Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T14:49:30.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Case of Obligatory Access to Morphological Constituents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Gary Libben
Gary Libben
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, 4-36A Assiniboia Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E7
Get access

Abstract

This case study reports on a patient RS who showed obligatory and automatic access to the constituents of all English compounds. She would thus interpret the compound blueprint as ‘a print that is blue’. She also showed interpretations that suggested a blending of the whole-word and decomposed meanings of compounds. The compound seahorse was interpreted as ‘a small horse that swims’. It is argued that her behaviour presents evidence in favour of a parallel access model of multimorphemic word recognition in which constituents and whole-word forms are simultaneously accessed. Within such a framework, RS's performance can be interpreted as resulting from the inability to suppress the results of morphological decomposition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Special Issue 2: Special issue on NEUROLINGUISTICS , December 1993 , pp. 111 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, S. 1986. Morphological Influences of Lexical Access: Lexical or Nonlexical Effects? Journal of Memory and Learning 25, 726–740.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W. & Eiling, P. A. 1988. How Simple Complex Words Can Be: Morphological Processing and Word Processing and Word Representations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40(A), 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C. & Caramazza, A. 1987. Representation and Processing of Derived Words. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., Salmaso, D. & Caramazza, A. 1984. Morphological Structure and Lexical Access. Visible Language 8(4), 342–352.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. 1983. Lexical Representation. In Butterworth, B. (ed.), Language Production. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudana, A. & Romani, C. 1988. Lexical Access and Inflectional Morphology. Cognition 28, 298–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Silveri, M. C. & Laudanna, A. 1985. Reading Mechanisms and the Organization of the Lexicon: Evidence from Acquired Dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2, 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnenwerth-Nolan, S., Tanenhaus, M. K. &Seidenberg, M. S. 1981. Multiple Code Activation in Word Recognition: Evidence from Rhyme Monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 7, 170–180.Google ScholarPubMed
Fowler, C. A., Napps, S. E. &Feldman, L. B. 1985. Relations among Regularly and Irregularly Morphologically Related Words in the Lexicon as Revealed by Repetition Priming. Memory and Cognition 13, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frauenfelder, U. &Schreuder, R. 1992. Constraining Psycholinguistic Models of Morphological Processing and Representation: The Role of Productivity. In Booij, G. &van, Merle J.(eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. 1989. On Mental Representation of Morphology and its Diagnosis by Measures of Visual Access Speed. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (ed.), Lexical Representation and Process. Cambridge Mass.:, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, L., Wallis, J. &Knight, D. 1984. Morphemic Structure and Lexical Access. In Bouma, H. &Bouwhuls, D. (eds.), Attention and Performance X. Hilisdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H. &Weintraub, S. 1983. Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Laudana, A. &Burani, C. 1985. Address Mechanisms to Decomposed Lexical Entries. Linguistics 23, 775–792.Google Scholar
Libben, G. &Vanderweide, T. 1992, 10. Morphbase. Paper presented at the Alberta Conference on Language. Banff, Alberta.Google Scholar
Lima, S. 1987. Morphological Analysis in Sentence Reading. Journal of Memory and Language 26, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, G., Gligorijevic, B., Kostic, A. &Turvey, M.T. 1980. Representation of inflected Nouns in the Internal Lexicon. Memory and Cognition 8, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manelis, L. &Tharp, D. A. 1977. The Processing of Affixed Words. Memory and Cognition 5 (6), 690–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, D. G. 1986. Ross Information Processing Assessment. Austin, Texas: PRO-ED Incorporated.Google Scholar
Sandra, D. 1990. On the Representation and Processing of Compound Words: Automatic Access to Constituent Morphemes does not Occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 42a(3), 529–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. 1989. Visual Word Recognition and Naming: A Computational Model and its implications. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (ed.), Lexical Representation and Processes (pp. 25–74). Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. T. & Sperling, C. M. 1982. Factors Affecting the Perceived Morphological Structure of Written Words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 21, 704–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. 1979. Recognition of Affixed Words and the Word Frequency Effect. Memory and Cognition 7, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M. 1981. Prefix Stripping Revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20, 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. 1985. The Decoding of Words in Lexical Access: A Review of the Morphographic Approach. InBesner, D., Wailer, T.G. &Mackinnon, G. E. (eds.), Reading Research: Advances in Theory and Practice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taft, M. & Forster, K.I. 1975. Lexical Storge and Retrieval of Prefixed Words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behabior 14, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, L. K., Behrens, S., Cobb, H. & Marslen-Wilson, W. 1990. Processing Distinctions between Stems and Affixes: Evidence from a Non-fluent Aphasic Patient. Cognition 36, 129–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed