Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 18:2 (2023) ► pp.218–264

The distributional properties of prefixes influence lexical decision latencies

Evidence from Malay

| University of Western Ontario
| University of Western Ontario
Morphological processing has been extensively studied in English and European languages, but there is a growing interest in extending the research to other languages. Here we examined Malay, an Austronesian language that is morphologically rich. We investigated the effects of morphological constituents on lexical decisions for prefixed words. Specifically, we explored whether readers are sensitive to any distributional properties of the prefix and root morphemes. Variables investigated included length and family size for both prefixes and roots, as well as number of allomorphs, consistency, and productivity for prefixes. Decision latencies were collected for 1,280 Malay words of various morphological structures. Data from the 640 prefixed words were analyzed in a series of GAMM models. We observed a facilitative effect of root family size and an effect of several distributional properties of prefixes on decision latencies after accounting for word frequency and length. Furthermore, a larger interaction between frequency and several distributional properties of prefixes was found for words with three-letter prefixes than for those with two-letter prefixes. These findings provide insight into the types of distributional properties to which Malay readers are sensitive in multimorphemic words.
Keywords: word recognition, morphology, Malay, prefixes, lexical decision, morphological family size, prefix consistency, distributional properties
Article outline
  • The Malay language (Bahasa Melayu)
  • Theories of morphological processing
  • Effects of morphological variables
  • Effects of morphological variables in Malay
  • The present study
  • Method
    • Distributional properties of root and prefixes
      • Family size
      • Family frequency
      • Percentage of more frequent words (PFMF)
      • Morphemic length
      • Number of allomorphs
      • Prefix productivity
      • Prefix consistency
    • Participants
    • Stimuli
    • Procedure
  • Results
    • Overview of analyses
    • Regularized regression
    • Generalized additive mixed models (GAMM)
      • Root family size
      • Distributional properties of prefixes
      • Interactions with frequency and prefix length
      • Other prefix variables of interest
  • Discussion
    • Theoretical implications
    • Future directions
    • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00023.maz
References (56)
References
Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 1, 1 – 12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y. Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E., & Blevins, J. P. (2019). The discriminative lexicon: A Unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de) composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 2019, 4895891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (1), 94 – 117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 290–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. & Renouf, A. (1996). Reading the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72 (1), 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2 (3), 419 – 463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (7–8), 1159–1190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homophony, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26 1, 489–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28 (3), 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chateau, D., Knudsen, E. V. & Jared, D. (2002). Masked priming of prefixes and the influence of spelling-meaning consistency. Brain and Language, 81 (1–3), 587–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chuang, Y., Fon, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2020). Analyzing phonetic data with generalized additive mixed models. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: a differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28 1, 1 – 13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology, Language and Cognitive Processes, 15 (4/5), 329–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denistia, K., and Baayen, R. H. (2019). The Indonesian prefixes PE- and PEN-: A study in productivity and allomorphy. Morphology, 29 (3), 385–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denistia, K., & Baayen, R. H. (2021). The morphology of Indonesian: Data and quantitative modeling. In C. Shei (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Asian linguistics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Schulpen, B., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). A roommate in cream: Morphological family size effects on interlingual homograph recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20 1, 7 – 41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63 1, 117 – 130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frauenfelder, U. H., & Schreuder, R. (1992). Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity (pp. 165–183). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33 (1), 1 – 22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Simon, N., Narasimhan, B., & Qian, J. (2018). Package “glmnet”, Version 2.0–13.Google Scholar
Hassan, A. (2006). Morfologi. PTS Professional Publishing.Google Scholar
Heitmeier, M., Chuang, Y.-Y., Axen, S. D., & Baayen, R. H. (2023). Frequency effects in linear discriminative learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11044. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jared, 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, & Cognition, 43 1, 422 – 450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Järvikivi, J., Bertram, R., & Niemi, J. (2006). Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21 (4), 394 – 431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauschke, C., Stenneken, P. (2008). Differences in Noun and Verb Processing in Lexical Decision Cannot be Attributed to Word Form and Morphological Complexity Alone. J Psycholinguist Res 37 1, 443 – 452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 1, 83 – 97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional properties of derivational affixes: Implications for processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 345 – 364). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Laudanna, A., Burani, C., & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes as processing units. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9 (3), 295 – 316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. & Wood, S. N. (2019). Faster model matrix crossproducts for large generalized linear models with discretized covariates. Statistics and Computing, 30 1, 19 – 25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2018). Whole-word frequency and inflectional paradigm size facilitate Estonian case-inflected noun processing. Cognition, 175 1, 20 – 25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mailhot, H., Wilson, M. A., Macoir, J., Deacon, S. H., & Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. H. (2020). MorphoLex-FR: A derivational morphological database for 38,840 French words. Behavior Research Methods, 52 1, 1008 – 1025. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, M., & Baroni, M. (2015). Affixation in semantic space: Modeling morpheme meanings with compositional distributional semantics. Psychological Review, 122 (3), 485 – 515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, M., Traficante, D., & Burani, C. (2020). Reading morphologically complex words: Experimental evidence and learning models. In V. Pirelli, I. Plag, & U. Dressler (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: A cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon (pp. 553 – 592). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maziyah Mohamed, M., Yap, M. J., Chee, Q. W., Jared, D. (2023). Malay Lexicon Project 2: Morphology in Malay word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 51 1, 647 – 665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Bertram, R., Häikiö, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30 (6), 1271 – 1278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martin, F., Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Schreuder, R., Jong, N. H. de, and Baayen, R. H. (2005). Changing places: A cross-language perspective on frequency and family size in Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 53 1, 496–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15 (4–5), 445 – 485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (7–8), 942 – 971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rueckl, J. G., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2009). Computational modeling and the neural bases of reading and reading disorders. In K. Pugh & P. McCardle (Eds.), How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice (pp. 101 – 133). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rueckl, J. G., & Raveh, M. (1999). The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network. Brain and Language, 68 (1–2), 110–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. H., Mailhot, H., & Deacon, S. H. (2018). MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50 (4), 1568 – 1580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131 – 154). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
(1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (1), 118 – 139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (2006). A localist-cum-distributed (LCD) framework for lexical processing. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 76 – 94). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
(2023). Localist Lexical Representation of Polymorphemic Words: The AUSTRAL Model. In Linguistic Morphology in the Mind and Brain (pp. 152 – 166). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon, 1 (2), 183 – 199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14 (6), 638 – 647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15 (6), 607 – 620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, R. H. (2018). Strategies for managing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics, 71 1, 249 – 267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vannest, J., Bertram, R., Järvikivi, J., & Niemi, J. (2002). Counterintuitive cross-linguistic differences: More morphological computation in English than in Finnish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31 (2), 83 – 106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rij, J., Wieling, M., Baayen, R., van Rijn, H. (2020). “itsadug: Interpreting Time Series and Autocorrelated Data Using GAMMs.” R package version 2.4.Google Scholar
Wood, S. (2017). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, S.N., Li, Z., Shaddick, G. & Augustin N.H. (2017). Generalized additive models for gigadata: Modeling the U.K. black smoke network daily data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112 (519),1199 – 1210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., Rickard Liow, S. J., Jalil, S., & Faizal, S. S. (2010). The Malay Lexicon Project: A database of lexical statistics for 9,592 words. Behavior Research Methods, 42 (4), 992 – 1003. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Maziyah Mohamed, Mirrah & Debra Jared
2024. Malay Lexicon Project 3: The impact of orthographic–semantic consistency on lexical decision latencies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.