Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:39:22.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PROCESSING OF ENGLISH PREFIXED WORDS BY CHINESE-ENGLISH BILINGUALS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2019

Junmin Li  and
Marcus Taft
Junmin Li*
Affiliation:
Zhejiang University City College
Marcus Taft
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Junmin Li, School of Foreign Language, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study examined whether Chinese-English bilinguals showed morphological sensitivity toward prefixed words. In the experiment, English monolinguals showed masked priming effects in a Transparent condition (disagree-AGREE) and an Opaque condition (mischief-CHIEF), but not in a Form condition (stranger-ANGER). In contrast, bilinguals showed equivalent priming effects across the three conditions. Indeed, the difference between the magnitude of priming in the Form condition relative to that in the other two conditions was statistically smaller for the bilinguals than for the monolinguals. These findings suggest Chinese-English bilinguals are less sensitive to the morphological status of prefixes, compared with monolinguals.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 239 - 249
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

The research was supported by a grant from Zhejiang Philosophy and Social Science Fund (19NDJC184YB). The authors would like to thank editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york:936203.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0. Retrieved July 20, 2015; http://CRAN.R-project.org/package = lme4.Google Scholar
Beauvillain, C. (1994). Morphological structure in visual word recognition: Evidence from prefixed and suffixed words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvillain, C. (1996). The integration of morphological and whole-word form information during eye fixations on prefixed and suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 801–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyersmann, E., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2015). Differences in the processing of prefixes and suffixes revealed by a letter-search task. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyersmann, E., Cavalli, E., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2016). Embedded stem priming effects in prefixed and suffixed pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 220–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chateau, D., Knudsen, E. V., & Jared, D. (2002). Masked priming of prefixes and the influence of spelling–meaning consistency. Brain and Language, 81, 587–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Neubauer, K. (2010). Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and non-native speakers. Lingua, 120, 2627–2637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2005). Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unraveling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2009). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: The case of prefixed words. Memory and Cognition, 37, 895–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diependaele, K., Duñabeitia, J. A., Morris, J., & Keuleers, E. (2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diependaele, K., Morris, J., Serota, R. M., Bertrand, D., & Grainger, J. (2013). Breaking boundaries: Letter transpositions, and morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 988–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominguez, A., Alija, M., Rodriguez-Ferreiro, J., & Cuetos, F. (2010) The contribution of prefixes to morphological processing of Spanish words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 569–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2003). A supralexical model for French derivational morphology. In Assink, E. & Sandra, D. (Eds.), Reading complex words. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3720-2_7.Google Scholar
Grainger, J., & Beyersmann, E. (2017). Edge-aligned embedded word activation initiates morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 67, 285–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grauwe, S. D., Lemhöfer, K., Willems, R. M., & Schriefers, H. (2014). L2 speakers decompose morphologically complex verbs: fMRI evidence from priming of transparent derived verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 614–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyer, V., & Clahsen, H. (2015). Late bilinguals see a scan in scanner and in scandal: Dissecting formal overlap from morphological priming in the processing of derived words. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 18, 543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, G., Heyer, V., & Veríssimo, J. (2017). Aiming at the same target: A masked priming study directly comparing derivation and inflection in the second language. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 619–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. Y., Wang, M., & Taft, M. (2015). Morphological decomposition in the recognition of prefixed and suffixed words: Evidence from Korean. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkici, B., & Clahsen, H. (2013). Inflection and derivation in native and non-native language processing: Masked priming experiments on Turkish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 776–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Taft, M., & Xu, J. (2017). The processing of English derived words by Chinese-English bilinguals. Language Learning, 67, 858–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C.-M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 394–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J., Porter, J. H., Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2011). Effects of lexical status and morphological complexity in masked priming: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 558–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portin, M., Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2007). Processing of inflected nouns in late bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(1), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, X., & Forster, K. I. (2017). Is the L2 lexicon different from the L1 lexicon? Evidence from novel word lexicalization. Cognition, 158, 147–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971.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, 1090–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K.I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition, 7, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. Mental Lexicon, 1, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veríssimo, J, Heyer, V., Jacob, G., & Clahsen, H. (2018). Selective effects of age of acquisition on morphological priming: Evidence for a sensitive period. Language Acquisition, 25, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Li and Taft supplementary material

Li and Taft supplementary material
Download Li and Taft supplementary material(File)
File 17.8 KB