Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2020
Edited by Elena Tribushinina and Mark Dingemanse
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 37] 2020
► pp. 165–179

Morphological processing in nominalizations

A priming study on Dutch

| Universiteit van Amsterdam
| University of Pennsylvania | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
| Universiteit van Amsterdam

A major debate in psycholinguistics concerns the representation of morphological structure in the mental lexicon. We report the results of an auditory primed lexical decision experiment in which we tested whether verbs prime their nominalizations in Dutch. We find morphological priming effects with regular nominalizations (schorsen ‘suspend’ → schorsing ‘suspension’) as well as with irregular nominalizations (schieten ‘shoot’ → schot ‘shot’). On this basis, we claim that, despite the lack of phonological identity between stem and derivation in the case of irregular nominalizations, the morphological relation between the two forms, suffices to evoke a priming effect. However, an alternative explanation, according to which the semantic relation in combination with the phonological overlap accounts for the priming effect, cannot be excluded.

Keywords: morphological processing, nominalizations, stem allomorphy, priming
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Nominalization in Dutch
  • 3.An auditory primed lexical decision experiment
    • 3.1Methods
      • 3.1.1Materials
      • 3.1.2Apparatus
      • 3.1.3Procedure
      • 3.1.4Participants
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1Analyses
      • 3.2.2Results irregular nominalizations
      • 3.2.3Results regular nominalizations
  • 4.Discussion of the results
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00044.lip
References
Anderson, Stephen R.
1992 A-Morphous Morphology, Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
1992 “Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity.” Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by G. Booij and J. van Marle. 109–149, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Petar Milin
2010 “Analyzing reaction times.” International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2): 12–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
2015 “Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1):1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert
1995 Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: a general theory of inflection and word formation. Suny Press.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., Laine, M., Baayen, R. H., Schreuder, R., & Hyönä, J.
2000 “Affixal homonymy triggers full-form storage, even with inflected words, even in a morphologically rich language.” Cognition, 74(2), B13–B25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2017 “The Generative Word.” The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, 2nd edition, ed. by J. McGilvray. 110–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1995 “Regular morphology and the lexicon.” Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5): 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crepaldi, Davide, Kathleen Rastle, Max Coltheart & Lyndsey Nickels
2010 “ ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes.” Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1): 83–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creemers, A., Goodwin Davies, A., Wilder, R. J., Tamminga, M., & Embick, D.
2020 Opacity, transparency, and morphological priming: A study of prefixed verbs in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 1101, 104055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Deyne, Samuel, Daniel J. Navarro, and Gert Storms, G.
2013 “Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single word associations.” Behavior Research Methods, 45(2):480–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frauenfelder, Uli & Robert Schreuder
1992 “Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity.” Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by G. Booij and J. van Marle. 165–183, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Fruchter, Joseph & Alec Marantz
2015 “Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the full decomposition model of complex visual word recognition.” Brain and Language 1431: 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
1993 “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” The View from Building 20, Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by K. Hale & S. J. Keyser. 111–176. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emanuel, Marc Brysbaert & Boris New
2010 “SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles.” Behavior Research Methods, 42(3): 643–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen
2016 “Lmer Test: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” R package.Google Scholar
Labbé Grunberg, Hernán
2020 Storage and processing of Dutch morphological information: Early electrophysiological responses to lexical, morphological and syntactic information, PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean
2015 “Derivational Affixes as Roots.” The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax ed. by A. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer. 230–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manelis, Leon & David A. Tharp
1977 “The Processing of Affixed Words.” Memory and Cognition 51: 690–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
2013a “No Escape from Morphemes in Morphological Processing.” Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7): 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b “Locality Domains for Contextual Allomorphy across the Interfaces.” Distributed Morphology Today, Morphemes for Morris Halle ed. by O. Mathushansky & M. Halle. 95–115 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, Joanna & Linnaea Stockall
2012 “Early, equivalent ERP masked priming effects for regular and irregular morphology.” Brain and Language, 123(2): 81–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Dennis, and James M. McQueen
2008 “Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition.” Psychological Review, 115(2): 357–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Jonathan W.
2007 “Psychopy – psychophysics software in python.” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1): 8–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Michael T. Ullmann
2002 “The past and future of the past tense.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11): 456–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. & Laura M. Gonnerman
2000 “Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9): 353–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. & Brian MacWhinney
1988 “Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?” Theoretical morphology, ed. by M. Hammond and M. Noonan. 101–116. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stockall, Linnaea & Alec Marantz
2006 “A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence.” The Mental Lexicon, 1(1): 85–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, Marcus
2004 “Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A 571: 745–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, Marcus & Kenneth I. Forster
1975 “Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 141: 638–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilder, R. J., Goodwin Davies, A., & Embick, D.
2019 “Differences between morphological and repetition priming in auditory lexical decision: Implications for decompositional models.” Cortex, 1161, 122–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar