1. Dell, Juliano, & Govindjee, 1993; Caramazza, 1997; Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer, 1999). Current models of spoken word production often assume that morphology is represented in the output mechanisms, as an organization of interconnected morphological elements (Dell, Juliano, & Govindjee, 1993; Caramazza, 1997; Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer, 1999). Roelofs & Baayen, 2002). Recently, new experimental results strengthened this assumption (Pillon,1998; Roelofs & Baayen, 2002). Many Italian words (nouns, adjectives) are generated by derivational processes of suffixation. The derivational suffixes in the derived lexical forms may change the grammatical category of the base word. Nonetheless, the derived form is often transparently related for meaning to it (e.g., pulire (to clean, verb)  pulitura (cleaning, noun). Introduction

2. Issues: When derived words are to be produced, does the spoken production process imply the activation of both the base form and its grammatical category information? In languages like Italian, is the output in spoken word production also computed on the basis of a morphological organization of lexical knowledge? Morphological organization of spoken lexical output Relationship between the activation of base and derived words and their grammatical category information

3. Experiment 1 Method Procedure: Task: W.O.C. (Word Order Competition technique), (Baars & Motley, 1976; Pillon, 1998). W.O.C. is a tecnhique used to induce verbal slips, especially stranding exchange errors. Word pairs were presented on a video display. Participants had to read each pair silently. After the disappearance of the two words, they were replaced by an arrow, pointing either right or left. In the first case, participants had to say aloud the words from left to right. In the second case, they had to say the two words in the reverse order (from right to left). Participants had to repeat aloud the words as quickly as possible when the arrow appeared on the screen. The experimental target pairs were all followed by a leftward arrow and had to be repeated from right to left.

4. Procedure Details: Word pairs were presented in lowercase letters, on a PC video display. The 45 experimental trials were included in a list of 250 word pairs (subdivided in 5 blocks of 50), that were randomly presented to each participant. 125 word pairs were followed by a rightward arrow, the other 125 (including the 45 experimental pairs) were followed by a leftward arrow. Filler pairs were formed by combining simple words, suffixed words, prefixed words, poli- morphemic complex words. The sequence of events for each word pair was the following: (1) a warning tone lasting 250ms; (2) the exposure of a word pair for 600 ms.; (3) a 100 ms. blank; (4) the presentation of a horizontal arrow for 400 ms.; (5) a 1100 ms. blank interval preceding the successive trial. The participants’ responses were tape-recorded.

5. Materials: NN pulitura tubazione (tubatura) VN NN NN VN avvocatura attaccamento (attaccatura) NN VN VN C foraggio pompiere (pompaggio) Pseudosuff. Suffixed w. Suffixed w. Legenda: NN denominal nouns (e.g., avvocatura, advocacy, noun (from avvocato, advocate, noun); tubazione, pipeline, noun, tubatura, piping, noun (from tubo, pipe, noun)). VN deverbal nouns (e.g., pulitura, cleaning, noun (from pulire, to clean, verb);attaccamento, attachment, noun, attaccatura, junction, noun (from attaccare, to attach, verb )). Pseudosuffixed words: e.g. “foraggio” is a morphological simple word, ending with the ortographic sequence “aggio”, that is identical to a real italian suffix (e.g., dosaggio, dosage, is a real suffixed word). Suffixed words: (pompa, pump, pompaggio, pumping, pompiere, fireman) 45 pairs of nouns, 15 in each of the three condition: Cond. word 1 word 2 expected slip

6. NN (1) and VN (2) pairs are formed by a denominal noun and a deverbal noun (deadjectival noun in the 33% of the cases); Control pairs (3) are formed by a pseudosuffixed noun and a suffixed noun (deverbal or denominal, approximately the same number of times). On the basis of their phonological structure, all conditions may generate speech errors due to the exchange between the suffix of the second word and the final sequence (a suffix in NN and VN, a pseudosuffix in Control condition) of the first word. As to the expected errors, Condition NN should generate a denominal suffixed noun, while Condition VN should generate a deverbal suffixed noun (deadjectival noun in 33% of the cases). All word pairs, as well as the expected lexical slips, were controlled for written frequency and length (in letters, phonemes and syllables). Participants: 55 university students completed the experiment. They were all native speakers of Italian and their age ranged from 20 to 28 years.

7. Predictions: All types of word pairs are likely to strand single phonemes, group of phonemes or syllables. NN = VN = C 3)If the errors are elicited also by the activation of the base form with its grammatical category information: Participants strand more often the suffixes of suffixed words than the phonologically similar word- ending fragments of pseudosuffixed words. NN = VN > C When the same grammatical category is shared by a wrong derived word and its base, the production of the wrong word should be enhanced. NN > VN > C 2)If the errors raise also for the involvement of a morphological component: 1)If the errors are determined only by the phonological structure of the word stimuli:

8. Overall Results: Total observations: 2475 ( 55 participants X 45 targets) Total errors : 655 (26,5%) Errors NN : 231 (28%) Errors VN : 241 (29,2%) Errors C : 183 (22,2%)

9. Results: A two-way ANOVA was performed: Condition (NN; VN; C) X Type of error (phonological error; morphological error; morphological and phonological error)* ANOVAs by participants: Condition F(2,108) = 3.65, p <.029 Type of Error F(2,108) = 64.07, p <.0001 Interaction F(4,216) = 2.55, p <.04 POST HOC analysis: Condition: NN > C Type of error: Phon. C; NN > VN * Phonological errors: errors concerning single phonemes, groups of phonemes or syllables that do not correspond to possible morphemes. Morphological errors: both targets and errors correspond to real morphemes. Morphological and / or Phonological errors ( mixed errors ) : errors interpretable as both phonological and morphological (both targets and errors correspond to real morphemes and they share at least 50% of phonemes).

10. TABLE 1. Error Percentages in W.O.C. task Morphological structure of words affected significantly the likelihood of morphemic stranding exchanges. Speakers predominantly produced more exchange errors on suffixed word pairs than on the control condition. There was no strong evidence that derived words with nominal stems induced more errors than derived words with verbal or adjectival stems.

11. Experiment 2 Method Procedure: Task: Delayed Free Recall task Single word stimuli were auditorily presented to the participants. They had to memorize each word. At the end of a block, participants were presented with an interfering task (they had to perform two-digits multiplications for 1 minute). Then they had to produce all the words they could remember, in a free order. In Experiment 1, the derived words were produced on the basis of the input stimulus, probably relying on the information stored in a component of immediate memory for the output. In Experiment 2, we evaluated the production process of derived words when based on the recall from a longer-term memory store, more likely to involve lexical aspects of the word representations.

12. Procedure details: Words had been previously taped by a reader and were auditorily presented, by means of a Personal Computer. The interval between the onset of two successive words was fixed to 6 seconds. The list was composed by 90 words (40 experimental trials intermixed with 50 word fillers), organized into 5 blocks of 18 words each, and randomly presented to each participant. All the 90 trials were drawn from the pool of the experimental words of Experiment 1. Primacy and recency effects as well as proactive interference effects were avoided, as far as possible. Each experimental word appeared in the initial, central and final part of the list the same number of times, within 6 different random sequences. The interfering task aimed at avoiding the sub-vocalic rehearsal of the stimuli and the use of the phonological short term store in the recall phase. The participants’ responses were tape-recorded. Participants: 44 university students completed the experiment. They were all native speakers of Italian and their age ranged from 20 to 28 years.

13. Materials: 40 derived nouns, 20 in each of the two conditions: *deadjectival nouns in 25% of the cases. All derived words were controlled for written frequency, length (in letters, phonemes and syllables) and imageability. Predictions: If the information about the grammatical category of the base form is activated during the recovery of a derived word, we could expect more recalls (both correct and wrong) on derived words sharing the same grammatical category of their base. NN > VN NN* denominal nouns: e.g. tubazione Vs. VN deverbal nouns: e.g. pulitura

14. TABLE 1. Percentages of Correct Recalls Results: Correct recalls: One-way ANOVA by participants: Condition F(1,43) =6.18, p <.02 Morphological error percentages: NN ( 4,32%) = VN (2,95%) p = ns. In the free recall task, words derived from nouns were remembered better than words derived from verbs or adjectives, under conditions where semantic properties (e.g., imageability) of the target words were controlled for.

15. Conclusions Morphological organization of spoken lexical output The results obtained in Experiment 1 seem to show the involvment of the morphological structure of derived words in speech production processes The results obtained in Experiment 2 suggest that the production of derived words could entail the activation of the base form with its grammatical category information Relationship between the activation of base and derived words and their grammatical category information

16. References Baars, B.J., & Motley, M.T. (1976). Spoonerisms as a sequencer conflicts: Evidence from artificially elicited errors. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 467-484. Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14 (1), 177-208. Dell, G.S., Juliano, C., & Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17, 149-195. Levelt, J.M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75. Pillon, A.(1998). Morpheme units in speech production: Evidence from laboratory-induced verbal slips. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 465-498. Roelofs, A., & Baayen, H. (2002). Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (1), 132-138.