To what extent is morphological representation in different languages dependent on semantic information? Unlike Indo-European languages, the Semitic mental lexicon has been argued to be purely “morphologically driven”, with complex stems represented in a decomposed format (root + vowel pattern) irrespectively of their semantic properties. We have examined this claim by comparing cross-modal root-priming effects elicited by Hebrew verbs of a productive, open-ended class (Piel) and verbs of a closed-class (Paal). Morphological priming effects were obtained for both verb types, but prime-target semantic relatedness interacted with class, and only modulated responses following Paal, but not Piel primes. We explain these results by postulating different types of morpho-lexical representation for the different classes: structured stems, in the case of Piel, and whole-stems (which lack internal morphological structure), in the case of Paal. We conclude that semantic effects in morphological priming are also obtained in Semitic languages, but they are crucially dependent on type of morpho-lexical representation.
AmentaS.CrepaldiD. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: an analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 232.
2.
AronoffM. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
4.
BaayenR. H.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 12–28.
5.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
6.
Bat-ElO. (1994). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 12, 571–596.
7.
Bat-ElO. (2002). Semitic verb structure within a universal perspective. In ShimronJ. (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based, morphology (pp. 29–59). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
8.
BermanR. A. (1997). Modern Hebrew. In HetzronR. (Ed.), The Semitic languages (pp. 312–333). New York: Routledge.
BickA. S.GoelmanG.FrostR. (2011). Hebrew brain vs. English brain: Language modulates the way it is processed. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2280–2290.
11.
BolozkyS. (1978). Word formation strategies in the Hebrew verb system: denominative verbs. Afroasiatic Linguistics, 5, 111–136.
12.
BolozkyS. (1982). Strategies of Modern Hebrew verb formation. Hebrew Annual Review, 6, 69–79.
13.
BolozkyS. (1999). Measuring productivity in word formation: The case of Israeli Hebrew. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
14.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2004). Allomorphic variation in Arabic: implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language, 90, 106–116.
15.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2005). Discontinuous morphology in time: incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 207–260.
16.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2015). Structure, form, and meaning in the mental lexicon: evidence from Arabic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 955–992.
17.
ClahsenH. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: a multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1013.
18.
ClahsenH.SonnenstuhlI.BlevinsJ. P. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: a dual-mechanism account. In BaayenH.SchreuderR. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 125–155). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
19.
DeutschA.FrostR.ForsterK. I. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1238–1255.
20.
FarhyY.VeríssimoJ.ClahsenH. (2018). Universal and particular in morphological processing: evidence from Hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1125–1133.
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.
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.PastizzoM. J.FrancisS. E. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing?Brain and Language, 90, 17–30.
24.
FordM. A.DavisM. H.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117–130.
25.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: a Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, 35, 116–124.
26.
FrostR.DeutschA.GilboaO.TannenbaumM.Marslen-WilsonW. (2000). Morphological priming: dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1277–1288.
27.
FrostR.ForsterK. I.DeutschA. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 829–856.
28.
GonnermanL. M.SeidenbergM. S.AndersenE. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 323–345.
29.
HeyerV.KornishovaD. (2018). Semantic transparency affects morphological priming… eventually. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1112–1124.
30.
ItaiA.WintnerS. (2008). Language resources for Hebrew. Language Resources and Evaluation, 42, 75–98.
31.
JaredD.JouravlevO.JoanisseM. 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, and Cognition, 43(3), 422.
32.
KazaninaN. (2011). Decomposition of prefixed words in Russian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1371–1390.
33.
KazaninaN.Dukova-ZhelevaG.GeberD.KharlamovV.TonciulescuK. (2008). Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: a masked priming study of Russian nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 800–823.
34.
LaksL. (2011). Morpho-phonological and morpho-thematic relations in Hebrew and Arabic verb formation (Doctoral dissertation). Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
35.
LavricA.ClappA.RastleK. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: a masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866–877.
36.
LeinerD. J. (2014). SoSci Survey (Version 2.5.00-i) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.soscisurvey.de
37.
LongtinC. M.SeguiJ.HalléP. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.
38.
MarcusG. F. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In GaskellM. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.BozicM.RandallB. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421.
41.
Marslen-WilsonW.TylerL. K.WakslerR.OlderL. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.
42.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.
43.
MilinP.FeldmanL. B.RamscarM.HendrixP.BaayenR. H. (2017). Discrimination in lexical decision. PLOS ONE, 12, e0171935.
44.
MilinP.SmolkaE.FeldmanL. B. (2017). Models of lexical access and morphological processing. The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 240–268.
45.
NewmanA. J.UllmanM. T.PanchevaR.WaliguraD. L.NevilleH. J. (2007). An ERP study of regular and irregular English past tense inflection. NeuroImage, 34, 435–445.
46.
PereaM.MallouhR. A.MohammedA.KhalifaB.CarreirasM. (2018). Does visual letter similarity modulate masked form priming in young readers of Arabic?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 169, 110–117.
47.
PinkerS. (1999). Words and rules. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
48.
PlautD. C.GonnermanL. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445–485.
49.
RastleK.DavisM. H. (2003). Reading morphologically complex words. Masked priming: The state of the art, 279–305.
50.
RastleK.DavisM. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.
51.
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.
52.
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.
53.
SchmidtkeD.MatsukiK.KupermanV. (2017). Surviving blind decomposition: a distributional analysis of the time-course of complex word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1793–1820.
54.
SmolkaE.PrellerK. H.EulitzC. (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.
55.
SonnenstuhlI.EisenbeissS.ClahsenH. (1999). Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition, 72, 203–236.
56.
UssishkinA. (2005). A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templatic morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23, 169–218.
57.
Vaknin-NussbaumV.ShimronJ. (2011). Hebrew plural inflection: linear processing in a Semitic language. The Mental Lexicon, 6, 197–244.
58.
van HeuvenW. J. B.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190.
59.
VelanH.DeutschA.FrostR. (2013). The flexibility of letter-position flexibility: evidence from eye movements in reading Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1143–1152.
60.
VelanH.FrostR. (2011). Words with and without internal structure: What determines the nature of orthographic and morphological processing?Cognition, 118, 141–156.
61.
VeríssimoJ.ClahsenH. (2009). Morphological priming by itself: a study of Portuguese conjugations. Cognition, 112, 187–194.
62.
WrayS. (2016). Decomposability and the effects of morpheme frequency in lexical access (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Arizona, Tucson.
