Semantic transparency has been in the focus of psycholinguistic research for decades, with the controversy about the time course of the application of morpho-semantic information during the processing of morphologically complex words not yet resolved. This study reports two masked priming studies with English -ness and Russian -ost’ nominalisations, investigating how semantic transparency modulates native speakers’ morphological priming effects at short and long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In both languages, we found increased morphological priming for nominalisations at the transparent end of the scale (e.g. paleness – pale) in comparison to items at the opaque end of the scale (e.g. business – busy) but only at longer prime durations. The present findings are in line with models that posit an initial phase of morpho-orthographic (semantically blind) decomposition.
AndrewsS.LoS. (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.
2.
AronoffM. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
3.
AronoffM.BergK.HeyerV. (2016). Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 164–185.
4.
BaayenH.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 12–28.
5.
BaayenR. H.MilinP.Filipović ĐurđevićD.HendrixP.MarelliM. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–482.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. (R package version 1.1-8).
7.
BauerL.HuddlestonR. (2002). Lexical word-formation. In HuddlestonR.PullumG. (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 1621–1721). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BeyersmannE.CastlesA.ColtheartM. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1306–1326.
9.
BeyersmannE.ColtheartM.CastlesA. (2012). Parallel processing of whole words and morphemes in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1798–1819.
BoxG. E. P.CoxD. R. (1964). An Analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26, 211–252.
12.
ClahsenH.GerthS.HeyerV.SchottE. (2015). Morphology constrains native and non-native word formation in different ways: Evidence from plurals inside compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 10, 53–87.
13.
ClahsenH.NeubauerK. (2010). Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and non-native speakers. Lingua, 120, 2627–2637.
14.
CunningsI.ClahsenH. (2007). The time-course of morphological constraints: Evidence from eye-movements during reading. Cognition, 104, 476–494.
15.
DavisM. H.RastleK. (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.
16.
DevlinJ. T.JamisonH. L.MatthewsP. M.GonnermanL. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 14984–14988.
17.
DiependaeleK.DuñabeitiaJ. A.MorrisJ.KeuleersE. (2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 344–358.
18.
DiependaeleK.SandraD.GraingerJ. (2005). Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morphosemantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 75–114.
19.
FeldmanL. B.Barac-CikojaD.KostićA. (2002). Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory & Cognition, 30, 629–636.
20.
FeldmanL. B.KostićA.GvozdenovićV.O’ConnorP. A.Moscoso del Prado MartínF. (2012). Semantic similarity influences early morphological priming in Serbian: A challenge to form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 668–676.
21.
FeldmanL. B.MilinP.ChoK. W.Moscoso del Prado MartínF.O’ConnorP. A. (2015). Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 111. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111
22.
FeldmanL. B.O’ConnorP. A.Moscoso del Prado MartínF. (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.
23.
FeldmanL. B.SoltanoE. G. (1999). Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency, and affix position. Brain and Language, 68, 33–39.
24.
FeldmanL. B.SoltanoE. G.PastizzoM. J.FrancisS. E. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing?Brain and language, 90, 17–30.
25.
ForsterK. I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203–233.
26.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 35, 116–124.
27.
ForsterK. I.MohanK.HectorJ. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 3–37). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
28.
FrazierL.CliftonC. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 277–295.
29.
FrazierL.FodorJ. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
30.
FriedericiA. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.
31.
KazaninaN.Dukova-ZhelevaG.GeberD.KharlamovV.TonsciulescuK. (2008). Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: A masked priming study of Russian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 800–823.
32.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. (R package version 2.0-33).
33.
LavricA.ClappA.RastleK. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866–877.
34.
LongtinC.-M.SeguiJ.HalléP. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.
35.
MacDonaldM.PearlmutterN.SeidenbergM. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
36.
MarchandH. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic, diachronic approach (2nd ed.). Munich, Germany: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
37.
MarelliM.AmentaS.MoroneE. A.CrepaldiD. (2013). Meaning is in the beholder’s eye: Morpho-semantic effects in masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 534–541.
38.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.BozicM.RandallB. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421.
39.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.TylerL. K.WakslerR.OlderL. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.
40.
McCormickS. F.RastleK.DavisM. H. (2008). Is there a ‘fete’ in ‘fetish’? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 307–326.
41.
MorrisJ.FrankT.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2007). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: An ERP investigation. Psychophysiology, 44, 506–521.
42.
MorrisJ.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2013). Tracking the consequences of morpho-orthographic decomposition using ERPs. Brain Research, 1529, 92–104.
43.
MorrisJ.PorterJ. H.GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2011). Effects of lexical status and morphological complexity in masked priming: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 558–599.
44.
OrfanidouE.DavisM. H.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2011). Orthographic and semantic opacity in masked and delayed priming: Evidence from Greek. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 530–557.
45.
PlagI. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
PoirierJ.ShapiroL. P. (2012). Linguistic and psycholinguistic foundations. In PeachR. K.ShapiroL. P. (Eds.), Cognition and acquired language disorders: An information processing approach (pp. 121–146). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
47.
R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
48.
RastleK.DavisM. H. (2003). Reading morphologically complex words: Some thoughts from masked priming. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 279–305). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
49.
RastleK.DavisM. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.
50.
RastleK.DavisM. H.Marslen-WilsonW. D.TylerL. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537.
51.
RastleK.DavisM. H.NewB. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098.
52.
RuecklJ. G.AicherK. A. (2008). Are CORNER and BROTHER morphologically complex? Not in the long term. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 972–1001.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
