Accessing and naming suffixed pseudo-words

Burani, Cristina; Dovetto, Francesca M.; Thornton, Anna M.; Laudanna, Alessandro

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3718-0_5

Cited by 29 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The activation of lexical representations has also been demonstrated in Italian adults naming pseudowords (Arduino & Burani, unpublished;Job, Peressotti, & Cusinato, 1998). Furthermore, evidence for recourse to the morphological structure of stimuli (i.e., morpheme-based lexical reading) has been reported (Burani, Dovetto, Spuntarelli, & Thornton, 1999;Burani, Dovetto, Thornton, & Laudanna, 1997;Burani & Laudanna, in press;Laudanna, Cermele, & Caramazza, 1997): Adult readers were quicker and more accurate in naming pseudowords which included morphemes (roots and affixes) relative to pseudowords which did not have morphological constituency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

How Early Does Morpholexical Reading Develop in Readers of a Shallow Orthography?

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

How Early Does Morpholexical Reading Develop in Readers of a Shallow Orthography?

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It seems rather that a certain degree of productivity is needed in order for computational effects to arise (see Vannest, Bertram, Jä rvikivi, & Niemi, 2002), and productivity -as other affix specific characteristics -is likely to be tied together with a number of other factors, such as (orthographic) length, frequency, and ambiguity. Laudanna and Burani (1995) showed that affix length and both type and token frequency of the affix affect whether derivational affixes are used in the course of processing in Italian , for a review; Burani & Laudanna, 1992;Burani, Dovetto, Thornton, & Laudanna, 1997;Burani, Thornton, Iacobini, & Laudanna, 1995). More precisely, long and frequent affixes were more likely to act as processing units than short and infrequent affixes.…”

Section: Factors Affecting Affixal Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy

Järvikivi

Bertram

Niemi

2006

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the relevance of suffix allomorphy for processing complex words. The question is whether structural invariance of the morphological category (i.e., lack of allomorphy) would affect the processing of Finnish derived words. A series of four visual lexical decision experiments in which alternatively surface and base frequency was manipulated showed that the two invariant suffixes, namely denominal -stO and deadjectival -hkO, showed reliable effects of base frequency, whereas for the two categories with suffix allomorphy, deverbal -Us and deadjectival -(U)Us, only surface frequency played a role. A further experiment showed that even with the most frequent variant of -(U)Us, namely -Ude-, response latencies were a function of surface frequency only. It is shown that neither the results from the experiments here nor previous findings from processing Finnish words can be accounted for by suffix frequency, the frequency ratio between the derived word and its base, or morphological productivity in any straightforward manner. We conclude that the lack of allomorphy, that is, structural invariance, significantly adds to affixal salience and therefore enhances morphological decomposition. The implications of this finding for models of lexical processing are discussed.

show abstract

“…In both cases, when the pseudo-morpheme is removed, the residual letter sequence is not a possible morpheme (either bound or unbound): clust is not a root, and -rode is not a suffix. Burani, Dovetto, Thornton, and Laudanna (1997) used these types of words with a naming and lexical decision task. Giraudo and Grainger used words with pseudo-roots or pseudo-affixes as controls for morphological priming (Giraudo & Grainger 2001, in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%