Retrieving stem meanings in opaque words during auditory lexical processing

References

• Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar (Vol. 1). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807
   Google Scholar
• Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7-8), 1159–1190. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802201010
   Google Scholar
• Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition, 125(1), 80–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using LME4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.05) [Computer program].
   Google Scholar
• Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992). Current morphology. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Creemers, A., Goodwin Davies, A., Wilder, R. J., Tamminga, M., & Embick, D. (2020). Opacity, transparency, and morphological priming: A study of prefixed verbs in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, Article ID: 104055. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., & Storms, G. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 480–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Norms for 1424 Dutch words in a continuous task. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 198–205. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., & Schriefers, H. (2019). Processing derived verbs: The role of motor-relatedness and type of morphological priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(8), 973–990. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1599129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den Besten, H. (1983). On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In W. Abrahams (Ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania (pp. 47–131). Rodopi. Reprinted in Hans den Besten. (1989). Studies in Westgermanic syntax [Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant].
   Google Scholar
• Embick, D. (2015). The morpheme: A theoretical introduction (Vol. 31). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
   Google Scholar
• Embick, D., Creemers, A., & Goodwin Davies, A. (in press). Morphology and the mental lexicon: Three questions about decomposition. In L. Gleitman, A. Papafragou, & J. Trueswell. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the mental lexicon. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, L. B., Soltano, E., Pastizzo, M., & Francis, S. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing? Brain and Language, 90(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00416-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruchter, J., & Marantz, A. (2015). Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the full decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 143, 81–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2004). Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun–noun compounds. Brain and Language, 90(1-3), 478–486. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00459-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2006). Using conceptual combination research to better understand novel compound words. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3(2), 9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes, H., Ritter, W., Tartter, V. C., Vaughan, H. G., Jr., & Rosen, J. J. (1997). Lexical processing of visually and auditorily presented nouns and verbs: Evidence from reaction time and N400 priming data. Cognitive Brain Research, 6(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(97)00023-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanique, I., Aalders, E., & Ernestus, M. (2013). How robust are exemplar effects in word comprehension? The Mental Lexicon, 8(3), 269–294. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ml
   Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785–813. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A. (2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models (R package version 2.0-32) [Computer software manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
   Google Scholar
• Marantz, A. (2013). No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 905–916. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.779385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marelli, M., & Luzzatti, C. (2012). Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 644–664. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1984). Function and process in spoken word recognition. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance x: Control of language processes (pp. 125–150). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., Briscoe, T., & Norris, D. (1995). Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(3-4), 309–331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milin, P., Smolka, E., & Feldman, L. B. (2018). Models of lexical access and morphological processing. In E. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 240–268). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 863–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.863
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neely, J. H. (2012). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading (pp. 272–344). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53(2), 146–193. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.03.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy – psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/089892906775250003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rastle, K., Davis, M., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4-5), 507–537. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rösler, F., Streb, J., & Haan, H. (2001). Event-related brain potentials evoked by verbs and nouns in a primed lexical decision task. Psychophysiology, 38(4), 694–703. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.2001.38.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schad, D. J., Vasishth, S., Hohenstein, S., & Kliegl, R. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, Article ID: 104038. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038
   Google Scholar
• Schreuder, R. (1990). Lexical processing of verbs with separable particles. In Yearbook of morphology (Vol. 3, pp. 65–79). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schreuder, R., Burani, C., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Parsing and semantic opacity. In Reading complex words: Cross-language studies (pp. 159–189). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Smolka, E. (2019). Aufhören (‘stop’) activates hören (‘hear’) but not musik (‘music’): The difference between lexical and semantic processing of German particle verbs. The Mental Lexicon, 14(2), 298–318. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ml
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolka, E., Gondan, M., & Rösler, F. (2015). Take a stand on understanding: Electrophysiological evidence for stem access in German complex verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article ID: 62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolka, E., Komlosi, S., & Rösler, F. (2009). When semantics means less than morphology: The processing of German prefixed verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(3), 337–375. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802075497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolka, E., Libben, G., & Dressler, W. U. (2019). When morphological structure overrides meaning: Evidence from German prefix and particle verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(5), 599–614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1552006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smolka, E., Preller, K. H., & Eulitz, C. (2014). ‘Verstehen’ (‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’ (‘stand’): Morphological structure overrides semantic compositionality in the lexical representation of German complex verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 16–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L. (2014). Relational diversity affects ease of processing even for opaque English compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 9(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ml
   Google Scholar
• Stockall, L., & Marantz, A. (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1(1), 85–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ml
   Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(4), 745–765. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638–647. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X
   Google Scholar
• Vroomen, J., & De Gelder, B. (1997). Activation of embedded words in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 710–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, Y., Tamminga, M., & Embick, D. (2020). Meaning relatedness and strategic effects in auditory semantic priming (Ms., University of Pennsylvania).
   Google Scholar
• Wilder, R. J., Goodwin Davies, A., & Embick, D. (2019). Differences between morphological and repetition priming in auditory lexical decision: Implications for decompositional models. Cortex, 116, 122–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wurm, L. H. (2000). Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 255–271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., & Samuel, A. G. (2015). The activation of embedded words in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 79–80, 53–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwitserlood, P. (2018). Processing and representation of morphological complexity in native language comprehension and production. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words (pp. 583–602). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zwitserlood, P., Bolwiender, A., & Drews, E. (2005). Priming morphologically complex verbs by sentence contexts: Effects of semantic transparency and ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1-2), 395–415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwitserlood, P., Drews, E., Bolwiender, A., & Neuwinger, E. (1996). Kann man Geschenke umbringen? In S. Felix, S. Kanngießer, & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Perspektiven der kognitiven linguistik (pp. 211–232). Springer.
   Google Scholar