Article published in:
What is a verb? – Linguistic, psycholinguistic and developmental perspectives on verbs in Germanic and Semitic languages
Edited by Eva Smolka and Dorit Ravid
[The Mental Lexicon 14:2] 2019
► pp. 298–318

Aufhören (‘stop’) activates hören (‘hear’) but not Musik (‘music’)

The difference between lexical and semantic processing of German particle verbs

| University of Konstanz | University of Vienna
This study examines whether the lexical processing of German particle verbs differs from their processing in a semantic network. To this end, we explored whether the processing of particle verbs induces access to the stem (Experiment 1) and to a semantic associate of the stem (Experiment 2). In two cross-modal priming experiments, participants listened to particle verbs that were (a) semantically transparent (e.g. anhören, ‘listen to’), (b) semantically opaque (e.g. aufhören, ‘stop’), or (c) form-related (e.g. aushöhlen, ‘mold’) with respect to their stem (e.g., hören, ‘hear’). Participants made lexical decisions about visually presented stems (e.g., hören, ‘hear’) and about semantic associates to the stem (e.g., Musik, ‘music’) in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.Relative to form controls, semantically transparent and opaque particle verbs induced equivalent stem priming (Experiment 1), indicating that the lexical processing of particle verbs occurs via the stem regardless of semantic transparency. However, neither semantically transparent nor opaque particle verbs primed semantic associates of the stem (Experiment 2). These findings indicate that stem access during lexical processing does not extend to a semantic level where the meaning of the stem is processed. We discuss these findings regarding present models of lexical processing.
Keywords: morphological priming, semantic priming, semantic associations, semantic transparency, lexical processing, lexical representation, stem priming, particle verbs, complex verbs
Published online: 15 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00008.smo
References

References

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, 59, 390–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P.
(2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
(1993) The CELEX lexical database (on CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Smolka, E.
(2019) Modeling morphological priming without morphemes. Manuscript submitted for publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D.
(2005) Fitting linear mixed models in R. R news, 5(1), 27–30.Google Scholar
Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. J.
(2003) Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 645–652. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
(2009) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://​www​.praat​.org/
Brunel, N., & Lavigne, F.
(2009) Semantic priming in a cortical network model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(12), 2300–2319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F.
(1975) A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., & Schriefers, H.
(2019) Processing derived verbs: the role of motor-relatedness and type of morphological priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(8), 973–990. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S.
(1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J.
(2005) Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: the case of prefixed words. Memory and Cognition, 37(6), 895–908. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dudenredaktion
(2009) Die deutsche Rechtschreibung. Das umfassende Standardwerk auf der Grundlage der neuen amtlichen Regeln (25th ed). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P.
(2004) Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort (2nd ed. Vol. 1). Stuttgart-Weimar: J. B. Metzler. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Barac-Cikoja, D., & Kostić, A.
(2002) Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory and Cognition, 30, 629–636. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. B., & 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
Feldman, L. B., & Soltano, E. G.
(1999) Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency, and affix position. Brain and Language, 68, 33–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fickel, J. & Smolka, E.
(2014) The processing of German stems in zero derivation, Umlaut, and Ablaut. International Conference on the Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Indo-Germanic and Semitic Languages (CoGS), Konstanz, Germany.
Fleischer, W., & Barz, I.
(1992) Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günther, F., Smolka, E., & Marelli, M.
(2019) ‘Understanding’ differs between English and German: Capturing systematic language differences of complex words. Cortex, 116, 158–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
(2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C., Segui, J., & Hallé, P.
(2003) Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L.
(1994) Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milin, P., Smolka, E., & Feldman, L. B.
(2017) Models of Lexical Access and Morphological Processing. In E. M. Fernandéz & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 240–268). Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B.
(2002) Does prime modality influence morphological processing? Brain and Language, 81, 28–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K.
(2000) Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rueckl, J. G., & Galantucci, B.
(2005) The locus and time course of long-term morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 115–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Gondan, M., & Rösler, F.
(2015) Take a stand on understanding: Electrophysiological evidence for stem access in German complex verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(62). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Komlósi, S., & Rösler, F.
(2009) When semantics means less than morphology: Processing of German prefixed verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(3), 337–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., & Libben, G.
(2017) ‘Can you wash off the hogwash?’ – semantic transparency of first and second constituents in the processing of German compounds. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 32(4), 514–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Libben, G., & Dressler, W. U.
(2019) When Morphological Structure Overrides Meaning: Evidence from German Prefix and Particle Verbs. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(5), 599–614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., & Eulitz, C.
(2018) Psycholinguistic measures for German verb pairs: Semantic trans-parency, semantic relatedness, verb family size, and age of reading acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1540–1562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Preller, K., & Eulitz, C.
(2014) ‘Verstehen’ (‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’ (‘stand’): Morphological Structure Overrides Semantic Compositionality in the Lexical Representation of German Complex Verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 16–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I.
(1975) Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M.
(2010) A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 277–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xu, J., & Taft, M.
(2015) The effects of semantic transparency and base frequency on the recognition of English complex words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(3), 904–910.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, P., Bolwiender, A., & Drews, E.
(2005) Priming morphologically complex verbs by sentence contexts: Effects of semantic transparency and ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 395–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwitserlood, P., Drews, E., Bolwiender, A., & Neuwinger, E.
(1996) Kann man Geschenke umbringen? Assoziative Bahnungsexperimente zur Bedeutungsheterogenität von Verben. In C. Habel & S. Kanngießer (Eds.), Perspektiven der kognitiven Linguistik: Modelle und Methoden (pp. 211–232). CrossrefGoogle Scholar