Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:36:49.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The processing of derivational morphology in Korean–English bilingual readers*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2011

SAY YOUNG KIM ,
MIN WANG  and
IN YEONG KO
SAY YOUNG KIM
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park
MIN WANG*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park
IN YEONG KO
Affiliation:
Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park
*
Address for correspondence: Min Wang, Department of Human Development, 3304C Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three experiments using a priming lexical decision paradigm were conducted to examine whether cross-language activation occurs via decomposition during the processing of derived words in Korean–English bilingual readers. In Experiment 1, when participants were given a real derived word and an interpretable derived pseudoword (i.e., illegal combination of a stem and a suffix) in Korean as a prime, response times for the corresponding English-translated stem were significantly faster than when they had received an unrelated word. In Experiment 2, non-morphological ending pseudowords (i.e., illegal combination of a stem and an orthographic ending) were included, and this did not show a priming effect. In Experiment 3, non-interpretable derived pseudowords also yielded a significant priming effect just as the interpretable ones. These results together suggest that cross-language activation of morphologically complex words occurs independently of lexicality and interpretability.

Keywords

derivational morphologydecompositionKorean–English bilingualismcross-language activation
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 473 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Footnotes

*

This work was supported in part by a Support Program for Advancing Research and Collaboration (SPARC) from the University of Maryland to the first author. We are grateful to Ken Forster for his valuable suggestions and comments on an early version of the paper. We thank Ton Dijkstra for his discussion on theoretical issues. Dr. Yan Jing Wu and two other, anonymous reviewers provided excellent reviews on this manuscript. We also thank Charles Mueller and Candise Y. Lin for their careful proofreading of an early version of the paper.

References

Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (1), 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2007). Differences in semantic and translation priming across languages: The role of language direction, age of acquisition, and language dominance. Memory and Cognition, 35 (5), 953–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M., Chen, H., Shu, H., Kostiç, A., & Feldman, L. B. (2007). Monolingual and bilingual recognition of regular and irregular English verbs: Does sensitivity to word form vary with language experience? Journal of Memory and Language, 57 (1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (2), 489–511.Google ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28 (3), 297–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., Sonnenstuhl, I., & Blevins, J. P. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological structure in language processing, pp. 125–155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, pp. 389–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (1), 90–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, J. T., Jamison, H. L., Matthews, P. M., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. National Academy of Sciences, 101 (41), 14984–14988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, Y., Gui, S., & McWhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8 (3), 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (7), 953–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10 (4), 680–698.Google Scholar
Gold, B. T., & Rastle, K. (2007). Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (2), 1983–1993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (5), 1122–1139.Google ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. L. (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual languages processing, pp. 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106 (1), 501–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., & Johnson, J. D. (2001). With great expectations, can two “wrongs” prime a “right”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27 (6), 1451–1463.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (1), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., & Forster, K. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (1), 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, Y.-S. (1990). Effects of concreteness on cross-language priming in lexical decisions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70 (3), 1139–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B., Starr, M., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, L. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions, and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94 (2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keatley, C. W., & de Gelder, B. (1992). The bilingual primed lexical decision task: Cross-language priming disappears with speeded responses. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4 (4), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keatley, C. W., Spinks, J. A., & de Gelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory and Cognition, 22 (1), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiran, S., & Lebel, K. R. (2007). Crosslinguistic semantic and translation priming in normal bilingual individuals and bilingual aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 21 (4), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korean Word Database (2001). 21st Century Seiong Project Corpus. Seoul: The National Institute of the Korean Language.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 169–199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of bilingual representation and processing: Looking back and to the future. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 531–553. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, G., & Jarema, G. (2004). Conceptions and questions concerning morphological processing. Brain and Language, 90 (1–3), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longtin, C.-M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53 (1), 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18 (3), 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP–Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50 (4), 940–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (2), 394–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Longtin, C.-M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56 (4), 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Masked associative/semantic priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 (4), 916–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. C., So, K.-F., von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23 (1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother's brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11 (6), 1090–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. B. (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, pp. 131–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,.Google Scholar
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masking priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11 (2), 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1996). Collins COBUILD English dictionary. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (3), 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition, 7 (4), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57 (4), 745–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M. (2006). A localist-cum-distributed (LCD) framework for lexical processing. In Andrews, S. M. (ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing, pp. 76–94. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon, 1 (2), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 14 (6), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Nguyen-Hoan, M. (2010). A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25 (2), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar