1. Morphology and word processing
’Mieli ja aivot, kieli ja kognitio’: Morphology
Ti ,
Morphology and word processing
Raymond Bertram
Department of Psychology
Turku University

2. Finnish morphology
Omnipresent: most words in newspaper are morphologically
complex, contain more than one morpheme:
HS, : Rakennusalan työturvallisuus Suomessa Pohjoismaiden heikoin: Suomessa rakennustyömaiden työturvallisuus on heikompi kuin muissa Pohjoismaissa. Suurten rakennuskonsernien NCC:n ja Skanskan sisäisissä vertailuissa suomalaisten tytäryhtiöiden työmaat ovat muita pohjoismaisia työmaita turvattomampia.
Rich: many possibilities in combining morphemes

3. Word forms in the Finnish language: some facts and figures
Affixes that can be added to a Finnish noun:
-number (singular, plural)
-case (over 10)
-possessive suffix (2 x 3)
-enclitic particles (-kin, -pa, -han, -ko, etc.).
about forms for each noun, about forms for each adjective, forms for each verb
derivation and compounding adds up to the forms
EPÄONNISTUMATTOMUUDESSAMMEKOHAN

5. SAUNA SAUNA’S SAUNAS SAUNAS’

6. What is morphology? Study of the internal structure of words:
morph-ology word-s jump-ing
Knowledge of the words of a language can’t be summarized in a finite list: we need to know the principles of word-formation

7. What is morphology?
Morphology is the study of the way words are built up from smaller meaning-bearing units, morphemes.
e.g. talo + ssa + ni + kin; house+s
Morphemes…
1. cannot be subdivided in smaller meaning-full units.
ta+lo or ki + n
2. contribute to meaning of a word.
talo ’house’, –ssa ’in’ or –kin ’also’
3. can appear in many different words.
taloon or talonmies or metsäkin
4. do not necessarily coincide with syllable structure.
ta.los.sa

8. What is morphology? Some basic concepts
Free vs. bound morphemes
Stems vs. affixes
Affixation types
Allomorphs
Types of word formation: inflection, derivation, compounding

9. Morphemes: free vs. bound
Free morphemes: morphemes that can stand on their own, i.e., can form a word by themselves
lexical morphemes: talo ’house’, car, dog, cat etc. (an open-ended class: new morphemes can be added)
grammatical morphemes: e.g., determiners the, a, every, most etc. (a closed class -> all members can be listed)
Bound morphemes: must be attached to/appear with one or more morphemes to form a word
hatuton ’hatless’ -> *hatu, *ton

10. Stems vs. affixes
Many morphologically complex words are composed of stems & affixes
Stems:
principal components of words
supply the main (lexical) meaning
talo + ssa, house + s
Affixes:
supply additional meaning
”in” ”plurality/’many’”

11. Affixation types Affixes are always bound morphemes.
Concatenative morphology uses the following types of affixes:
prefixes, e.g. epä- in epä+olennainen, un+real
suffixes, e.g. –ssa in talo+ssa
circumfixes, e.g. German ge- -t in ge+sag+t ([have] said)

12. In non-concatenative morphology the stem morpheme is split up
In non-concatenative morphology the stem morpheme is split up. The following types of affixes are used:
infixes: bili: ‘buy’ => bumili: ‘bought’ (Tagalog);
fan-****-tastic; abso-blooming-lutely
transfixes, e.g. Hebrew, l+a+m+a+d (he studied), l+i+m+e+d (he taught), l+u+m+a+d (he was taught)

13. Allomorphs
Allomorph are variants of a morpheme: one function/meaning, many forms.
stem allomorphy: hattuun vs. hatussa
käsi, käde+n, kät+tä, käte+en
suffix allomorphy: metsässä vs. talossa
talo+on, metsä+än, talo+i+hin, huonee+seen, huone+i+siin, maahan

14. Inflection, Derivation, & Compounding
There are three broad classes of ways to form words from morphemes: inflection and derivation and compounding.

15. Inflection
Inflection: minimal change due to affixation => new word forms
plural: house -> houses
past tense: work -> worked
Does not alter the category of the stem: worked is a verb
Compositional (meaning can be easily predicted on basis of morphemes)
Very productive

16. Derivation Derivation: creation of new words by affixation
agentive: to teach -> teacher ’someone who teaches’
collective: kirja ’book’ -> kirja+sto ’library’
location: kahvi ’coffee’ => kahvila ’cafe, coffee house’
May change the syntactic category: [teach]Ver]N, [kahvi] N la]N
Meaning is less (un) predictable from the parts – semantically less transparent
Productivity is restricted -> derivational affixes are some times called semi-productive

17. Compounding
Compounding: creating a words by combining two (or more) real words
Compounding is very productive (in both Finnish and English).
The simplest case consists of two words concatenated together: auto+talli, joukkue+henki,
In Finnish, the right-hand part is a so-called head that determines the syntactic category (word class) and the meaning: autotalli is more an auto than a talli
The left-hand member is the modifier: morphology+article is an article about morphology
From transparent to opaque: joukkue+henki: the meaning is the ”summed” meaning of the parts vs. helppo+heikki or red+neck: meaning cannot be directly computed from constituent morphemes
However, even in transparent cases meaning relationship between constituent is pluriform: pine tree (be); music box (make); night flight (in) abortion problem (about)

18. Does morphology play a role in daily language processing?
Intuitive grounds: we are able to form new words on a daily basis according to morphological principles. We are also able to understand new morphologically complex words that we have never encountered before. Loopvliegen ’walkfly’; neusdoek ’nenäliina’; computer hand; Finishness
Observations:
Speech errors: Speakers make morphologically structured slips: it’s not only we who have screw looses (for ”screws loose”); easy enoughly (for ”easily enough”).
Child language: Children overgeneralize during the course of acquisition: *goed (for went)
Aphasics can produce morphologically structured neologisms: he *jumberfoked and off he went

19. Does morphology play a role in daily language processing?
Experimental evidence (Taft & Forster 1975):
Non-word interference: real (bound) stems are rejected as non-words in lexical decision more slowly than pseud-stems: -vive (revive) vs. –lish (relish)
Same thing happens with non-words that are composed of an illegal combination of an existing prefix and stem (dejoice)  take longer to reject than non-words consisting of a pseudo-stem (dejouse)
-> bound stems have an access representation (morphological structure): prefixed words are decomposed in lexical access

20. Does morphology play a role in daily language processing?
Experimental evidence
Morphological priming
cars primes car: solid effects, long-lasting, facilitation
Orthographic: card – car; variable effects, short-lived, inhibition
Semantic effects: priming for morphologically related, but semantically unrelated words create-creation vs. create-creature (Feldman & Stotko, 1992); Emmorey (1989) priming between permit and submit.
=> Morphological effects cannot be reduced to either form-based or semantic effects

21. Does morphology play a role in daily language processing?
Experimental evidence
Base frequency effects
ryhmässä vs. kerhossa
frequency ryhmässä = frequency kerhossa ( n. 35)
frequency ryhmä > much bigger than frequency kerho 9531 vs. 648)
If frequency of stem/base has an effect, morphological structure has been used in course of processing
(Taft, 1979; Bradley, 1980; Burani & Caramazza, 1987 Bertram et al., 2000)

22. Does morphology play a role in daily language processing?
In summary, yes morphology does play
a role, the question is how and when?

23. Human Morphological Processing
How are multimorphemic words represented in the minds of human speakers?
composition
talo+ssa
syntactic/semantic level
mental lexicon: words & morphemes
talossa talo ssa
segmentation
talo+ssa
letter level
t a l o s s a
phoneme level
visual feature level
auditory feature level

24. mental lexicon: words & morphemes
talossa talo ssa
segmentation
talo+ssa
route 1
route 2
letter level
t a l o s s a

25. Human Morphological Processing
How are multimorphemic words represented in the minds of human speakers?
1. Full Listing (letter => word)
vs.
2. Morphological Decomposition
(letter => segmentation => morpheme => composition => word)
3. Dual Storage (1 or 2; 1 and 2)

26. The morphological processing question: What’s in the mental lexicon and what not?
koulu/maailma, talo/ssa, kirja/sto, puhu/minen
Mental lexicon:
all full forms
all morphemes
3a some words fully, some not
3b all words fully, and in morphemes
talossa
koulumaailma
kirjasto
puhuminen
-ssa
talo
kirja
minen
koulu
-sto
puhu
maailma
talo
koulumaailma
kirjasto
puhu
-ssa
-minen

27. The dictionary question: What’s in the dictionary and what not?
koulu/maailma, talo/ssa, kirja/sto, puhu/minen
Nykysuomen
Sanakirja
talo
koulumaailma
kirjasto
puhua
3a.
talo
koulumaailma
kirjasto
puhu
-ssa
-minen

28. How are multimorphemic words represented in the minds of human speakers?
My own position
3a. Dual Storage: 1 or 2, some words full storage, some not:
+ all novel words cannot have obtained full-form storage: computer hand
+ all non-novel words have obtained full-form storage: talossa
- all non-novel words storage is morpheme-based as well: talo+ssa
3b. Dual Storage: 1 and 2: all words full & morphemic storage
- all novel words cannot have obtained full-form storage: computer hand
+ all non-novel words storage is morpheme-based as well: talo+ssa
3c. Dual Storage: some words morpheme-based storage, some words full & morphemic storage

29. How are multimorphemic words represented in the minds of human speakers?
Question: how are storage and processing related
if there is a double representation, do we use them both (talossa + talossa)
Question: why do often observe that morphologically complex words are processed holistically
(that is, why do we often not find morphological effects for existing complex words)
Question: why do often observe that morphologically complex words are processed via morphemes
(that is, why do we often only find morphological effects for existing complex words)
My answer: if you don’t see something, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there

30. Dual Route Models MRM (Morphological Race Model)
e.g., Schreuder & Baayen (1995); Bertram, Schreuder & Baayen (2000)
Representations for both full-forms and morphemes
e.g., walked activates /walk/ /ed/ and /walked/
Recognition is attempted via whole word and morpheme-based representations simultaneously -> Parallel Dual Route Model
Whether full-form or decompositional route wins is dependent on various properties of the whole word and the comprising morphemes

31. Factors that determine who is winning the race
1. frequency whole word/frequency morphemes ratio
* Colé, Segui, Taft, 1997: silmät (70% plural) vs. nenät (10% plural)
2. frequency whole word (aamulla; aphasic patient H.H., Laine)
3. properties of affixes
4. word length X morphology
5. ease of segmentation

32. 3. The of Storage (full-form processing) and Computation (morpheme-based processing in Finnish and Dutch: properties of affixes
Bertram, Schreuder & Baayen, 2000: Specific Properties
Affixal Homonymy => Storage? (‘warmer’-‘rower’; tutkija-lukkoja)
Productivity => Computation? (warmth-emptiness; kahvila-rahaton)
Word Formation Type Storage? <=> Computation? derivation vs. inflection => (SAID)
emptiness-laughed; kirjasto-talossa
Language Storage? <=> Computation? Dutch vs. Finnish

33. Experimental method Visual lexical decision – testing word length
SEMINAARI
NO YES
600 MS
MINASEERI
NO YES
700 MS
TALO
NO YES
500 MS
Dependent variables: Reaction time and error rates
E.g., after 20 items per condition, 100 ms or 5% error difference in favour of short words
=> word length has an effect!

34. VISUAL LEXICAL DECISION: Exp. Methods
5 Dutch Suffixes and 1 Finnish in The Taft-way (1979)
Experiment 1: Surface Freq. Exp. (N=20)
dieper ‘deeper’ <=> rauwer ‘rawer’
Fbase = 148
Fsurface >
Experiment 2: Base Freq. Exp. (N=20)
blonder ‘blonder’ <=> nobeler ‘nobler’
Fbase > 21
Fsurface = 1.3
Matching on rel. factors like length & bigramfr. __________________________________
If high-freq. condition elicit faster rt’s than low-freq. condition
in Exp. 1, surface freq. exp. => storage
in Exp. 2, base freq. exp. => computation

35. VISUAL LEXICAL DECISION: Exp. Methods
The Finnish way (Experiment 1 ) monomorphemic words as baseline
Matching on
mm.: hevonen ‘horse’ Lemma, Surface,
vs. Bigram Frequency,
inf.: talossa ‘house + in’ Vf, Word Length
1. rt mono = rt complex => storage
2. rt mono < rt complex => computation
3. rt mono > rt complex => stor.& comp.

36. Language X Factor Interaction?
SUFFIX WFT PRO. HOM.? E.G.
1a. V-te INF YES NO LACHTE
1b. N-ssA INF YES NO TALOSSA
1a. Dutch -te 1b. Finnish -ssA
BASE SURFACE R T
HF LF HF LF MM INF
Computation for Finnish and Dutch Inflectional Suffixes

37. Hypo 1: Morphology plays bigger role in Finnish than in Dutch
* AS YET it seems that processing complex
words in typologically quite different
languages such as Finnish and Dutch are
co-determined by the same factors.
* However, we have been investigating 3
factors in two languages only and the words
investigated were bimorphomic.

38. Hypo 2: Specific properties of complex words determine whether lexical access is more or less holistic
* Indeed, for both languages, the
of Storage and Computation is co-
determined by the INTERPLAY
of factors such as Affixal Homonymy,
Word Formation Type and
Affix Productivity
SEE FIGURE

39. THE OF STORAGE AND COMPUTATION
productive?
storage homonym?
D: A-te , F: N-lA
inflection? storage
D:V-er, A-er F: V-jA, N-jA
computation+ storage computation
D: A-heid D: V-te
F: N-stO F: N-ssA

40. CONCLUSIONS
1. Suffixes should be checked for their properties and be studied one by one
2. Neither Full Parsing or Full listing Models nor Models in which coarse distinctins are made between certain subsets (prefix-suffix; inflection-derivation) can account for the variable data pattern as found here
3. Data pattern is compatible with race models in which the winner is determined by factors as investigated here

41. Factors that determine who is winning the race
1. frequency whole word/frequency morphemes ratio
* Colé, Segui, Taft, 1997: silmät (70% plural) vs. nenät (10% plural)
2. frequency whole word (aamulla; aphasic patient H.H., Laine)
3. properties of affixes
4. word length X morphology
5. ease of segmentation

42. Word length X Morphology:
Visual acuity and word processing
1. Is the use of morphemic constituents in processing long compounds due to visual acuity limitations?
fovea:
parafovea
oppilas/määrä

43. Experimental methods in our lab
Eye Movements tracked with Eyelink
Eye movements can give one a good
insight in language processing!
Duration of fixation and length of saccade (among others) tell you something about processing behaviour!

44. Visual acuity and word processing:
Indeed we know that processing of words like vaniljakastike goes by via the constituents vanilja and kastike.
On top of that, early processing of the compound is limited to the first constituent. (HP1998; PHB2000)
fovea:
parafovea
vanilja/kastike

45. vanilja/kastike sivu/ovi
Is this purely due to visual acuity limitations? 1
vanilja/kastike
sivu/ovi
’side door’ A. B.
’vanilla sauce’
If morphological structure has a more independent role, processing of shorter compounds SIVU/OVI like should go by via constituents as well!

46. Morphology X Word Length, XP1,2 BH2003
XP1: For long and short compounds, similar manipulation of first constituent frequency.
Long: HF: tutkimus/retki vs. LF: akilles/jänne
Short: HF: työ/puku vs. LF: hätä/tila
(respectively: research trip, Achilles’ heel, working outfit, emergency situation)
XP2: For long and short compounds, similar manipulation of whole-word frequency.
Long: HF: keskus/sairaala vs. LF: kirja/kahvila
Short: HF: kesä/loma vs. LF: veri/koe
(respectively: central hospital, book café, summer holiday, blood test)

47. Eye movements in our laboratory
* Including words of special interest in single sentences
HF: Saarinen kysyi: “Minkälainen KESKUSSAIRAALA on ...
LF: Saarinen kysyi: “Minkälainen KIRJAKAHVILA on ...

48. XP1&2, FIRST FIXATION DURATION
Long compounds Short compounds 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2
HF: tutkimus/retki HF: keskus/sairaala
LF: akilles/jänne LF: kirja/kahvila
HF: työ/puku HF: kesä/loma
LF: hätä/tila LF: veri/koe
1st consti-
tuent, XP1
whole
word, XP2
1st consti-
tuent, XP1
whole
word, XP2 * *
HF LF HF LF HF LF HF LF

49. Initial involvement of 1st constituent for long
compounds and of whole word form for short
compounds!

50. XP1&2, GAZE DURATION Long compounds Short compounds * * *3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2
HF: tutkimus/retki HF: keskus/sairaala
LF: akilles/jänne LF: kirja/kahvila
HF: työ/puku HF: kesä/loma
LF: hätä/tila LF: veri/koe
1st consti-
tuent, XP1
whole
word, XP2
1st consti-
tuent, XP1
whole
word, XP2 * * *
HF LF HF LF HF LF HF LF

51. Also later involvement of 1st constituent for long
compounds, but not for short compounds. Short
compounds are overall processed in a holistic manner.

52. Conclusion vanilja/kastike sivu/ovi1 1
vanilja/kastike
sivu/ovi
Support for visual acuity hypothesis: for long compounds initial access of 1st constituent due to visual acuity benefit of 1st constituent over the latter part of the word.
Use of 1st constituent in early and also late processing of long compounds is driven by visual rather than structural principles

53. Factors that determine who is winning the race
1. frequency whole word/frequency morphemes ratio
* Colé, Segui, Taft, 1997: silmät (70% plural) vs. nenät (10% plural)
2. frequency whole word (aamulla; aphasic patient H.H., Laine)
3. properties of affixes
4. word length X morphology
5. ease of segmentation

54. 5. Ease of segmentation
Are there certain cues we use in parsing out constituents

55. Our intuition was that readers must use some
cues that would enhance parsing
(has never been established in reading though)
One cue we considered: ’VOWEL QUALITY’

56. Vowel Harmony Category 1: A O U Back Vowels
äöy: front vowels
Vowel Harmony
Category 1: A O U Back Vowels
Category 2: Ä Ö Y Front Vowels
Category 3: E I Neutral Vowels
Basic Phonological Rules:
1 + 3 or do co-occur: Seppo, enää
1 + 2 do not co-occur in a word: talo+ssa, pöly+ssä

57. aou: back vowels
äöy: front vowels
Vowel Harmony
1 + 2 do not co-occur in a word: talo+ssa, pöly+ssä, except thus in
compounds: e.g. SELKÄ/ONGELMA ’back problem’ different vowel quality at constituent boundary (cb)
though not necessarily, e.g., RYÖSTÖYRITYS ’robbery attempt’
Question: Will a compound word be easier to process (all else equal) if one constituent has front vowels and the other has back vowels?

58. Vowel Quality Question: Is a word like
aou: back vowels
äöy: front vowels
Vowel Quality
Question: Is a word like
a. ryöstöyritys with same vowel quality at cb
more difficult to process than a word like
b. selkäongelma with different vowel quality at cb

59. Examples different vowel type-condition (dvt):
aou: back vowels
äöy: front vowels
Examples
different vowel type-condition (dvt):
Ystäväni kertoi, että selkä/ongelma oli nyt taaksejäänyttä elämää.
My friend told me, that the back problem was now behind him.
same vowel type-condition (svt):
Ystäväni kertoi, että ryöstö/yritys oli jättänyt hänelle pysyviä traumoja.
My friend told me, that the robbery attempt had left him with permanent traumas.

60. EXPERIMENT 1, RESULTS same: ryöstöyritys different: selkäongelma
aou: back vowels
äöy: front vowels
EXPERIMENT 1, RESULTS
Difference between different vowel quality (selkäongelma) and same vowel quality (ryöstöyritys) condition in the following measures: gaze duration (Gaze), 1st fixation duration (FFD), 2nd fix. location (SFL), 3rd fixation location (TFL)
same: ryöstöyritys
different: selkäongelma

61. aou: back vowels
äöy: front vowels
Vowel Quality
In sum, parsing of processing relatively low-frequency compounds seems to be complicated by vowels of the same quality in the two constituents
Vowel quality difference across constituents serves as an efficient cue for parsing

62. Factors that determine who is winning the race
1. frequency whole word/frequency morphemes ratio
* Colé, Segui, Taft, 1997: silmät (70% plural) vs. nenät (10% plural)
2. frequency whole word (aamulla; aphasic patient H.H., Laine)
3. properties of affixes
4. word length X morphology
5. ease of segmentation

63. Conclusions
There are all kind of factors that determine whether the direct/full-form route or the indirect/parsing/decomposition route dominates the processing of morphologically complex words
Evidence for dual route model 3c. (some words morpheme-based storage, some words full & morphemic storage)?
Massive priming between morphological relatives
Factors that we considered logically complicate or facilitate one or the other route
Morphemic and whole word effects can be observed at the same time
At any rate, we may say that the role of morphology is not an all-or-nothing affair.

64. VERY GENERAL CONCLUSION
MORFOLOGIAN ROOLIA EI PITÄISI ALIARVIOIDA
ARVOITUKSELLISIMMISSAKAAN
KIELISSÄ, EIKÄ EDES KIELISSÄ KUTEN HOLLANTI!
(the role of morphology should not be underestimated, neither in the most mysterious languages, nor in languages like Dutch)

65. Kiitos

66. Human Morphological Processing
Experiments
Evidence for morpheme-based processing in Finnish: Patient H.H.
Left hemisphere damage  aphasia, producing (seemingly) morphological errors in various single-word processing tasks
Examples of HH’s morphological errors:
junasta  ”junalle”
eläimessä  ”eläin”
puhuja  ”puhetta”

67. Human Morphological Processing
Experiments
Evidence for morpheme-based processing in Finnish: Patient H.H. (Laine et al., 1995)
HH’s morphological difficulties were multimodal (reading, repetition, word production)
Conclusion?
The deficit is of central origin, most probably at the semantic-syntactic level

68. Human Morphological Processing
Experiments
Evidence for morpheme-based processing in Finnish: Patient H.H.
(2) HH found reading of inflected words extremely difficult while derived words went equally well (or, rather, equally badly) as monomorphemic words. These difficulties were accompanied with increased eye fixations.
Conclusion?
Inflected but not derived Finnish nouns are morphologically decomposed

69. Human Morphological Processing
Experiments
Evidence for morpheme-based processing in Finnish: Patient H.H.
(3) As an exception to point (2), HH read very high-frequent inflected word forms (e.g., aamu+lla) equally well as comparable monomorphemic words
Conclusion?
Even inflected forms (those of very high frequency) can develop full-form representations in the mental lexicon

70. Human Morphological Processing
Experiments
Evidence for morpheme-based processing in Finnish: Patient H.H.
(4) Different stem allomorphs (e.g., seiväs, seipää-) were processed equally well.
Conclusion?
Stem allomorphs have their own representations in the mental lexicon

71. Discussion topic: which factors might affect the way multimorphemic words are stored in the mental lexicon? How would each factor affect the storage? (see, e.g., HH’s results: very high-frequent inflected form  full form storage; inflected forms representing other frequency ranges  morpheme-based storage)
red+neck vs. air+plane; walk+ed vs. went;
re+search vs. search+er; in+sufficient vs. in+clude;
head+ache –head+quarters

72. Morphological processing: theories
Full listing approaches:
Butterworth (1983):
All words are accessed and represented as full-forms, i.e., no morphological structure even at the central level
Productivity constraint: how are novel complex words recognized? -> assumes a rule-based back-up procedure that ”jumps in” when new words come along
Rich morphology: how do we do it in Finnish or Turkish where the potential number of inflected forms alone can be thousands (or tens of thousands) per given lexeme?
Satellite model (e.g., Lukatela et al., 1978)
Separate entry for each inflectional variant
Forms are organized as satellites around the base form (nom. singular) functioning as a nucleus via which all processing goes

73. Morphological processing: theories
Full listing approaches:
Network models (example Bybee, 1995)
Only whole word forms represented
However: no list metaphor -> representations are part of an associative network with interconnections between phonological and semantic levels only (only form and meaning)
No morphology as such: morphological generalizations are seen as emerging from the form-meaning connections (epiphenomenon - no separate level).
Generalizations are gradient and schematic -> no discreet symbolic representations
Connectionist network models are built upon similar assumptions

74. Morphological processing: theories
Obligatory decomposition:
Taft & Forster (1975)
Prefix stripping: in lexical access the prefix is stripped off and ”sent” directly to the central level; access takes place via the stem
At the central level the legality of the combination is checked -> word is recognized
Morphologically structured stem-based shared representation for all morphologically complex words with the particular stem.
in-

75. Dual Route Models AAM (Augmented Addressed Morphology)
Caramazza et al. (1988)
Representations for both full-forms and morphemes
e.g., walked activates /walk/ /ed/ and /walked/
All familiar words are accessed via the whole word route -> decomposition route operational only for novel (unfamiliar) words -> the whole word route always wins
cf. full-listing with decompositional back-up (Butterworth)
MRM (Morphological Race Model)
e.g., Schreuder & Baayen (1995)
Recognition is attempted via whole word and morpheme-based representations simultaneously -> Parallel Dual Route Model
Whether full-form or decompositional route wins is dependent on various properties of stems and affixes, e.g., frequency, semantic transparency, phonological (formal) transparency, affixal homonymy, the ratio with which the form serves as a real and pseudo-affix -> complex interplay

76. MRM
Three-level interactive activation framework (whole word access) with mechanism for carrying out symbolic computations on representations that become available at different stages (decompositional access)
Activation feedback mechanism
Roughly: any factor that complicates morpheme-based access ends up increasing the activation level for the full forms and enhances whole word access

77. SAID (Laine et al. 1994, Niemi et al. 1994)

78. SAID: evidence
Inflected words are decomposed in lexical access, derived words are not
Inflected nouns take longer to recognize in lexical decision than (matched) monomorphemic nouns -> cost associated with morphological decomposition
An Aphasic patient H.H. had significantly more difficulties in reading inflected than either derived or monomorphemic nouns (no difference between the latter)
-> inflected words decomposed, derived words not
However, H.H. read high frecuency inflections (töissä ’at work’) as well as monomorphemics -> high frequency inflected nouns have full-form representations
Phonological transparency (hattu+ja ’hats’ vs. hatu+ssa ’in a hat’) did not affect either H.H’s performance or lexical decision times -> stem allomorphs have separate representations in the mental lexicon
Thus: inflected nouns are decomposed whereas derived nouns are processed as wholes

79. SAID: further evidence
Allomorphy and decomposition
free-standing allomorphs prime the respective nominative singular in both unmasked and masked priming (käde primes käsi)
Derivation
Only full-form effects for even productive derived words in –ton (hatuton ’hatless’) in a frequency manipulation experiment
Problems accumulated over the last years:
The whole-word frequency (rather than the stem frequency) of an inflected Finnish word may correlate with reaction time in lexical decision: Affixal homonymy with partitive ending –jA (auto-ja) agentive suffix –jA (opettaja)
In certain sentence contexts, the processing cost associated with inflected Finnish nouns seems to disappear
At least productive derivational endings attached to nonword “stems” (e.g., *rono+nta) can slow down rejection latencies
Suffix allomorphy modulates the processing of derived words (Järvikivi, Bertram & Niemi, in press)