Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 14:1 (2019) ► pp.124–151

It’s hard to be talented

What possessional adjectives tell us about lexical representation

| The University of New South Wales
| The University of New South Wales
In a visual lexical decision task, recognition is shown in two experiments to be harder for possessional adjectives that look like they are inflected verbs (e.g., talented) than for genuine inflected verbs (e.g., consulted), especially when the nonword distractors have real-word stems (e.g., infanted). Such a result implies that inflected words do not have a form-based whole word representation, but are recognized when functional information associated with their stem and affix is recombined after decomposition. A third experiment goes on to demonstrate that the addition of the verb suffix -ing to the noun stem of such pseudo-verb-stem words (i.e., talenting) leads to more erroneous classifications as a real word than when the stem is another type of noun (e.g., infanting). Moreover, a negative correlation is observed between the accuracy of recognition of the pseudo-verb-stem words and the classification as a nonword of the -ing version of their stems. On the basis of these experiments, a model is proposed in which a pseudo-verb-stem word is recognized through a lexical representation of its stem that corresponds to a bound ornative verb and which is different to the representation used to recognize its free-standing noun version.
Keywords: affixed word recognition, bound morphemes, inflectional morphology, lexical processing, morphological decomposition
Article outline
  • Experiment 1
  • Method
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Participants
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
  • Method
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Participants
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Experiment 3
  • Method
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Participants
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.18011.taf
References (26)
References
Adams, V. (2014). Complex words in English. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis eBooks.Google Scholar
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, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipovic Durdevic, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 1181, 438–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google 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, 261, 489–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E. (2012). Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 441, 991–997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Spuntarelli, A., & Thornton, A. M. (1999). Morpholexical access and naming: The semantic interpretability of new root–suffix combinations. Brain and Language, 681, 333–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crepaldi, 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, 631, 83–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diependaele, K., Morris, J., Serota, R. M., Bertrand, D., & Grainger, J. (2013). Breaking boundaries: Letter transpositions and morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 988–1003. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 1251, 777–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 351, 116–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirtle, W. H. (1970). -Ed Adjectives like ‘verandahed’ and ‘blue-eyed’. Journal of Linguistics, 61, 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1975). Problems in the analysis of ed-adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 111, 69–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, 0. (1954). A Modern English Grammar, Parts II and VI. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2014). LmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models. R package, version 2.0–3.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 221, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C. M. and Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 26–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 3621, 823–836. 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.Google Scholar
Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 91, 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A1, 745–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, (2015). The nature of lexical representation in visual word recognition. In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.) Handbook on Reading. Pp. 99–113. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 638–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M. (2010). A sticky stick: The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 251, 277–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., and Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain? A review of behavioural, electrophysiological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 351, 407–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar