Semantic transparency has been extensively analysed in research on visual word recognition. Under the masked priming paradigm, it has consistently been shown that opaque and transparent words are facilitated relative to form-related controls, but differences in priming between one condition and another have not been conclusively proven. Hence, research has been unable to theoretically elucidate the possible value of semantic transparency in the processing of derived words. This study describes two lexical decision experiments in Spanish. Experiment 1 revealed differences between the transparent and orthographic conditions, with no differences between the other conditions in the analyses of the error rates. In the second experiment, the participants visited the laboratory on two occasions, separated by a week. The task was administered twice, with participants responding to one of the experimental lists on each day. The results of this second experiment revealed significant differences in the size of the priming effect of the opaque and transparent conditions compared with the form-related condition, but without differences between these two effects. We discuss these findings from the perspective of current models of visual lexical processing.
AmentaS.CrepaldiD. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 232. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232
2.
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.
3.
BaayenR. H.DijkstraT.SchreuderR. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94–117.
4.
BaayenR. H.MilinP.ÐurđevićD. F.HendrixP.MarelliM. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naïve discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–481.
5.
BaayenR. H.SmolkaE. (2019). Modeling morphological priming in German with naïve discriminative learning. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nj39v
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. http://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
BeyersmannE.ColtheartM.CastlesA. (2012). Parallel processing of whole words and morphemes in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1798–1819.
BodnerG.MassonM. (2003). Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 645–652.
10.
BrysbaertM. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72
11.
BybeeJ. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins.
12.
ClappA.RastleK. (2007). ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: A masked priming study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 866–877.
13.
CreemersA.GoodwinA.WilderR.TammingaM.EmbickD. (2020). Opacity, transparency, and morphological priming: A study of prefixed verbs in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 104055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104055
14.
De GrauweS.LemhöferK.SchriefersH. (2019). Processing derived verbs: The role of motor-relatedness and type of morphological priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34, 973–990. http://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1599129
15.
DevlinJ. T.JamisonH. L.MatthewsP. M.GonnermanL. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 14984–14988.
16.
DomínguezA.CuetosF. (2018). The contrastive value of lexical stress in visual word recognition: Evidence from Spanish. Psicothema, 30, 276–282.
17.
DuchonA.PereaM.Sebastián-GallésN.MartíA.CarreirasM. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1246–1258.
18.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.KinoshitaS.CarreirasM.NorrisD. (2011). Is morpho-orthographic decomposition purely orthographic? Evidence from masked priming in the same-different task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 509–529.
19.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.PereaM.CarreirasM. (2008). Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1002–1020.
20.
FeldmanL.Barac-CikojaD.KosticA. (2002). Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory & Cognition, 30, 629–636.
21.
FeldmanL.KosticA.GvozdenovicV.O’ConnorP.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.
22.
FeldmanL.O’ConnorP.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.SoltanoE. (1999). Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency, and affix position. Brain and Language, 68, 33–39.
24.
FeldmanL.SoltanoE.PastizzoM.FrancisS. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing?Brain and Language, 90, 17–30.
25.
ForbachG. B.StannersR. F.HochhausL. (1974). Repetition and practice effects in a lexical decision task. Memory & Cognition, 2, 337–339.
26.
ForsterK.ForsterJ. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
27.
FrostR.DeutschA.GilboaO.TannenbaumM.Marslen-WilsonW. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1277–1288.
28.
GiraudoH.GraingerJ. (2003). A supralexical model for French derivational morphology. In AssinkE. M. H.SandraD. (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross-language studies (pp. 139–157). Kluwer Academic.
29.
GoldB. T.RastleK. (2007). Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1983–1993.
30.
GómezP.PereaM. (2020). Masked identity priming reflects an encoding advantage in developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 199, 104911. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104911
31.
GrossiG. (2006). Relatedness proportion effects on masked associative priming: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 43, 21–30.
32.
JärvikiviJ.PyykkönenP. (2011). Sub- and supralexical information in early phases of lexical access. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 282. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00282
33.
KazaninaN. (2011). Decomposition of prefixed words in Russian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1371–1390.
34.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. http://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
35.
LázaroM. (2012). The effects of base frequency and affix productivity in Spanish. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 505–512.
36.
LázaroM.AchaJ.de la RosaS.GarcíaS.SainzJ. (2017). Exploring the derivative suffix frequency effect in Spanish speaking children. Reading and Writing, 30, 163–185.
37.
LázaroM.AchaJ.IlleraV.SainzJ. (2016). Written type and token frequency measures of fifty Spanish derivational morphemes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E75.
38.
LázaroM.IlleraV.SainzJ. (2016). The suffix priming effect: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic segmentation process independent of its semantic content. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 197–208. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1031146
39.
LázaroM.SainzJ.IlleraV. (2015). The role of derivative suffix productivity in the visual word recognition of complex words. Psicológica, 36, 165–184.
40.
LongtinC.MeunierF. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41.
41.
MarelliM.AmentaS.CrepaldiD. (2015). Semantic transparency in free stems: The effect of orthography-semantics consistency on word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1571–1583. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.959709
42.
Marslen-WilsonW.TylerL.WakslerR.OlderL. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental Lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.
43.
PereaM.BacieroA.MarcetA. (2020). Does a mark make a difference? Visual similarity effects with accented vowels. Psychological Research. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01405-1
44.
PereaM.RosaE. (2002). Does the proportion of associatively related pairs modulate the associative priming effect at very brief stimulus-onset asynchronies?Acta Psychologica, 110, 103–124.
45.
R Development Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
46.
RastleK.DavisM. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.
47.
RastleK.DavisM.Marslen-WilsonW.TylerL. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537.
48.
RastleK.DavisM.NewB. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098.
49.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
50.
SchreuderR.BaayenR. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In FeldmanL. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
Sebastián-GallésN.CuetosF.CarreirasM.MartíM. A. (2000). LEXESP. Léxico informatizado del español [Lexesp: A Spanish computerized lexical dataBase]. Universidad de Barcelona.
52.
SeidenbergM. S.GonnermanL. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.
53.
SmolkaE.LibbenG.DresslerW. U. (2019). When morphological structure overrides meaning: Evidence from German prefix and particle verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34, 599–614.
54.
TaftM. (2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In AssinkE.SandraD. (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 113–137). Kluwer Academic.
55.
TaftM.ForsterK. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.
56.
TaftM.KougiousP. (2004). The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 90, 9–16.
57.
TaftM.Nguyen-HoanN. (2010). A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 277–296.
58.
VarelaS. (1990). Fundamentos de morfología [Fundamentals of Psychology]. Síntesis.
59.
XuJ.TaftM. (2015). The effects of semantic transparency and base frequency on the recognition of English complex words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 904–910.
Supplementary Material
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.
