Article published in:
Linguistic Perspectives on Morphological Processing
Edited by Harald Clahsen, Vera Heyer and Jana Reifegerste
[The Mental Lexicon 11:2] 2016
► pp. 164–185

Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing

| Stony Brook University
| Universität Oldenburg
| Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
In alphabetic writing systems, the most consistent correspondences hold between written and spoken segments. Although English spelling uses the Roman alphabet and is thus largely phonographic, it also encodes non-phonological distinctions such as those among homophonic words (e.g., pair, pare, pear). We review evidence that English spelling is to some extent morphographic at the level of suffixes: some suffixes (e.g. -s and -ed) have a single constant spelling (‹-s› and ‹ed›), despite the fact that they vary in phonological realization (-s is realized as [z], [s], or [əz], depending on the preceding segment); while other suffixes (e.g. ‑ic) are spelled differently from homophonous word-final phonological sequences (e.g. ‹relic› vs. ‹relick›). We explore the implications of our research for psycholinguistic findings on morphological processing of written English, with a special focus on ‘affix stripping’ processes. Psycholinguistic research has largely assumed the straightforward linguistic validity of morphographic spelling, without appreciating either its typologically unusual nature or the subtle and complex relation that it bears to morphology, phonology, and semantics.
Keywords: morphographic spelling, inflection, writing systems, affix stripping, derivation
Published online: 28 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.01aro
References
Andrews, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L.
(1995) The CELEX lexical database (release 2). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg, K.
(2013) Graphemic alternations in English as a reflex of morphological structure. Morphology, 23, 387–408. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
in press). Sichtbare Flexionsmorphologie im Englischen und Deutschen. Der Umgang mit Variation in der Schreibung von Stämmen und Affixen. To appear in: Fuhrhop, N., Szczepaniak, R. & Schmidt, K (Eds.) Sichtbare und hörbare Morphologie
(2016) Double consonants in English. Graphemic, morphological, prosodic and etymological determinants. Reading and Writing, 29.3, 453–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg, K. & Aronoff, M.
to appear). Self-organization in the spelling of English suffixes: The emergence of culture out of anarchy. To appear in Language.
Berg, K., Buchmann, F., Dybiec, K., & Fuhrhop, N.
(2014) Morphological spellings in English. Written Language and Literacy, 17, 282–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Baayen, R.H., & Schreuder, R.
(2000) Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 390–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catach, N.
(1980) L’orthographe française. Traité théorique et pratique. Paris: F. Nathan.Google Scholar
Crepaldi, D., Hemsworth, L., Davis, C.J., & Rastle, K.
(2016) Masked suffix priming and morpheme positional constraints. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 113–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C., Kim, J., & Barbaro, A.
(2010) Masked speech priming: Neighborhood size matters. Journal Acoustical Society of America, 127, 2110–2113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis.J.
(1984) The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J.
(2005) Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morphosemantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 75–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L.B., O’Connor, P.A., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F.
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L.B., Milin, P., Cho, K.W., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., & O’Connor, P.A.
(2015) Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, E., & Johnson, S.
(2007) Rosa’s roses: Reduced vowels in American English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37, 83–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K.I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J.
(2003) The mechanics of masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S.J. Lupker (Eds.) Masked priming. The state of the art. (pp. 3–37). Hove (UK): Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Heyer, 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 nouns. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 543–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, L. & Frost, R.
(1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: North-Holland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kielar, A., Joanisse, M.F., & Hare, M.L
(2008) Priming English past tense verbs: Rules or statistics? Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 327–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kouider, S., & Dupoux, E.
(2005) Subliminal speech priming. Psychological Science, 16, 617–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavric, A., Elchlepp, H., & Ratle, K.
(2012) Tracking hierarchical processing in morphological decomposition with brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 811–816. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lázaro, M., Illera, V., & Sainz, J.
(2016) The suffix priming effect: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic segmentation process independent of its semantic content. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 197–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P.A.
(2003) Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H.
(1969) The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D
(2007) Morphological processes in language comprehension. In M.G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B.
(2008) Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Ford, M., Older, L., & Zhou, X.
(1996) The combinatorial lexicon: Priming derivational affixes. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 223–227.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Tyler, L.K., Waksler, R., & Older, L.
(1994) Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Zhou, X.
(1999) Abstractness, allomorphy, and lexical architecture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 321–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meisenburg, T.
(1998) Zur Typologie von Alphabetschriftsystemen anhand des Parameters der Tiefe. Linguistische Berichte, 173, 43–64.Google Scholar
Otto, E.J.
(2012) Morphological processing in bilingual speakers of German and English. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Royal Holloway, University of London, London.Google Scholar
Pastizzo, M.J., & Feldman, L.B.
(2002) Discrepancies between orthographic and unrelated baselines in masked priming undermine a decompositional account of morphological facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 244–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J., & Kunter, G.
(2015) Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Post, B., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Randall, B., & Tyler, L.K.
(2008) The processing of English regular inflections: Phonological cues to morphological structure. Cognition, 109, 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., & Davis, M.H.
(2003) Reading morphologically complex words: Some thoughts from masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S.J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 279–305). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, 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. CrossrefGoogle 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, 1090–1098. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G.
(1985) Writing systems. A linguistic introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Segui, J., & Grainger, J.
(1990) Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 65–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Komlósi, S., & Rösler, F.
(2009) When semantics means less than morphology: The processing of German prefixed verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 337–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Preller, K.H., & 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
Sproat, R.
(2010) Language, technology, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taft, M., Castles, A., Davis, C., Lazendic, G. & Nguygen-Hoan, M.
(2008) Automatic activation of orthography in spoken word recognition: Pseudohomograph priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 366–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M.
(2010) A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 277–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, L.K., Randall, B., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D.
(2002) Phonology and neuropsychology of the English past tense. Neuropsychologia, 4, 1154–1166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ussishkin, A., Dawson, C.R., Wedel, A., & Schluter, K.
(2015) Auditory masked priming in Maltese spoken word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1096–1115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Bar-On, Amalia & Victor Kuperman
2019. Spelling errors respect morphology: a corpus study of Hebrew orthography. Reading and Writing 32:5 ► pp. 1107 ff. Crossref logo
Adam Brown
2018.  In Understanding and Teaching English Spelling, ► pp. 185 ff. Crossref logo
Ciaccio, Laura Anna, Gunnar Jacob & Niels O. Schiller
2019. Native speakers like affixes, L2 speakers like letters? An overt visual priming study investigating the role of orthography in L2 morphological processing. PLOS ONE 14:12 ► pp. e0226482 ff. Crossref logo
Ciaccio, Laura Anna, Naledi Kgolo & Harald Clahsen
2020. Morphological decomposition in Bantu: a masked priming study on Setswana prefixation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35:10 ► pp. 1257 ff. Crossref logo
Dal Maso, Serena & Hélène Giraudo
2019. On the interplay between family and series effects in morphological masked priming. Morphology 29:2 ► pp. 293 ff. Crossref logo
Hettwer, Caroline & Nanna Fuhrhop
2021.  In All Things Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 353], ► pp. 99 ff. Crossref logo
Heyer, Vera
2021. Below the surface: The application of implicit morpho-graphic regularities to novel word spelling. Morphology 31:3 ► pp. 243 ff. Crossref logo
Heyer, Vera & Dana Kornishova
2018. Semantic transparency affects morphological priming . . . eventually. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71:5 ► pp. 1112 ff. Crossref logo
Seyfarth, Scott, Jozina Vander Klok & Marc Garellek
2019. Evidence against interactive effects on articulation in Javanese verb paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26:5 ► pp. 1690 ff. Crossref logo
Treiman, Rebecca, Sloane Wolter & Brett Kessler
2021. How sensitive are adults to the role of morphology in spelling?. Morphology 31:3 ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Yablonski, Maya & Michal Ben-Shachar
2020. Sensitivity to word structure in adult Hebrew readers is associated with microstructure of the ventral reading pathways. Cortex 128 ► pp. 234 ff. Crossref logo
Yablonski, Maya, Kathleen Rastle, J.S.H. Taylor & Michal Ben-Shachar
2019. Structural properties of the ventral reading pathways are associated with morphological processing in adult English readers. Cortex 116 ► pp. 268 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 august 2021. 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.