7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
1/24
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE 37, 438461 (1997)
ARTICLE NO. ML972524
Audito ry P ro c es s ing of P refixed Eng lis h Wo rd s
Is B oth C ontinuous a nd Deco mpos itiona l
Lee H. Wurm
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Two experiments compared continuous and discontinuous models of word recognition. Partici-
pants heard prefixed words whose full-form and root uniqueness points (UPs) differed, in either
a gating or lexical decision paradigm. Identification points and reaction times were analyzed
using multiple regression. Full-form UPs predicted performance better than root UPs did. Full-
form frequency measures had reliable facilitative relationships with performance while root
frequency measures were not consistently significant. Prefix frequency had a reliable, inhibitory
effect. Judged prefixedness, semantic transparency, and prefix likelihood were related to perfor-mance, alone or in interaction. The results provide evidence for both kinds of word recognition
procedures. A model is proposed with two parallel recognition routines: a whole-word routine
and a decompositional routine that considers only unbound roots that can combine with the
prefix in question. A preliminary rating study provides stimulus values on several dimensions
and can be used as a database by other researchers. 1997 Academic Press
Spoken-word recognition is complex, and access of such morphologically complex
words might occur. First, complex wordsparticularly little is known about cases where
words are composed of more than one mor- might be recognized without decomposing
them into their constituent morphemes. Lexi-pheme. There are two ways in which lexicalcal entries would correspond to whole words.
Alternatively, complex words might be de-This research was supported by Augmentation Awardcomposed, with individual morphemes repre-for Science and Engineering Research Training Grant
93NL174 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Re- sented lexically.search, Grant R01 MH51663-03 (to Arthur G. Samuel) Each of these access strategies correspondsfrom the National Institute of Mental Health, and National
to one of the main schools of thought amongResearch Service Award 1 F32 MH11721-01, also from
psychologists. I will call one of these the dis-NIMH. This article is based on the authors doctoral dis-continuous (or decomposition) approach. Insertation (State University of New York at Stony Brook).
A portion of this work was presented at the 37th annual models of this type, complex words must bemeeting of the Psychonomic Society (Chicago, IL, Octo- decomposed into root and affixes prior to lexi-ber 31November 3, 1996). I thank Arthur Samuel, Mark
cal access. Lexical access can proceed onlyAronoff, Susan Brennan, Richard Gerrig, John Robinson,
via the root because complex words do notand Cynthia Connine, all of whom made comments onhave lexical entries. Although there have beenan earlier version of this paper. I also thank Donna Kat for
her invaluable help with computer programming. Arthur several discontinuous models suggested (e.g.,Aron, David Cross, and the Statistics Lunch group at Cutler, Hawkins, & Gilligan, 1985; Jarvella &Stony Brook provided a great deal of help with data analy-
Meijers, 1983; MacKay, 1978; Morton, 1969;sis, and Harald Baayen helped in the computation of mor-
1979), this approach has been chiefly associ-pheme frequencies. Annmarie Cano and Douglas Vakoch ated with Taft and his colleagues (1979a;provided emotional support and help with many of themore tedious aspects of this project. Marcus Taft, Dennis 1981; 1985; Taft & Forster, 1975; Taft, Ham-Norris, and an anonymous reviewer made very helpful bly, & Kinoshita, 1986).comments on an earlier version of this paper. The main finding from the work of Taft and
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-his colleagues is that nonword decisions takedressed to Lee H. Wurm, Department of Psychology,longer when the nonwords carry a prefix thanState University of New York at Binghamton, Bingham-
ton, NY 13902-6000. E-mail: [email protected]. when they do not, and they take longer still
4380749-596X/97 $25.00Copyright 1997 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
2/24
439AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
when the stems of the prefixed nonwords ples, as the extent of the idiosyncracies of all
languages is coming to light.are genuine stems in English. Whether or not
the stems of such nonwords are genuine En- The Cohort model (Marslen-Wilson &
Welsh, 1978; Marslen-Wilson, 1984), al-glish stems makes no difference when the
nonwords do not begin with genuine prefixes. though not specifically designed to address is-
sues relating to morphological complexity, isThese stems are not even recognizable as
stems because there is no prefix to strip off. a continuous processing model. Networkmodels, too, have most often aligned them-Bergman, Hudson, and Eling (1988) also
found support for the affix-stripping model selves with this view (e.g., McClelland & El-
man, 1986; Norris, 1994). Other arguments(Taft, 1981; 1985; Taft & Forster, 1975).
Taft (1994) addressed some of the more for a continuous processing model have been
made by Henderson, Wallis, and Knightpersistent criticisms of his earlier work, and
the results completely supported the earlier (1984), Rubin, Becker, and Freeman (1979),
and Tyler, Marslen-Wilson, Rentoul, andconclusions in favor of an affix-stripping ap-
proach. Still, Taft (1994) modified his position Hanney (1988).
An important third class of model is drivensomewhat, writing that an interactive-activa-tion model provided the best explanation of by stress (Cutler, 1976; Cutler & Norris, 1988;
Grosjean & Gee, 1987). According to the met-morphological processing. In Tafts new
model, prefixes are independent activation rical segmentation strategy (MSS) of Cutler
and Norris (1988), a strong syllable initiatesunits, separate from roots (i.e., prefixed words
are stored in decomposed form), but there is a lexical search. The unstressed syllables im-
mediately surrounding the strong syllable areno prefix-stripping per se. In this type of
scheme the equivalent of a prefix-stripping checked by an acoustic pattern-matching rou-
tine, to see if they can combine with theprocedure is a part of the access process.
The opposing general approach is to access stressed syllable. While not involving affix-stripping per se, a stress-driven model is anmorphologically complex words on a strictly
continuous, or left-to-right, basis. I will also example of a discontinuous model; words are
not processed in a strict left-to-right manner.use the term full-listing to refer to models of
this type, because on this type of account, all Furthermore, stress-driven and affix-stripping
models make similar predictions in manywords are listed in the lexicon. Words are ac-
cessed as complete units, whether or not they cases. Affixes will play a peripheral role in
lexical access because they are typically un-contain affixes. The lexicon in this case would
contain separate entries for the words stressed. In fact, stressed prefixes could cause
processing difficulties by triggering a lexicalcover, uncover, covering, and so on,resulting in considerable redundancy (e.g., look-up on the prefix (or the prefix plus the
initial phoneme[s] of the root) rather than onverbs in Finnish and Georgian can take thou-
sands of distinct surface forms that are essen- the root itself.
There are also mixed models that incorpo-tially the same vocabulary item although they
differ by inflection [Anderson, 1988]). This rate both a continuous and a discontinuous
approach. For example, Bergman et al. (1988)redundancy is the reason people first proposed
a decompositional approach; the storage re- suggested a possibility based on the race
model of Cutler and Norris (1979): the speechquired by a morphemic lexicon is much
smaller than that required if all items are to processor might attempt to access morpholog-
ically complex words both as full-forms andbe listed. However, Bybee (1988; see also
Sandra, 1994) believes that the emphasis on as analyzed separate parts. Data will be pre-
sented below that are suggestive of this kindstorage efficiency is misguided, given the
huge capacity of the human brain. She also of model; other variations on this idea have
also been proposed (e.g., Anshen & Aronoff,notes that linguists are relaxing their insis-
tence on maximally efficient storage princi- 1981; Caramazza, Laudanna, & Romani,
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
3/24
440 LEE H. WURM
1988; Frauenfelder & Schreuder, 1992; concerning prefix likelihood and semantic
transparency. The predicted identificationSchriefers, Friederici, & Graetz, 1992).
In recent years, researchers have begun to points (IPs) for continuous and discontinuous
processing models were directly tested. Theexamine the possible effects of linguistic and
computational variables on complex word effects of prefix likelihood, degree of pre-
fixedness, and semantic transparency were ex-processing. Using the crossmodal priming
technique, Marslen-Wilson, Tyler, Waksler, amined for their individual contributions tothe recognition process, and importantly, forand Older (1994) found that derivationally
suffixed words primed and were primed by their joint or interactive contributions. This
has not previously been done and, as we willtheir roots, but only if they were semantically
transparent (i.e., only if there was an obvious see, there are interesting and theoretically im-
portant interactions between these variablessemantic relationship between the two, as in
government and govern). Marslen-Wil- (and others). Furthermore, in the present study
these independent variables were treated inson et al. (1994) concluded that semantics de-
termines which words are morphologically re- ways that are more natural and powerful than
in previous research.lated to each other (as well as which wordsare complex). This was the first study to show The main goal of the preliminary rating
study was to provide information to be usedthe importance of semantic transparency, a
variable that has interested linguists for some in interpreting experimental data from the sub-
sequent experiments. For each stimulus, val-time.
Laudanna, Burani, and Cermele (1994) ues were obtained on several different dimen-
sions of interest, including prefix likelihood,found that a pair of little-examined variables
affect lexical decision performance for visu- judged prefixedness, semantic transparency,
root morpheme frequency, prefix frequency,ally presented Italian nonwords: the number
of word-types beginning with a given prefix and neighborhood size. This study also pro-vides a database for other researchers to use;and the success rate of prefix-stripping for that
prefix (i.e., the proportion of encountered these values have not previously been avail-
able, and some of the computations are time-words beginning with that letter string that are
in fact truly prefixeda quantity I will refer consuming.
to as the prefix likelihood). Although thePRELIMINARY RATING STUDYtwo variables are highly correlated, Laudanna
et al. (1994) found that prefix likelihood was This study consisted of two parts, the gen-
eral procedure of which was the same; partici-the more important one. They concluded that
a word beginning with a prefix that has a high pants were presented with auditory stimuli andgave a rating of some kind. In Part I, partici-prefix likelihood is likely to be stored and ac-
cessed in decomposed form. pants rated the stimuli on semantic transpar-
ency, and in Part II, they rated the stimuli onThe movement of some researchers toward
the theoretical middle ground in recent years prefixedness.
The semantic transparency of an item mightis a major advance. Researchers are recogniz-
ing the possibility that some words may be influence the perceptual strategies used to pro-
cess it. Words like rebuild have an obviousdecomposed while others may not. In accord
with this, researchers have realized that in or- compositional meaning (re plus build)
that is lacking from words like prepare.der to specify the conditions under which vari-
ous lexical access strategies may be used, they However, it is only within the very recent past
that researchers have recognized this, and themust be concerned with concepts like seman-
tic transparency. These were largely ignored few researchers to study this variable have
artificially dichotomized it. One of the pur-in early research efforts.
The present study used prefixed English poses of this rating study was to get continu-
ous semantic-transparency ratings for stimu-words in an attempt to clarify recent findings
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
4/24
441AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
lus items, since no published norms exist. UP of distaste is the /aV/, in spite of the
existence of the related word distasteful.These ratings were used as predictors of per-
formance in the two main experiments of this Full-forms were digitized at a sampling rate
of 10 KHz, low-pass filtered at 4.8 KHz, andstudy.
A second purpose was to get ratings of the stored in disk files. Stimuli were spoken by a
female native English speaker who was notprefixedness of the items. Which words are
prefixed? is just as much a psychological familiar with the purpose of the study. Rootswere digitally spliced away from the full-question as a linguistic one. Noncircular defi-
nitions in this area are uncommon, and lin- forms using visual and auditory inspection,
and the resulting roots sounded quite natural.guists have not been able to reach a consensus
about exactly what is or is not an affix. How- For the prefixedness ratings, two stimulus
lists were created. A randomly-determinedever, even if linguists were to reach such a
consensus, it is not clear that their definition half of the full-forms were assigned to list A
and half were assigned to list B. The rootwould have psychological relevance.
corresponding to a given full-form was as-
signed to the opposite list. For example, ifMethodrebuild was in list A, build was in list
Participants. Twenty-one students from the B. For the semantic transparency ratings, theDepartment of Psychology subject pool at the same stimuli were used, but they were ar-State University of New York at Stony Brook ranged in pairs that consisted of a full-formprovided prefixedness ratings. Thirty students and its root (e.g., rebuild and build).from the same subject pool provided seman- Procedure. Participants were tested intic-transparency ratings. All participants were groups of one to four. Stimuli were presentednative speakers of English who received over headphones in a sound-attenuating cham-
course credit for their participation. ber. For the prefixedness ratings, participantsMaterials. Seventy-two prefixed and pseu- were randomly assigned to hear either list A
doprefixed words were selected from a or B. After each word, participants had 2500150,000-word computerized phonetic diction- ms to give a rating. A Likert scale with anchorary (Moby Pronunciator 1.01, 1989) that met points Not at all prefixed (1) and Verythe following criteria: (1) carried a root that prefixed (8) was used. Participants were freeis a free-standing monomorphemic English to decide for themselves what prefixedword or homophonous with one; (2) began means; no example or further instructionswith a string of phonemes that constitutes an were given. For each list, words were pre-
English prefix; (3) varied (as a set) as much sented in a different random order.as possible along a continuum from high to For the semantic-transparency ratings, onlow semantic transparency; and (4) had full- each trial, participants heard a full-form andform and root uniqueness points (UPs) that its corresponding root and were asked to ratediffered by at least one phoneme (the UP is . . . how related in meaning the two wordsthe point in the acoustic signal where the word are on an 8-point Likert scale. Anchor pointsin question diverges from all other words in were labeled Not at all related (1) anda languagesee Marslen-Wilson, 1984; Mar- Very related (8). On half of the trials, theslen-Wilson & Welsh, 1978). full-form was presented first, and on half the
In determining UPs, I searched the same root was presented first. Participants had 4000computerized phonetic dictionary (Moby Pro- ms to make their rating. Item pairs were pre-nunciator 1.01, 1989) used for initial stimulus sented in a random order.selection. I excluded any suffixed forms that
Results and Discussionwere related (by inflection or derivation) to the
word in question (see, for example, Marslen- Median judged prefixedness values are
listed for each stimulus in Appendix A. TheWilson, 1984; Tyler et al., 1988). Thus, the
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
5/24
442 LEE H. WURM
ratings distribution had moderate negative Schreuder and Baayen (1994) explained the
requirement of reasonably high semantic-skew, so the recommended reflect and
square-root transformation was performed transparency, which is almost always missing
from words carrying bound roots, this way:(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Thus, items that
participants rated highly prefixed had lower The only way in which the language learner
can discover that a certain string actually is atransformed prefixedness scores. This trans-
formed measure is the one that will be used stem (free or bound) is when that string occursin at least one semantically fully transparentin all analyses reported in this study.
Median semantic-transparency values are [italics added] combination (p. 360). Even
in the case of very common bound roots thatalso listed for each stimulus in Appendix A.
Because the distribution of transparency combine with several different prefixes (e.g.,
-mit or -vent), any reliable covariancescores was positively skewed, the square-root
of the transparency scores was used in all anal- between form and meaning (the importance
of which is also discussed by van Orden, Pen-yses reported in this study.
nington, & Stone, 1990) is likely to be noticed
Calculation of Other Regressor Variables only by experts in linguistics. In addition,Henderson (1985) asserted that the morpho-Several other variables were used to predict
participants performance in Experiments 1 logical complexity of words with bound roots
is synchronically meaningless; their affixesand 2. Prefix likelihoods for each prefix were
calculated in the following way (I used pro- are fossils and not psychologically relevant
at all. In short, although they appear to benunciation rather than spelling in selecting
words). I first identified for each prefix all of prefixed, they are not (the data of Marslen-
Wilson et al. [1994], which I have alreadythe words from Websters Third New Interna-
tional Dictionary of the English Language discussed, agree with this conclusion).
I computed prefix likelihood, then, as a ra-(1993) that were, in fact, truly prefixed. Aword was considered truly prefixed if the pre- tio: the numerator was the summed frequency
(from Francis and Kucera, 1982) of the trulyfix contributes to the meaning and syntax of
the full-form. This definition implies three cri- prefixed words beginning with a given pho-
netic string, and the denominator was theteria: First, when the prefix is removed, what
remains must be a freestanding word. Second, summed frequency of all words beginning
with that string in which removal of the puta-the meaning of the full-form must be reason-
ably transparent. Finally, the semantic rela- tive prefix leaves a pronounceable syllable or
syllables. The decision to consider syllabifi-tionship should be fairly constant across com-
binations; for example, truly prefixed words cation is also consistent with the criteria ofSchreuder and Baayen (1994). For example,beginning with re- will mean roughly to
do (whatever the stem means) again (M. Ar- although coat begins with co-, this word
was not considered a prefix-stripping failureonoff clarified these issues for me in a per-
sonal communication, November 30, 1994). because the remainder of the word (simply the
phoneme /t/ in this case) does not constituteNote that words carrying bound roots are
excluded from the above definition, even a syllable.
The notion behind prefix likelihood is thatthough such words can subjectively appear to
be prefixed (e.g., supersede, which is not decomposing words may make lexical access
less efficient, if the majority of words begin-counted as truly prefixed by the above criteria,
had a high prefixedness rating [see Appendix ning with a given prefix are not in fact prefixed
words. Values for the prefixes used in thisA]). In some cases, the classification of a root
as either bound or unbound is somewhat am- study are listed in Appendix B and ranged
from the theoretical minimum of .000biguous, but the exclusion of words with
bound roots from the calculation of prefix (hyper-) to the theoretical maximum of
1.000 (twi-). To illustrate what these num-likelihood is justified along several lines. First,
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
6/24
443AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
bers mean, consider the prefix dis-, which nominator means a sparse lexical neighbor-
hood. Recognition is expected to be easier ifhas a prefix likelihood of .092. This means
that 9.2% of the time a reader or listener en- the surrounding lexical neighborhood is
sparsely populated, because items would havecounters a word beginning with dis, that
word is prefixed. At the upper extreme, all relatively little competition from neighbors
(e.g., Goldinger, Luce, & Pisoni, 1989; Luce,instances of words beginning with twi-
(phonetically, /twai/) are truly prefixed (words 1987; Luce, Pisoni, & Goldinger, 1990).Neighborhood sizes for each prefix are listedsuch as twice do not count as failures be-
cause removing the prefix leaves the nonsylla- in Appendix B. The neighborhood size of
pro-, for example, is the sum of the fre-bifiable phonetic segment /s/).
With few exceptions, these prefix-likeli- quencies of the more than 500 words begin-
ning with that sequence.hood values are quite low (M .19). This
value is quite comparable to the .17 reported Several different frequency measures were
also needed. Individual full-form and root to-by Schreuder and Baayen (1994) for the seven
English prefixes they examined, using the ken frequencies were taken directly from
Francis and Kucera (1982). The correspond-CELEX database (Baayen et al., 1993; Bur-nage, 1990). On the face of it, prefix likeli- ing family frequencies were calculated by
summing values from Francis and Kucerahoods like these would suggest that a decom-
position strategy has such a low payoff that it (1982) for each word and its morphological
relatives (family frequencies were includedwould make lexical access less efficient,
which is what those authors concluded. As because a consensus as to which frequency
measure is more important, token or family,will become clear, their conclusion may have
been premature. has not been reached). A continuous model
predicts that root frequency will have no roleThe research of Laudanna et al. (1994), in
which the notion of prefix likelihood (what in word recognition, and a decompositionalmodel predicts that root frequency will ex-they called the success rate) was initially
explored, was discussed earlier. Although they plain a large proportion of the variance (Taft
[1979b] found that both full-form and rootconcluded that prefix likelihood was more im-
portant, they also found that the number of frequencies influence performance).
Morpheme frequencies for each root andwords beginning with a given prefix was re-
lated to performance. This is essentially an each prefix had to be calculated in a different
way. The first step in calculating root frequen-unweighted measure of the density of each
words lexical neighborhood. Lexical neigh- cies was a non-position-specific string search
for each root in the Birmingham/Cobuild cor-borhood is a metaphor for understanding howwords are organized or stored in memory. For pus (18 million tokens) of the CELEX data-
base (Baayen et al., 1993; Burnage, 1990).example, each of the four words in English
that begin with the phonemic sequence /twai/ Frequencies were then summed across all
cases where that root was a morpheme (e.g.,have only the other three as neighbors in lexi-
cal space. They reside in a sparsely populated lead is a morpheme in the word mis-
lead, but not in the word plead). Thisneighborhood. Some neighborhoods have
hundreds or thousands of inhabitants (e.g., measure is similar to the family frequency
measure already calculated for each root, theover 500 words begin with the phonemic se-
quence pro-). key difference being the importance of posi-
tion. The root-morpheme frequency measureThe denominator of the prefix-likelihood
ratio is a frequency-weighted measure of included cases where the morpheme in ques-
tion was not the first morpheme of a complexneighborhood density. Regardless of the par-
ticular value of the prefix likelihood, a large word, whereas the family frequency measure
for each root did not. For example, the familydenominator means that a word resides in a
dense lexical neighborhood, and a small de- frequency measure for lead included words
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
7/24
444 LEE H. WURM
TABLE 1 EXPERIMENT 1
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR FREQUENCY MEASURES This experiment tested the predictions of
continuous and discontinuous models with re-Frequency measure M (SD) Range
spect to the time at which word identification
Full-form measures should occur. A strictly continuous model pre-Tokena 8 (26) 0195 dicts that identification should occur at theFamilya 22 (66) 0529 full-form UP, while a strict affix-stripping
Morphemic measuresmodel predicts that identification cannot occur
Token (root)a 121 (188) 0 807before the root UP. The inclusion of severalFamily (root)a 227 (354) 0 1786
Morpheme (root)b 235 (409) 0 2379 different frequency measures, some of whichPrefixb 1572 (4358) 121963 are predicted to be irrelevant by a continuous
model, was intended to shed additional lightNote. All values are per million tokens.
on the issue. Finally, this experiment testeda From Francis and Kucera (1982).whether or not variables such as prefix likeli-b From the CELEX database (Baayen, Piepenbrock, &
van Rijn, 1993; Burnage, 1990). hood, semantic transparency, judged pre-fixedness, and stress influence the identifica-
tion of morphologically complex words.such as lead, leading, and leader
(among others). The root frequency measureMethod
included these words plus words such as
mislead. Root-morpheme frequency values Participants. Thirty-eight students from the
Department of Psychology subject pool at theare shown in Appendix A.
Prefix frequencies were computed in essen- State University of New York at Stony Brook
participated. All were native speakers of En-tially the same way. Counts of all words in the
Birmingham/Cobuild corpus beginning with glish with normal hearing. Participants re-ceived course credit or cash for their participa-each prefix string were obtained. From these,
the frequencies for those cases that were, in tion.
Materials. The 72 prefixed and pseudopre-fact, instances of prefixation were summed
(e.g., preview counts but preen does fixed words from the preliminary rating study,
along with their associated roots, were used.not). Prefix frequencies are shown in Appen-
dix B. These items are listed in Appendix A.
Procedure. The full-forms were randomlySummary statistics for all of the frequency
measures are shown in Table 1. Distributions divided into two sets of 36. The full-forms
from one set, along with the roots correspond-of prefix-likelihood values and all six fre-quency measures had severe positive skew. ing to the unpresented full-forms, were pre-
sented to one group of participants. A differentFor all of them, the logarithm of each value
was used in the analyses. group of participants heard the other half of
the stimuli.This rating study provided values on several
variables that were chosen as predictors of Participants in groups of one to four lis-
tened to stimuli over headphones in a sound-word recognition performance. The focus of
Experiment 1 shifted away from the stimuli attenuating chamber. For roots, the first gate
consisted of the first 50 ms of the word, theper se and toward the recognition performance
of participants. Experiment 1 provided the first second gate consisted of the first 100 ms of
the word, and so on, until the entire stimulusdirect tests of the competing models: Would
root or full-form UPs be more closely related was presented. For full-forms, the first gate
was between 50 and 99 ms long, dependingto participants IPs? Would morphemic vari-
ables like prefix likelihood, prefixedness, or on the duration of the words prefix (I wanted
to have the acoustic onset of one of the gatessemantic transparency be related to IPs?
Which frequency measures would matter? of the full-form coincide exactly with the
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
8/24
445AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
acoustic onset of corresponding root). For ex- comes: Were the items selected appropriately
(randomly, representatively, or whatever elseample, because the full-form belong had a
duration of 723 ms and the root long had appropriately might mean)? The interested
reader can refer to Cohen and Cohen (1983).a duration of 645 ms (giving a prefix duration
of 78 ms), the first gate of belong was 78 The analysis of IPs proceeded at three dif-
ferent levels, the first of which was a directms. Gate #2 then began at the acoustic onset
of the root. comparison of the two competing classes of models. The models make specific predictionsAfter each gate, participants were given
7000 ms to write down what they thought the that can be tested directly I simply deter-
mined which of the two UPs (full-form vsword was. Then the next gate, consisting of
the already-heard portion plus 50 ms more, root) better predicted performance. The sec-
ond level of analysis involved what I will callwas heard, and so on. Stimuli were presented
in a random order. prior effects (prefix stress and the six fre-
quency measures). I use the term prior ef-Results and Discussion fects because of the importance of account-
ing for these variables before making anyOne item (ultrasound) was discardedfrom all analyses because of digitization prob- strong claims about factors such as prefix like-
lihood and semantic transparency. The prior-lems. A response was considered an error if
the participant never did correctly identify the effects variables provided another test of the
two classes of modelsdecompositionalpresented word. Two participants data were
excluded because of very high error rates models predict that root measures should be
at least as important as full-form measures.(22% and 25%all other participants had er-
ror rates less than 5%). The IP, the point at Conversely, continuous models predict that
only full-form frequency measures shouldwhich the participant correctly identified the
presented word without subsequently chang- matter. Stress, too, is irrelevant from thestandpoint of a strictly continuous model. Theing his or her mind, was found for each trial.
Trials on which the participant never did ar- final level of analysis looked at what I will
call decomposition variables. These includerive at the correct word comprised 3.9% of
the data. These trials were discarded. prefix likelihood, prefixedness, and semantic
transparency, along with their interactionsIPs were analyzed using multiple regres-
sion. The independence of observations as- (with each other, with prefix and root fre-
quency measures, and with stress). Any sig-sumed by linear regression models did not
hold in the current experiment (i.e., each par- nificant effects from level 2 (the prior effects)
were partialed from this analysis becauseticipant provided more than one observation).In repeated-measures regression analyses, this those variables had moderate to strong corre-
lations with the variables in this level. Theis controlled by the inclusion ofN0 1 dummy
variables (35 in this case) that represent the analysis will proceed in exactly this way for
Experiment 2, as well. Since this level of theparticipants. In addition, item analyses cannot
be conducted in a repeated-measures regres- analysis contained a fairly large number of
statistical tests (19), p-values were adjustedsion design. The regressor variables (e.g., pre-
fixedness, semantic transparency, and so on) using a Bonferroni correction.
UP analyses. The mean IP for the full-are intrinsic, nonvarying aspects of the items
themselveseach item is essentially its own forms in this experiment was 441 ms (SE
4.12 ms), which is much closer to the meancondition. This is reflected in the large df
value in the denominator, which equals the full-form UP (480 ms) than to the mean root
UP (714 ms, measured within the full-formnumber of participants times the number of
critical stimuli, minus the number of incorrect tokens). One would expect actual performance
in a gating experiment to be slightly earliercritical trials and the number of previous fac-
tors in the model. The relevant question be- than the theoretically critical point because of
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
9/24
446 LEE H. WURM
TABLE 2guessing; on a certain proportion of the trials,
participants will stumble onto the correct re- RESULTS OF FREQUENCY ANALYSES (EXPERIMENT 1)sponse by chance before they have heard input
Regressor Sign F(1, 1212)sufficient to isolate a unique word candidate.
On average, then, IPs were fairly close to theFull-form measures
values predicted by a full-listing model andLog token frequency (full-form) 0 10.42*
preceded the decomposition values by an av- Log family frequency (full-form) 0 12.08**Morpheme measureserage of 273 ms. This result is problematic
Log token frequency (root) / 1for discontinuous models.Log family frequency (root) / 1Regression analyses supported this conclu-Log morpheme frequency (root) / 1.37
sion. Two analyses were performed. After en-Log prefix frequency / 25.81***
tering the N-1 dummy variables, the second
* p .01.step in each analysis was to enter the relevant** p .001.UP and see whether it produced a significant
*** p .0001.increase in the total explained variance. Both
UPs were significant predictors of perfor-mance (F(1,1213) 131.68 and F(1,1213)
44.00 for full-form UPs and root UPs, respec- stress]) was associated with later IPs. This
could be easily explained if IPs were measuredtivelyboth ps .0001).
Both full-form and root UPs can be signifi- from word onset: stressed prefixes have longer
durations. However, IPs were measured fromcant because they were correlated with each
other (r[70] .57, p .001). When the the full-form UP. The MSS (Cutler & Norris,
1988), while not addressing such variables asshared variance between them was accounted
for, however, only the full-form UPs were sig- semantic transparency, predicts that lexical
access should be root-driven when items havenificant. The partial correlation between full-form UPs and IPs, controlling for participants unstressed prefixes. This would mean later IPs
for those items because root UPs were alwaysand for root UPs, was .26 (p .001), while
the correlation between root UPs and IPs dis- later than full-form UPs. The observed rela-
tionship runs in the opposite direction.appeared when participants and full-form UPs
were partialed (r .01, p .66). As noted However, the MSS makes a second predic-
tion that is consistent with the observed rela-above, this result supports continuous models
over discontinuous ones. tionship: an effect like this could appear if
participants mistakenly treated stressed pre-Therefore, in subsequent analyses, IPs were
measured not from word onset but from the fixes as the first portion of roots. An attemptto access a root morpheme, using the prefixfull-form UP of each stimulus. This was nec-
essary because full-form UPs were correlated as the assumed first syllable (because it is
stressed), will fail. For example, participantswith other variables under investigation. Any
conclusion about the importance of word fre- might hear the initial portion of the word co-
pilot and mistakenly access words likequency (for example) that did not account for
the fact that each word has its own UP would cope. Items like these might have late IPs,
because participants are likely to perseveratebe meaningless.
Prior effects. The next level of the analysis on a mistaken hunch in a task like gating.
Which frequency measures were related toassessed the role of prefix stress and the fre-
quency measures. After the dummy variables IPs? Six regression analyses were performed.
In each one, the dummy variables were en-were entered, prefix stress was also found to
be a significant predictor of IPs (F(1,1213) tered first, along with prefix stress, and then
one of the frequency measures described4.77, p .05). Higher prefix stress (this was
an ordinal variable taking values of 0 [un- above. As can be seen in Table 2, both of the
full-form frequency measures had significantstressed], 1 [secondary stress], or 2 [primary
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
10/24
447AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
facilitative relationships with IPs. This is the
type of relationship generally expected: higher
frequency values were associated with earlier
IPs. Of the four morpheme-relevant measures,
only prefix frequency was a significant pre-
dictor of performance, and it had an inhibitory
relationship with the dependent variable: morecommon prefixes led to slower performance.
This effect has a natural explanation in terms
of neighborhood density prefix frequency
was significantly associated with the density
measure described earlier (r[70] .66, p
.001). This suggests that earlier IPs should be
found when prefix frequency is low because
these items reside in relatively sparse lexical
neighborhoods.Decomposition variables. This group con-
sisted of prefix likelihood, judged pre-
fixedness, and semantic transparency, as well
as interactions involving them. Continuous-FIG. 1. Mean identification point (IP) as a function of
processing models predict that none of thesesemantic transparency and prefix likelihood, in millisec-
analyses will be significant. As will be seen, onds (ms). An IP of 0 corresponds to the full-form unique-that prediction does not hold. Prefix likelihood ness point of each stimulus.turned out to play a major role in mediating
the effects of other variables.A separate analysis was conducted for each were partialed. In addition, the main effects of
the variables making up the interaction wereregressor. As the first step, the dummy vari-
ables, prefix stress, prefix frequency, and full- partialed. For the three-way interaction, the
two-way interactions were also partialed.form family frequency (the stronger of the two
significant full-form measures) were entered. These steps are all necessary to satisfy as-
sumptions of the general linear model (Co-Then the variable being considered was en-
tered. hen & Cohen, 1983).
For ease of interpretation, readers shouldHigher values of semantic transparency
were associated with earlier IPs (F(1,1210) note three things about the figures that willbe shown. First, untransformed prefixedness51.98, p .001). This finding supports de-
compositional models because the semantic ratings are shown so that values can be inter-
preted more naturally (transformed valuestransparency of a morphological combination
is irrelevant from a continuous perspective. were used in the statistical tests). Second, neg-
ative IPs reflect the fact that, on average, iden-There was also a trend toward the same kind
of IP advantage for higher levels of pre- tification of the items took place some 39 ms
before the full-form UP. Third, although thefixedness (F(1,1210) 8.97, p .10). By
itself, prefix likelihood had virtually no effect Y-axes show mean IPs based on median splits,
readers are reminded that none of the predictoron IPs (F(1,1210) 1).
Four analyses were conducted to assess the variables were dichotomized in the analyses;
this is simply the best way to illustrate theinteractions between these three variables
(three possible two-way interactions and the nature of each interaction.
The interaction between prefix likelihoodthree-way interaction). In all cases, the
dummy variables, prefix stress, prefix fre- and semantic transparency was significant and
is shown in Fig. 1 (F(1,1208) 22.84, p quency, and family frequency of the full-form
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
11/24
448 LEE H. WURM
.001). As can be seen in the figure, higher line for highly prefixed items is competition:
a high-frequency root may compete for activa-semantic transparency was associated with
earlier IPs but only for items with high-likeli- tion with the full-form that contains it, de-
laying recognition of the full-form. Schreuderhood prefixes. As with the significant main
effect of semantic transparency, this interac- and Baayen (1994) assert that this type of
competition is possible, and further evidencetion supports a decompositional processing
account. for it will be presented below.If we consider high values on decomposi-
EXPERIMENT 2tion variables to be cues associated with suc-
cessful morphemic access, then the earliest The gating paradigm has some distinct ad-
vantages. First of all, researchers can be pre-IPs on the graph indicate that multiple cues
result in enhanced performance. The latest IPs cise about how much acoustic information is
available at each response point. In addition,on the graph seem to reflect a cost incurred
when the processing system deals with items gating responses provide a picture of how the
group of word candidates forms and is nar-that, according to one variable (e.g., prefix
likelihood), should be decomposed but ac- rowed down. In spite of this, gating has beencriticized for various reasons, the most im-cording to another (e.g., semantic transpar-
ency) should not. portant being that listeners hear multiple repe-
titions of each stimulus and that responses areThe three-way interaction was also signifi-
cant (F(1,1204) 13.32, p .01) due to the not speeded. These criticisms have been con-
vincingly addressed by several studies (e.g.,fact that the two-way interaction between se-
mantic transparency and prefix likelihood Cotton & Grosjean, 1984; Marslen-Wilson,
1984; Salasoo & Pisoni, 1985; Tyler, 1984;shown in Fig. 1 was more pronounced the
lower judged prefixedness was. This may be Tyler & Marslen-Wilson, 1986; Tyler & Wes-
due to the moderately high correlation be-tween prefixedness and semantic transparency
(r[70] .58, p .01).
Twelve additional regression analyses were
conducted, each of which looked at the inter-
action between two of the following variables:
prefix stress, prefix frequency, root morpheme
frequency, prefix likelihood, prefixedness, and
semantic transparency. As a first step, the
dummy variables, prefix stress, prefix fre-quency, and family frequency for the full-form
were partialed, along with the two variables
whose interaction was being assessed. The in-
teraction term was entered next. It might be
that morphemic variables that do not account
for much variance overall (i.e., their main ef-
fects are not significant) are nonetheless im-
portant for certain kinds of words (i.e., they
interact).
One of these interactions was significant,
providing further evidence of decompositional
processing. This was the root frequency 1FIG. 2. Mean identification point (IP) as a function of
prefixedness interaction, shown in Fig. 2root frequency and judged prefixedness, in milliseconds
(F(1,1208) 9.11, p .05). One interesting (ms). An IP of 0 corresponds to the full-form uniquenesspoint of each stimulus.possibility concerning the positive slope of the
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
12/24
449AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
sels, 1983; 1985), but it is always wise to distributions as the other word stimuli, in
terms of word frequency, number of pho-ensure that a given result is not due to the
peculiarities of an experimental paradigm. Ex- nemes and syllables, and stress. To discourage
strategic responding, these words were of aperiment 2 tests the same factors as Experi-
ment 1, with a different methodology (audi- variety of different morphological types (mo-
nomorphemic, suffixed, and prefixed, includ-tory lexical decision). Participants heard each
stimulus uninterrupted and intact, and their ing both bound and unbound roots). Stress wasapproximately balanced for words and non-word/nonword responses were made as
quickly as possible. words. A practice list of similar composition
was used prior to the main experiment. ThisMethod list consisted of 24 stimuli.
Procedure. Participants in groups of one toParticipants. Participants were 110 students
from the Department of Psychology subject four listened to stimuli over headphones in a
sound-attenuating chamber, and stimulus pre-pool at the State University of New York at
Stony Brook. All were native speakers of En- sentation was randomized for each group of
participants. Half of the participants heard listglish with normal hearing. Participants re-ceived course credit or cash for their participa- A and then list B; the order was reversed for
the other half. On each trial, a participanttion.
Materials. The words used in this experi- heard an auditory stimulus and made a
speeded lexical decision by pressing buttonsment are listed in Appendix C. The full-forms
from Experiment 1 that carried a two-syllable on a response board with his/her dominant
hand. Participants pushed one button forprefix were dropped in the interest of unifor-
mity. Three hundred and sixty stimuli were words and another button for nonwords.
divided into two lists of 180. Each list con-
Results and Discussiontained: 30 of the full-forms from Experiment1; the roots of the other 30 full-forms from Participants were excluded if they had an
error rate greater than 15% or a mean RTExperiment 1; 30 filler words; 30 filler non-
words; and 60 morphological nonwords. greater than 1000 ms on either of the two lists
they heard. Twelve participants were excludedThese last 60 nonwords were of four different
types: no obvious morphemic structure (e.g., by these criteria. Analyses were conducted on
responses of the remaining 98 participants.pangort); genuine English prefix with a
nonword root (e.g., prezelp); nonprefix The lexical decision task is essentially a
kind of familiarity judgment. Participantswith a real word root (e.g., grevent); and
genuine English prefix with a real word root have some familiarity threshold above whichthey respond Word and below which they(e.g., precorrect). Fifteen of each type were
contained in each list. respond Nonword. Table 3, which shows
mean RTs for each type of word as a functionIn order to use the data on all 60 of the full-
forms, it was necessary to assess the effect of whether it was in the first list a participant
heard or in the second, can be understood ifof List 1 presentation on List 2 performance.
Certain stimulus items were included with this one assumes that because of the overall higher
familiarity after some experience with the var-in mind. First, the filler items (30 words and
30 nonwords) were identical in each list and ious kinds of stimuli (particularly the quite
novel nonwords), participants familiaritywere included to assess the effect of exact
repetition. Second, a subset of the participants thresholds were higher in List 2. The familiar-
ity interpretation explains the 50-ms facilita-(44/110) listened to the stimuli described
above plus an additional 40 words, 20 in each tion for filler words, which was significant in
an ANOVA by subjects (F1(1,97) 54.84, pof the two lists. These words were included
to assess practice effects. .001) and by items (F2(1,29) 39.38, p
.001). These words were exactly repeated andFiller words were chosen from the same
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
13/24
450 LEE H. WURM
TABLE 3 onset, the importance of the two UPs in pre-
dicting performance was assessed as before.MEAN RTs (ms) AS A FUNCTION OF WORD TYPE ANDLIST ORDER (EXPERIMENT 2) As in the gating data, both were significant
(F(1,5332) 120.85, p .0001, andList heard F(1,5332) 55.16, p .0001, for the full-
form and root UPs, respectively). The partialWord type First Second Difference
correlation coefficients lead to the same inter-Fillersa 637 587 050** pretation as before: the correlation betweenFull-formsb 603 607 /4 full-form UPs and RTs, partialing root UPsRootsb 489 486 03 and participants, was .12 (p .001), and thePractice-effect wordsc 656 684 /28
analogous partial correlation for root UP,
though significant, was much smaller (r .03,a These items were exactly repeated in both lists.b Any effect here would be essentially a repetition prim- p .05). Thus, as in the gating analyses, RTs
ing effect, caused by prior presentation of a shared root for the subsequent levels of the analysis weremorpheme. For example, if a given participant heard re- measured from the full-form UP of each stim-
build in the first list, build would be in the second ulus.list (and vice versa).Prior effects. Prefix stress was marginallyc This is strictly a practice effect, as none of the items
in this group was repeated. These items were heard by related to RTs (F(1,5332) 3.04, p .10);only a subset of the participants (44 out of 110). items with stressed prefixes tended to have
p .10 for subjects, p .05 for items. somewhat slower RTs (consistent with the** p .001 for subjects and items.
gating result). Table 4 shows the results of the
frequency measure analyses. The four mor-
phemic measures had inhibitory relationships
with RT, while the two full-form measuresthus highly familiar. The familiarity-threshold
account can also explain the 28-ms cost for had the expected facilitative relationships. Asdiscussed in Experiment 1, the effect of prefixpractice-effect words, which were new and
thus unfamiliar (significant by items, marginal frequency could be interpreted in light of that
variables correlation with neighborhood den-by subjectsF1(1,97) 3.70, p .10;
F2(1,39) 7.04, p .05). Full-forms and sity. The root frequency effects cannot be ex-
plained in this way but may indicate competi-roots more or less broke even, due to the raised
familiarity thresholds canceling the moderate tion between roots and the full-forms that con-
tain them (as discussed by Schreuder andincrease in familiarity (all four F-ratios 1).
The corresponding effects for the nonwords Baayen [1994] and in connection with Fig. 2
averaged 031 ms, with the negative sign re-flecting the importance of increased familiar-
TABLE 4ity for nonwords.
Data from the first and second list each par-RESULTS OF FREQUENCY ANALYSES (EXPERIMENT 2)
ticipant heard were pooled, and first or sec-
Regressor Sign F(1, 5332)ond list heard was used as a regressor in the
analyses. However, this variable will not beFull-form measuresdiscussed further; it did not account for a sig-
Log token frequency (full-form) 0 9.72*nificant proportion of the variance nor did it
Log family frequency (full-form)0
36.06***interact with any of the variables under study. Morpheme measuresLog token frequency (root) / 48.43***Analysis of the word data parallels the analy-Log family frequency (root) / 26.40***ses for Experiment 1. The same regressorsLog morpheme frequency (root) / 30.96***were used and the underlying logic was identi-Log prefix frequency / 30.59***
cal, but the dependent variable was RTs in-
stead of IPs. * p .01.*** p .0001.UP analyses. Measuring RTs from word
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
14/24
451AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
Fig. 1, at least as far as the slopes of the two
lines are concerned. In this figure, however,
performance on low prefix-likelihood items
relative to high prefix-likelihood items was
somewhat poorer than it was in the gating
experiment. This interaction supports decom-
positional models.Five of the next set of 12 interactions were
significant, as well. All of these significant
interactions involved either prefix likelihood
or prefix stress (or both). Figures 4 and 5 show
the interactions between prefix stress and pre-
fixedness and between prefix stress and se-
mantic transparency (F(1,5327) 10.57, p
.05, and F(1,5327) 57.87, p .001, respec-
tively). Figure 4 shows that when prefixednesswas low, the stress value of the prefix was
largely irrelevant. Theoretically, for low pre-
fixedness values, listeners would not process
the prefix and root separately. For highly pre-FIG. 3. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of seman-
fixed items, one would expect to observe atic transparency and prefix likelihood, in milliseconds
RT advantage (recalling the main effect of(ms).prefixedness); however, this advantage was
erased for those highly prefixed items that also
happened to have stressed prefixes. This sug-of the present study). Such root effects supportdecompositional models, while the UP results gests that stressed prefixes fool the lexical
and the full-form frequency effects fit the pre-
dictions of a continuous processing model (as
was true in Experiment 1).
From the analyses conducted to this point,
then, it was determined that prefix frequency,
token frequency of the root, and family fre-
quency of the full-form would be partialed
from the further analyses. Again, the follow-ing p-values have been adjusted using a Bon-
ferroni correction.
Decomposition variables. The results for
the decomposition variables mirrored those
from the gating experiment and once again
suggest decompositional processing. Higher
levels of prefixedness (F(1,5329) 35.46, p
.001) and semantic transparency (F(1,5329)
66.60, p .001) were associated with faster
RTs, and once again prefix likelihood was not
significant.
As in the gating experiment, the prefix like-
lihood 1 semantic transparency interaction
was significant (F(1,5327) 10.75, p .05). FIG. 4. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of prefixstress and judged prefixedness, in milliseconds (ms).Figure 3 shows this interaction and resembles
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
15/24
452 LEE H. WURM
high-frequency roots (Fig. 6) or prefixes (Fig.
7) was heightened by a potentially-disruptive
(i.e., fully-stressed) prefix.
Figure 8 shows the prefix frequency 1 pre-
fix likelihood interaction (F(1,5328) 11.22,
p .05). The inhibitory effect of prefix fre-
quency was strong for items with low prefixlikelihoods, while there was only a weak ef-
fect of prefix frequency for items with high
prefix likelihoods. One interpretation of this
pattern is that the perceptual system strips off
prefixes when the prefix likelihood is above
some threshold value. Prefix frequency cannot
have much of an effect if the prefix has been
stripped away, which would be the case for
items very high on prefix likelihood. The de-
layed word recognition for high-frequency
prefixes is consistent with the observation
made previously about high-density lexicalFIG. 5. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of prefix neighborhoods.
stress and semantic transparency, in milliseconds (ms). As I noted in Experiment 1, none of these
variables is predicted to have any relevance by
continuous processing models (and obviously,access system, drawing processing away from
no interactions between them are predicted).the root, a possibility that was discussed ear- Therefore, all of the significant interactionslier.
Figure 5 shows the interaction between se-
mantic transparency and prefix stress. Given
the strong correlation between prefixedness
and semantic transparency, the expectation
was that this figure would resemble Fig. 4. It
did, except for items low on semantic trans-
parency with fully stressed prefixes. As pre-
dicted by the MSS (Cutler & Norris, 1988),strongweak words that are functionally mo-
nomorphemic (low on transparency) enjoyed
a RT advantage.
Figures 6 and 7 show the prefix stress inter-
actions with root frequency (F(1,5327)
10.82, p .05) and prefix frequency
(F(1,5328) 12.92, p .01). The two show
the same general pattern. For items with low-
frequency roots or prefixes, prefix stress had
a weak facilitative association with RTs, while
for items with high-frequency roots or pre-
fixes, prefix stress had a stronger, inhibitory
association. These effects fit the speculation
made earlier about the disruptiveness of words FIG. 6. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of prefixstress and root frequency, in milliseconds (ms).with strong prefixes; the disruptiveness of
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
16/24
453AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
Discontinuous processing is implied by the
results involving the decomposition variables
and root frequency. These variables are com-
pletely irrelevant from the standpoint of the
continuous, left-to-right processing model im-
plicated by the UP and full-form frequency
results, yet all of these variables were signifi-cant either as main effects or in interactions.
In particular, it is clear that prefix likelihood
affects word-recognition performance, in
combination with other variables. Such results
cannot be accommodated within a strictly con-
tinuous framework.
Conditional Root UPs (CRUPs)
The original prediction concerning the de-composition variables was that they would be
positively related to IPs and RTs. Items high
on prefixedness or semantic transparency, ac-
cording to the prediction, would be moreFIG. 7. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of prefixlikely to be decomposed into morphemes andstress and prefix frequency, in milliseconds (ms).accessed via their roots. They would therefore
have later IPs and slower RTs, because root
UPs were always later in the stimuli than full-
constitute evidence for decompositional pro- form UPs.cessing.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that the
auditory processing of prefixed words has
both continuous and decompositional charac-
teristics. The results of the two main experi-
ments with respect to the full-form vs root
UPs, as well as the outcomes of the full-formfrequency analyses, support left-to-right pro-
cessing models. Although the reliable inhibi-
tory relationship between prefix frequency and
performance, observed in both experiments,
was not specifically predicted by either class
of model, it is best viewed as a by-product
of continuous processing. Decompositional
models would predict that if prefix frequency
were going to be used for word recognition,
higher frequency would be associated with
better performance, not worse (higher fre-
quency, as I have noted, is generally associ-
ated with faster processing). Therefore, this
result also favors continuous processing mod- FIG. 8. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of prefixfrequency and prefix likelihood, in milliseconds (ms).els, though only mildly.
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
17/24
454 LEE H. WURM
The fact that the observed effects were in words do not count (-cretion and -crep-
ant are not unbound roots).the opposite direction (as well as the overall
Such a morphemic process could be a his-earliness of IPs in Experiment 1, which oc-torical by-product of the way language iscurred on average 39 ms before the full-formused. Speakers coin new words as they needUP) may be explained by a model that hasthem, essentially continuously (Henderson,two parallel but nonindependent processes, a
1985). Writers do this, too: Baayen (1994)whole-word process and a morphemic one,found that approximately 15 new wordsbut only if the morphemic process is selectiveending in -ity appear each month in Theabout the candidates it considers.New York Times. Although they are per-At word onset, both processes in such afectly intelligible, they are nonwords in thatmodel would begin and run in parallel. Thethey have never been seen before by readerswhole-word process simply checks the accu-and are not in any dictionary. Evidencemulating input against the lexicon, in exactlycomes from more anecdotal sources, asthe same way as the class of continuous mod-well: two examples I have recently heardels I have described throughout this paper.(one in the hallway and one on the eveningThis process will achieve a match at the full-news) are They were interrupted *mid-form UP. I will describe the operation of thesong by a power outage, and Violencemorphemic process in the following para-threatens to *re-Balkanize the region.graphs.These nonwords were quite easy to in-
The morphemic process, running in paral-terpret, and the speakers presumably knew
lel, strips any prefix and then attempts tothat they would be.
make a lexical match using the portion ofAronoff (1976) has noted that new word
the signal beginning just after the prefix. Theforms tend to be quite highly transparent while
relevant UP for this process depends on the older ones may not be because of semanticroot rather than the full-form, but it is not
drift. I have argued above that unbound rootsthe root UP I have been discussing through-
are required for high semantic transparency.out this paper. The process I am describing
To the extent that this argument is on theis selective in that, in attempting to match
mark, a decompositional process that onlythe input to the lexicon, it considers only
considers unbound roots would prove ex-unbound roots that attach to this prefix. The tremely useful in the recognition of newlymorphemic process will achieve a match at coined forms, which we encounter extremelywhat I will call the conditional root UP, or often (Henderson, 1985).
CRUP. A words CRUP is the root UP given In order to prevent the perceptual systemthis particular prefix. from committing prematurely to the wrong
Usually, the CRUP of a prefixed word will word, the perceptual system would have tobe the same point as the full-form UP. How- wait for verification from the whole-word pro-ever, there are many exceptions to this general cess before ultimately committing to a deci-rule. For example, consider the word dis- sion. Otherwise, the perceptual system mightcredit. The full-form UP of this word is the decide at the CRUP that the word being heardsecond /d/, because of words such as discre- is discredit, when in fact it is discretiontion. The root UP of discredit is the /t/, (for example). However, even though the per-because credible is still a competitor prior ceptual system would not be allowed to fullyto that point. The CRUP of discredit, commit to discredit until discretion hasthough, is the /r/: the only words still consis- been ruled out, facilitated recognition perfor-tent with discr- are discretion, dis- mance would reflect an activation boost re-crepant, and their morphological relatives, ceived by the root credit at the CRUP (abut because the morphemic process in this boost that was not received by bound roots
like -cretion). Furthermore, it is possiblemodel only considers unbound roots, those
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
18/24
455AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
that other kinds of computations can begin not predict RTs in Experiment 2, because such
strategic responding was unlikely: that experi-once a CRUPs-based hypothesis has been gen-
erated, while the system is waiting for the ment not only used a different methodology,
but also contained a variety of different typeswhole-word response. These might include
accelerated access of meaning, integration of of words and nonwords (suffixed, prefixed
[with bound as well as unbound roots], andthe lexical hypothesis with a sentence repre-
sentation, and/or access of a grammatical cate- monomorphemic). The CRUPs result forExperiment 2 was just like that for Experimentgory.
As a post hoc check of this account, all of 1: CRUPs significantly predicted RTs
(F(1,5332) 54.11, p .0001), doing a betterthe words were analyzed to see if their
CRUPs differed from their full-form UPs. Of job than root UPs but a somewhat worse job
than full-form UPs.the 71 full-forms in Experiment 1, nine
(12.7%) had CRUPs that were earlier than There are two findings in the literature that
may relate to CRUPs. Schriefers, Zwitserlood,their full-form UPs, as in the above example
of discredit. For the remaining 62 words, and Roelofs (1991) found that prefixed words
were identified earlier than unprefixed wordsthe CRUP was the same point as the full-form UP. This suggests that even if prema- with identical predicted recognition points (in
Dutch). For example, both the prefixed wordture commitment to an incorrect lexical hy-
pothesis cannot be avoided in the way I just opstaan and the root staan have the fi-
nal /n/ as their UP, but in a gating experimentdescribed (i.e., even if the morphemic pro-
cess does not wait for the whole-word pro- participants identified the prefixed words an
average of 37 ms earlier (compared to the 39cess), the occurrence of such errors would be
fairly low; perhaps the computational advan- ms advantage found in Experiment 1 of this
study). This general prefixation advantagetages outweigh the occasional cost. The mean
CRUP across all 71 words was 456 ms, a was replicated in two subsequent experimentsand could not be explained by either class ofvalue that corresponds to the mean IP in Ex-
periment 1 (441 ms) even better than the model. It is not possible to say whether
CRUPs would explain this effect, but the pos-mean full-form UP (480 ms) did.
However, there was conflicting evidence re- sibility is intriguing. Taft (1988) also found
what appears to be a general prefixation ad-garding CRUPs. In a regression analysis for
CRUPs just like that for full-form UPs and vantage in lexical decision times, although he
provided relatively little methodological de-root UPs, although CRUPs did account for a
significant increase in the explained variance tail. To explain his nonword data, he sug-
gested an activate and check model that is(F(1,1213) 81.52, p .0001, for the gatingexperiment), the effect was not as large as that similar to the smart morphemic half of the
dual-route model suggested in this paper, butfor full-form UPs. Still, this notion is deserv-
ing of some direct investigation with stimuli one that considers bound rather than unbound
roots. The model did not apply, however, toexplicitly chosen to test it, because of the close
overall correspondence between CRUPs and his word data.
CRUPs may also help explain the prefixIPs and because several of the results in this
study are most easily interpretable from the stress interactions from Experiment 2 of the
current study. Specifically, if the basic stress-perspective of a selective parallel model.
One could argue that the CRUPs result is driven model is modified so that it is sensitive
to the decomposition variables and so that itartifactual and due to the combination of the
gating task (where prefixes might be argued operates via CRUPs rather than root UPs,
there seem to be two possible predicted out-to be processed completely and independently
of what follows them) and the stimulus set comes. One of these is illustrated fairly well
by Fig. 4: prefix stress should not matter for(there were no stimuli with bound roots or
nonroots). If this were the case, CRUPs should items low on prefixedness (for example), but
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
19/24
456 LEE H. WURM
should begin to affect RTs as prefixedness in- modate the current results, if modified to re-
flect the importance of prefix likelihood, forcreases. The RTs that should stand out as
faster (because of the facilitative potential of example.
Cutler et al. (1985) argue in favor of a de-CRUPs) are those for words high on pre-
fixedness with unstressed prefixes. compositional serial autonomous model,
based on process considerations rather than
CONCLUSION storage and efficiency considerations. Theybelieve that a strict prefix-stripping accountMost existing models of word recognition
have too rigidly insisted on either continuous is probably wrong, but that decomposition of
prefix and stem is a strategy that seems rou-processing with total disregard for decomposi-
tional variables or on strict decompositional tinely available to the language processor.
However, one aspect of their framework thatprocessing in every instance. The current
study demonstrates that both theoretical posi- would seem not to fit the current results is
their insistence that listeners compute thetions are wrong; there is evidence for both
full-form processing and at least some decom- meaning of stems before affixes. While this
makes sense in many situations, particularlyposition, the latter perhaps involving CRUPs.In hindsight, the insistence of some research- those involving suffixing (e.g., sad /
-ness), the current results indicate that pre-ers on one or the other kind of mechanism
seems difficult to understand. The ease with fixes are dealt with very early in the recogni-
tion process. Prefix likelihood should not playwhich people coin and understand new words,
the idea of semantic drift, and the flexibility of a role in the early stages of recognition if stem
processing has to be completed first.the perceptual system demonstrated in various
tasks should have suggested earlier that there Network models (e.g., McClelland & El-
man, 1986; Norris, 1994) might be able tomight be both types of processing mechanism.
In addition, as pointed out in the Introduction, accommodate the current results without hav-ing two separate processes. Such models arewhile nonword data from studies such as Taft
et al. (1986) suggest an important role for often claimed to have the ability to extract
structural (e.g., that re- is a separable unit)roots, this does not imply that the system al-
ways uses root access for all words. or distributional (e.g., relating to prefix likeli-
hoods) information based on covariance ofAs I have noted throughout this paper, the
Cohort model (Marslen-Wilson, 1984; Mar- form and meaning. Van Orden et al. (1990)
provide a useful discussion of this issue.slen-Wilson & Welsh, 1978) cannot accom-
modate the results having to do with the de- A final interesting point concerns the fact
that the structure of the input itself determinescomposition variables. In addition, the sug-gested competition between high-frequency the specifics of perceptual processing. It may
well be profitable to apply the techniques de-roots and the full-forms that carry them flies
directly in the face of the basic cohort princi- veloped here crosslinguistically, choosing lan-
guages with known differences in morphologyple. The current results suggesting an im-
portant role for semantic transparency in de- and affix structure. Such a test could illustrate
how the perceptual process gets instantiatedcompositional processing is, however, consis-
tent with the conclusion of Marslen-Wilson et differentially in response to different language
environments.al. (1994). Their model may be able to accom-
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
20/24
457AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
APPENDIX A
Judged Prefixedness, Semantic Transparency, and Root Morpheme Frequency
Judged Semantic Root morpheme
Full-form (root) prefixednessa transparencya frequencyb
ablaze (blaze) 6 6 17
abreast (breast) 6 2 83
abridge (bridge) 4 2 71
acquire (choir) 1 1 8
aloft (loft) 5 2 11
antibody (body)c 8 2 705
antisocial (social)c 8 8 537
archbishop (bishop) 6 7 40
ascend (send) 6 2 72aspire (spire) 3 2 20
atingle (tingle) 6 3.5 3
beget (get) 6 2 2379
behold (hold) 5 4 527
belong (long) 3 1 1508
beside (side) 5 5 1236
circumscribe (scribe)c 5 2 2
concave (cave) 6 2 42
condense (dense) 5 4.5 33copilot (pilot) 8 8 25
counterplot (plot)c 7 7 32
default (fault) 7 3 55
defrost (frost) 8 7 16
discredit (credit) 8 7 58
disfigure (figure) 8 4 229
disgust (gust) 4 1 5
distaste (taste) 8 7 93
embattle (battle) 6 4 92embody (body) 6 3 705
engage (gauge) 5 2 0
engulf (gulf) 7 1.5 22
entitle (title) 7 3 46
forecast (cast) 6 2 127
foreshadow (shadow) 7 2 72
forewarn (warn) 7 7.5 50
hyperspace (space)c 7 5.5 154
increase (crease) 3 1 8infringe (fringe) 7 3 20
insecure (secure) 8 8 184
intercourse (course)c 7 2 749
interstate (state)c 7 6.5 497
midyear (year) 7 7 1420
misfit (fit) 7 3 145
mislead (lead) 8 7.5 557
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
21/24
458 LEE H. WURM
APPENDIX AContinued
Judged Semantic Root morpheme
Full-form (root) prefixednessa transparencya frequencyb
mistrial (trial) 8 7 66
monorail (rail)c
7 6 89perfume (fume) 1 4 13
persuade (suede) 5 1 3
preamble (amble) 8 3 12
prefix (fix) 8 1 52
preheat (heat) 8 7 143
proclaim (claim) 6 7 177
rebuild (build) 8 7 277
recite (cite) 7 2 26
rephrase (phrase) 8 7 50reprint (print) 8 7 95
reword (word) 8 6.5 502
subsample (sample) 8 7 21
supersede (seed)c 7 2 3
surcharge (charge) 7 7 162
surname (name) 6 7 421
transcend (send) 5 3.5 72
twilight (light) 3 6 530
twinight (night) 5.5 5 625ultrasound (sound)c 7 6 295
unbend (bend) 8 8 77
unborn (born) 8 8 113
unbuckle (buckle) 8 8 7
unbutton (button) 8 8 34
underscore (score)c 7 6 57
unplug (plug) 8 7.5 17
unscramble (scramble) 8 8 19
unusual (usual) 8 8 311
a Values can range from 18.b Per million tokens.c These items were used only in Experiment 1.
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
22/24
459AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
APPENDIX B dle, eclipse, frontier, gratify, grocer, hin-
drance, hockey, image, inert, infant, inspiring,
legal, linguist, minus, mission, mystique, op-Neighborhood Size, Prefix Likelihood, and
Prefix Frequency erate, referee, subsequent, teeter, torpedo, ve-
lour.Neighborhood Prefix Prefix Practice-effect words (these items were heard
Prefix size likelihood frequencya
by 44 of the 110 participants): acumen, audi-tion, brutal, catapult, cognizant, compel, cut-a- 16,803 .090 2454
anti- 72 .028 28 lets, despair, detachment, dinnerware, eyeball,arch- 18 .722 20 fluttering, frankly, heavenly, hesitance, in-be- 6562 .304 204 stinct, iron, mazurka, mermaid, mistletoe,circum- 109 .018 1
murmur, nourish, partial, privilege, pseud-con- 4828 .012 228
onym, ranking, reinforce, shrubbery, slumber,co- 1690 .010 18counter- 22 .545 26 spaghetti, splatter, stainless, subpoena, sweet-de- 5733 .008 104 heart, thinning, towel, twitter, vernacular,
dis- 2416 .092 766 worthy, wristwatch.em- 644 .003 78en- 2017 .092 371
fore- 372 .212 129 REFERENCEShyper- 7 .000b 1
Anderson, S. R. (1988). Morphology as a parsing prob-in- 9444 .094 21963lem. Linguistics, 26, 521544.inter- 1101 .212 256
Anshen, F., & Aronoff, M. (1981). Morphological pro-mid- 163 .264 60ductivity and phonological transparency. Canadianmis- 243 .181 79Journal of Linguistics, 26, 6372.mono- 48 .083 22
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative gram-per- 2153 .005 484
mar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pre- 2214 .013 56Baayen, R. H. (1994). Productivity in language produc-pro- 3832 .001 152
tion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 447re- 8561 .067 1881469.sub- 608 .061 649
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993).super- 109 .284 49The CELEX lexical database. [CD-ROM]sur- 556 .009 654
Bergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W., & Eling, P. A. T. M.trans- 346 .092 47(1988). How simple complex words can be: Morpho-twi- 4 1.000 9logical processing and word representations. Quar-ultra- 9 .889 2terly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 41un- 3271 .283 107272.under- 543 .232 234
Burnage, G. (1990). CELEX: A guide for users. Nijmegen,
Netherlands: CELEX.a Per million tokens.Bybee, J. L. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization.b The value of .000 for hyper- seems odd, given
In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoreticalwords such as hyperactive. In fact, there were 24morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp.words beginning with hyper- in Websters Third New119141). New York: Academic Press.International Dictionary of the English Language (1993)
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lex-that qualified as truly prefixed, but none of them was listedical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition,in the frequency count of Francis and Kucera (1982).28, 297332.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regres-
sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.APPENDIX CCotton, S., & Grosjean, F. (1984). The gating paradigm: A
Words Used in Experiment 2 comparison of successive and individual presentationformats. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 4148.Critical items: Items from Appendix A not
Cutler, A. (1976). Phoneme monitoring reaction time asdenoted by a superscript c. a function of preceding intonation contour. Percep-Fillers: alphabet, anthem, bedazzle, bridal, tion & Psychophysics, 20, 5560.
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G. (1985). Thebugle, curbside, deduction, dependent, dwin-
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
23/24
460 LEE H. WURM
suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Lin- Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1984). Function and process in
spoken word recognition. In H. Bouma & D. G.guistics, 23, 723758.
Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance: Vol.Cutler, A., & Norris, D. G. (1979). Monitoring sentence
X. Control of Language Processes (pp. 125150).comprehension. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.(Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies
presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 113 134). Hills- Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., &
Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in thedale, NJ: Erlbaum.
English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101,Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong sylla-333.bles in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing in-
teractions and lexical access during word recognitionPerformance, 14, 113121.
in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29Emmorey, K. D. (1989). Auditory morphological priming
63.in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes,
4, 7392. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE
model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology,Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis
18, 186.of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin. Moby Pronunciator (Version 1.01) (1989). Monterey, CA:
Illumind. [Computer software]Frauenfelder, U. H., & Schreuder, R. (1992). Constraining
psycholinguistics models of morphological pro- Morton, J. (1969). The interaction of information in word
recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165178.cessing and representation: The role of productivity.
In G. E. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morton, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition: Ex-
Morphology 1991 (pp. 165 183). Dordrecht, Nether- periments causing change in the logogen model. In
lands: Kluwer. P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.),
Processing of visible language (Vol. 1, pp. 259Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989).
Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects 268). New York: Plenum.
of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of
and Language, 28, 501518. continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189
234.Grosjean, F., & Gee, J. (1987). Prosodic structure and
spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135155. Rubin, G. S., Becker, C. A., & Freeman, R. H. (1979).Morphological structure and its effects on visualHenderson, L. (1985). Toward a psychology of mor-
phemes. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psy- word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 18, 399412.chology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 1572). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. Salasoo, A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Interaction of knowl-
edge sources in spoken word recognition. Journal ofHenderson, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, K. (1984). Morphe-
mic structure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & Memory and Language, 24, 210231.
D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance: Sandra, D. (1994). The morphology of the mental lexicon:
Vol. X. Control of language processes (pp. 211 Internal word structure viewed from a psycholinguis-
226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. tic perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes,
9, 227269.Jarvella, R. J., & Meijers, G. (1983). Recognizing mor-
phemes in spoken words: Some evidence for a stem- Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1994). Prefix strippingorganised mental lexicon. In G. B. Flores dArcais & re-revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33,R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language under- 357375.
standing (pp. 81112). London: Wiley. Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Graetz, P. (1992). Inflec-
Laudanna, A., Burani, C., & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes tional and derivational morphology in the mental lex-
as processing units. Language and Cognitive Pro- icon: Symmetries and asymmetries in repetition
cesses, 9, 295316. priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 44A, 373390.Luce, P. A. (1987). Neighborhoods of words in the mental
lexicon. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, Schriefers, H., Zwitserlood, P., & Roelofs, A. (1991). The
5078. identification of morphologically complex spoken
words: Continuous processing or decomposition?Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Goldinger, S. D. (1990). Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 2647.Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In
G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivar-
iate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.processing: Psycholinguistic and computational per-
spectives (pp. 122 147). Cambridge, MA: MIT Taft, M. (1979a). Lexical access via an orthographic code:
Press. The Basic Orthographic Syllable Structure (BOSS).
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,MacKay, D. G. (1978). Derivational rules and the internal
18, 2139.lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be-
havior, 17, 6171. Taft, M. (1979b). Recognition of affixed words and the
7/28/2019 Wurm (1997)
24/24
461AUDITORY PROCESSING OF PREFIXED WORDS
word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition, 7, Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1986). The ef-
fects of context on the recognition of polymorphemic263272.
words. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 741Taft, M. (1981). Prefix stripping revisited. Journal of Ver-752.bal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 289297.
Tyler, L. K., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Rentoul, J., & Han-Taft, M. (1985). The decoding of words in lexical access:ney, P. (1988). Continuous and discontinuous accessA review of the morphographic approach. In D. Bes-in spoken word-recognition: The role of derivationalner, T. G. Waller, & G. E. Mackinnon (Eds.), Read-
prefixes.Journal of Memory and Language,27,
368ing research: Vol. 5. Advances in theory and practice 381.(pp. 83123). New York: Academic Press.Tyler, L. K., & Wessels, J. (1983). Quantifying contextualTaft, M. (1988). A morphological decompositional
contributions to word-recognition processes. Percep-model of lexical representation. Linguistics, 26, 657
tion & Psychophysics, 34, 409420.667.
Tyler, L. K., & Wessels, J. (1985). Is gating an on-lineTaft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for
task? Evidence from naming latency data
Top Related