kirkici, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 776–791. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728912000648
    Back to article
  48. 48Lavric, A., Clapp, A., & Rastle, K. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866–877. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.866
    Back to article
  49. 49Leclercq, P., Edmonds, A., & Hilton, H. (2014). Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives from SLA. Multilingual Matters, Volume 78. DOI: 10.21832/9781783092291
    Back to article
  50. 50Li, J., & Taft, M. (2019). The processing of english prefixed words by Chinese-English bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1–11). DOI: 10.1017/S0272263119000172
    Back to article
  51. 51Li, J., Taft, M., & Xu, J. (2017). The processing of English derived words by Chinese-English bilinguals. Language Learning, 67, 858–884. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12247
    Back to article
  52. 52Liu, H., & Cao, F. (2016). L1 and L2 processing in the bilingual brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language, 159, 60–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.013
    Back to article
  53. 53Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1171. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171
    Back to article
  54. 54Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and cognitive processes, 18, 313–334. DOI: 10.1080/01690960244000036
    Back to article
  55. 55Marelli, M., & Amenta, S. (2018). A database of orthography-semantics consistency (OSC) estimates for 15,017 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1482–1495. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1017-8
    Back to article
  56. 56Marelli, M., Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2015). Semantic transparency in free stems: The effect of Orthography-Semantics Consistency on word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1571–1583. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.959709
    Back to article
  57. 57Marelli, M., Amenta, S., Morone, E. A., & Crepaldi, D. (2013). Meaning is in the beholder’s eye: Morphosemantic effects in masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 534–541. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0363-2
    Back to article
  58. 58Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421. DOI: 10.1080/01690960701588004
    Back to article
  59. 59Milin, P., Feldman, L. B., Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, H. (2017). Discrimination in lexical decision. PLoS ONE, 12, e0171935. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171935
    Back to article
  60. 60Mousikou, P., Beyersmann, E., Ktori, M., Javourey-Drevet, L., Crepaldi, D., Ziegler, J. C., Grainger, J., & Schroeder, S. (2020). Orthographic consistency influences morphological processing in reading aloud: Evidence from a cross-linguistic study. Developmental Science (pp. 00:e12952). DOI: 10.1111/desc.12952
    Back to article
  61. 61Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior research methods, 51, 195–203. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
    Back to article
  62. 62Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific studies of reading, 11, 357–383. DOI: 10.1080/10888430701530730
    Back to article
  63. 63Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of functional literacy, 11, 67–86. DOI: 10.1075/swll.11.14per
    Back to article
  64. 64R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
    Back to article
  65. 65Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and cognitive processes, 15, 507–537. DOI: 10.1080/01690960050119689
    Back to article
  66. 66Rastle, 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, 1090–1098. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196742
    Back to article
  67. 67Schmidtke, D., Matsuki, K., & Kuperman, V. (2017). Surviving blind decomposition: A distributional analysis of the time-course of complex word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1793. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000411
    Back to article
  68. 68Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 11, 245–260. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728908003404
    Back to article
  69. 69Sobczak, J. M., & Gaskell, M. G. (2019). Implicit versus explicit mechanisms of vocabulary learning and consolidation. Journal of Memory and Language, 106, 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2019.01.003
    Back to article
  70. 70Spearman, C. (1904). The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. The American Journal of Psychology, 100, 441–471. DOI: 10.2307/1422689
    Back to article
  71. 71Sulpizio, S., Del Maschio, N., Fedeli, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2020). Bilingual language processing: A metaanalysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 834–853. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.014
    Back to article
  72. 72Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M. (2010). A sticky stick: The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 277–296. DOI: 10.1080/01690960903043261
    Back to article
  73. 73Tamminen, J., & Gaskell, M. G. (2008). Newly learned spoken words show long-term lexical competition effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 361–371. DOI: 10.1080/17470210701634545
    Back to article
  74. 74Tamminen, J., Payne, J. D., Stickgold, R., Wamsley, E. J., & Gaskell, M. G. (2010). Sleep spindle activity is associated with the integration of new memories and existing knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 14356–14360. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3028-10.2010
    Back to article
  75. 75Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 4, 105–122. DOI: 10.1017/S1366728901000220
    Back to article
  76. 76Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141–178).
    Back to article
  77. 77Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). Subtlex-uk: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
    Back to article
  78. 78Veríssimo, J., Heyer, V., Jacob, G., & Clahsen, H. (2018). Selective effects of age of acquisition on morphological priming: Evidence for a sensitive period. Language Acquisition, 25, 315–326. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2017.1346104
    Back to article
  79. 79Walker, S., Henderson, L. M., Fletcher, F. E., Knowland, V. C. P., Cairney, S. A., & Gaskell, M. G. (2019). Learning to live with interfering neighbours: the influence of time of learning and level of encoding on word learning. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181842. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181842
    Back to article
  80. 80Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. URL: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.221 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Mar 4, 2022
Accepted on: Apr 24, 2022
Published on: May 9, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Bilingualism,
Morphology,
Masked priming,
Language proficiency

© 2022 Eva Viviani, Davide Crepaldi, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 5 (2022): Issue 1Next article