Aiming at the same target: A masked priming study directly comparing derivation and inflection in the second language

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:

We compared the processing of morphologically complex derived vs. inflected forms in native speakers of German and highly proficient native Russian second language (L2) learners of German.

Design/methodology/approach:

We measured morphological priming effects for derived and inflected German words. To ensure that priming effects were genuinely morphological, the design also contained semantic and orthographic control conditions.

Data and analysis:

40 native speakers of German and 36 native Russian learners of L2 German participated in a masked-priming lexical-decision experiment. For both participant groups, priming effects for derived vs. inflected words were compared using linear mixed effects models.

Findings/conclusions:

While first language (L1) speakers showed similar facilitation effects for both derived and inflected primes, L2 speakers showed a difference between the two prime types, with robust priming effects only for derived, but not for inflected forms.

Originality:

Unlike in previous studies investigating derivation and inflection in L2 processing, priming effects for derived and inflected prime–target pairs were determined on the basis of the same target word, allowing for a direct comparison between the two morphological phenomena. In this respect, this is the first study to directly compare the processing of derived vs. inflected forms in L2 speakers.

Significance/implications:

The results are inconsistent with accounts predicting general L1/L2 differences for all types of morphologically complex forms as well as accounts assuming that L1 and L2 processing are based on the same mechanisms. We discuss theoretical implications for L2 processing mechanisms, and propose an explanation which can account for the data pattern.

Keywords

Morphological processing derivation inflection second language (L2) learners masked priming

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

S. R.

(1992). A-Morphous morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Aronoff

(1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baayen

R. H.

(2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baayen

R. H.

(2013). Multivariate statistics. In: Podesva

Sharma

(Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 337–372). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baayen

R. H.

Davidson

D. J.

Bates

D. M.

(2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.

Baayen

R. H.

Milin

(2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.

Clahsen

(1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 991–1060.

Clahsen

Felser

(2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.

Clahsen

Neubauer

(2010). Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and nonnative speakers. Lingua, 120, 2627–2637.

10.

Coughlin

C. E.

Tremblay

(2015). Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 18, 524–542. doi: 10.1017/S1366728914000200.

11.

Crepaldi

Rastle

Coltheart

Nickels

(2010). ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ rime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 83–99.

12.

Dal Maso

Giraudo

. (2014). Morphological processing in L2 Italian: Evidence from a masked priming study. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37, 322–337.

13.

Davis

C. J.

(2000). Match calculator. Software. Retrieved from http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/staff/c.davis/Utilities/MatchCalc/index.htm

14.

Diependaele

Duñabeitia

J.A.

Morris

Keuleers

(2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 344–358.

15.

Feldman

L. B.

(1994). Beyond orthography and phonology: Differences between inflections and derivations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 442–470.

16.

Feldman

L. B.

Barac-Cikoja

Kostic

(2002). Semantic aspects in morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory & Cognition, 30, 629–636.

17.

Feldman

L. B.

Kostić

Basnight-Brown

D. M.

Filipović Đurđević

Pastizzo

M. J.

(2010). Morphological facilitation for regular and irregular verb formations in native and nonnative speakers: Little evidence for two distinct mechanisms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 119–135.

18.

Fowler

C. A.

Napps

S. E.

Feldman

L. B.

(1985). Relations among regular and irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming. Memory & Cognition, 13, 241–255.

19.

Forster

K. I.

Forster

J. C.

(2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 35, 116–124.

20.

Harley

Noyer

(1999). Distributed morphology. Glot International, 4(4), 3–9.

21.

Heyer

Clahsen

(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.

22.

Kırkıcı

Clahsen

(2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 776–794.

23.

Jiang

Gor

(2015). L1 and L2 processing of compound words: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, FirstView, 1–19.

24.

Marslen-Wilson

W. D.

(2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In: Gaskel

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

25.

Neubauer

Clahsen

(2009). Decomposition of inflected words in a second language: An experimental study of German participles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 403–435.

26.

Pinheiro

J. C.

Bates

D. M.

(2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer.

27.

Rastle

Davis

M. H.

New

(2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098.

28.

Ratcliff

(1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.

29.

Raveh

(2002). The contribution of frequency and semantic similarity to morphological processing. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 312–325.

30.

Raveh

Rueckl

J. G.

(2000). Equivalent effects of inflected and derived primes: Long-term morphological priming in fragment completion and lexical decision. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 103–119.

31.

Silva

Clahsen

(2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 245–260.

32.

Stanners

Neiser

Hernon

Hall

(1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 399–412.

33.

Voga

Anastassiadis-Symeonidis

Giraudo

. (2014). Does morphology play a role in L2 processing? Two masked priming experiments with Greek speakers of ESL. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37, 338–352.

34.

Wunderlich

(1996). Minimalist morphology: The role of paradigms. In: Booij

van Marle

(Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995 (pp. 93–114). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

35.

Wunderlich

Fabri

(1995). Minimalist morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14, 236–264.