1. The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words.
Marcus Taft & Paul Kougious
School of Psychology University of New South Wales Sydney, AUSTRALIA

2. Are these polymorphemic words?
ACTOR
TIDAL
MOSTLY YES
ARTIST
ORIGINATE

3. What about these?
DONATE
VIRUS
MOSTLY NO
FLORA
FINISH

4. And these?
DONOR
VIRAL
SOME YES SOME NO
FLORIST
ADHESIVE

5. VIRUS is not a polymorphemic word, but VIRAL might be.
So,
VIRUS is not a polymorphemic word, but VIRAL might be.
DONATE is not a polymorphemic word, but DONOR might be.

6. VIRUS and VIRAL are clearly related, and they are related through VIR.
But
VIRUS and VIRAL are clearly related, and they are related through VIR.
Does this mean that VIR is a (bound) stem morpheme?

7. Similarly is DON a stem morpheme in DONATE and DONOR, even though the former is not considered to be polymorphemic?
Is FLOR a stem morpheme in FLORA and FLORIST?
Is FIN a stem morpheme in FINISH and FINAL?

8. Basically, we cannot define what is and is not a morpheme
and this is a problem for any model of lexical processing that has all-or-none morphemic representations.

9. A lemma representation for words, mediating between form and meaning.
An alternative suggestion:
Sublexical form units.
A lemma representation for words, mediating between form and meaning.
Lemma representations for sublexical units depending on the correlation of their form with meaning across different contexts.

10. Sublexical form units.
Taft (1979, 1987, 2001, 2002) claimed that polymorphemic words are represented in terms of their BASIC ORTHOGRAPHIC SYLLABIC STRUCTURE (BOSS).
BOSS = Maximization of the coda of the first syllable

11. SPLEND + ID (not SPLEN + DID) MAT + URE (not MA + TURE)
Examples:
LAB + EL (not LA + BEL)
VIR + US (not VI + RUS)
DON + ATE (not DO + NATE)
SPLEND + ID (not SPLEN + DID)
MAT + URE (not MA + TURE)

12. A lemma representation for words, mediating between form and meaning.EL
label
labour
SEMANTICS
LAB
OUR
LEMMAS
ORTHOGRAPHY

13. Lemma representations for sublexical units depending on the correlation of their form with meaning across different contexts.
So, there is a lemma that captures the correlation between the form unit VIR and the meaning that is consistent across VIRUS and VIRAL.

14. SEMANTICS
vir
VIR AL
LEMMAS
ORTHOGRAPHY
viral US
virus

15. Prior presentation of VIRUS
Predictions:
Prior presentation of VIRUS
virus
vir
VIR US

16. Prediction:
Prior presentation of VIRUS should facilitate lexical decision responses to VIRAL. AL
viral
vir
vir
VIR
VIR

17. Prior presentation of LABEL
Prediction:
Prior presentation of LABEL
label
LAB EL

18. Prediction:
Prior presentation of LABEL might not facilitate lexical decision responses to LABOUR.
labour
LAB
LAB
OUR

19. Masked priming experiment:
VIRAL
50 ms
500 ms
virus
# # # # #

20. Semantically related. (+S). Orthographic overlap (+O)
Semantically related (+S) Orthographic overlap (+O) Phonological overlap (+P)
e.g. virus VIRAL splendid SPLENDOUR donate DONOR captive CAPTURE
Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 5.02
Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 4.84
Semantically related (+S) Orthographic overlap (+O) No phonological overlap (-P)
e.g. final FINISH memento MEMORY stable STABILITY legal LEGISLATE

21. Compared to control condition:
Not semantically related (-S) No orthographic overlap (-O) No phonological overlap (-P)
e.g. major VIRAL tangle SPLENDOUR drama FINISH jacket MEMORY

22. 20 words in each condition.
Participants divided into 2 groups with half the targets of one condition being primed and half being non-primed for each group.
Nonwords preceded either by +O prime or -O prime, which was either a word or a nonword.
e.g. family FAMURE guitar DEABIN lomour LOMITY pinible DONESKAN

23. RTs Significant facilitation25 22
Significant facilitation
No interaction with phonological consistency

24. % Error Significant facilitation
4.6
2.6
Significant facilitation
No interaction with phonological consistency

25. To check whether the priming arose purely from semantic relatedness:
Semantically related (+S) No orthographic overlap (-O) No phonological overlap (-P)
e.g. tired FATIGUE pursue FOLLOW compost MANURE tremble SHIVER
Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 5.29

26. RTs 5
No pure semantic priming

27. % Error
-2.3
No pure semantic priming

28. Is there any pure orthographic priming?

29. Not semantically related. (-S). Orthographic overlap (+O)
Not semantically related (-S) Orthographic overlap (+O) Phonological overlap (+P)
e.g. label LABOUR carnival CARNATION mature MATERIAL total TOTEM
Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 1.70
Semantic relatedness rating (7 pt scale): 1.71
Not semantically related (-S) Orthographic overlap (+O) No phonological overlap (-P)
e.g. saliva SALAD radar RADICAL river RIVAL capital CAPABLE

30. RTs 6 14
No pure orthographic effect

31. % Error
-4.0
-2.0
No pure orthographic effect

32. % Error
primed
control

33. vir
VIR AL
viral US
virus EL
label
labour
LAB
OUR

34. Priming comes from shared semantics BUT…
Simpler alternative:
VIRUS
VIRAL
LABEL
LABOUR
Priming comes from shared semantics BUT…

35. No pure semantic priming.
TIRED
FATIGUE

36. lab el faster to recognize than la bel (at least for better readers)
Also, there are experiments showing the BOSS to be a structural unit in the processing of words like LABEL.
e.g. Taft (2001, 2001)
lab el faster to recognize than la bel (at least for better readers)

37. CONCLUSIONS
Consistency between form and meaning determines the existence of lemmas. When a lemma is clear-cut, it is usually labeled as a “morpheme”, but that decision is arbitrary.
Words that share form and meaning are activated via the same lemma.
Words that share only form are activated via the same form unit.
Phonology is not involved in visual word recognition.

39. Maybe inhibitory links between competing lemmas:EL
label
labour
SEMANTICS
LAB
OUR
LEMMAS
ORTHOGRAPHY

40. Perhaps:
SEMANTICS
vir
VIR AL
LEMMAS
ORTHOGRAPHY
viral US
virus

41. Prior presentation of VIRUS
Predictions:
Prior presentation of VIRUS
virus
vir
VIR US

42. Prior presentation of VIRUS
Predictions:
Prior presentation of VIRUS
virus
viral
vir
VIR US

43. Prediction:
Prior presentation of VIRUS should facilitate lexical decision responses to VIRAL. AL
viral
viral
vir
vir
VIR
VIR

44. Prior presentation of LABEL
Prediction:
Prior presentation of LABEL
labour
label
LAB EL

45. Prediction:
Prior presentation of LABEL might not facilitate lexical decision responses to LABOUR.
labour
LAB
LAB
OUR