Lexical Access Routes to Nouns in a Morphologically Rich Language

vfcBpc

Journal of Memory and Language40, 109–135 (1999)Article ID jmla.1998.2615, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Lexical Access Routes to Nouns in a Morphologically Rich Language

Matti Laine, Seppo Vainio, and Jukka Hyo¨na

University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Most current morphological processing models postulate two lexical access routes, full form andmorpheme-based. We explored the nature of the morpheme-based route and its relation to thefull-form route by studying recognition of written Finnish nouns. True case-inflection elicited aprocessing cost, confirming that such forms are recognized via the more demanding morpheme-basedroute. A processing cost was also observed for morphologically ambiguous nouns (BEARING versusBEAR1ING) and for pseudoambiguous nouns (PUNISH versus PUN(1)ISH). Neither pseudoin-flections (BIA(1)S) nor embedded word-initial pseudostems (PET(1)ROL) evidenced processingcosts. Our results suggest when the full form route is active, simultaneous activation of themorpheme-based route requires an opportunity for parsing the input string into a stem and a suffix.The pseudoambiguity effect suggests that the morpheme-based route does not test the morphopho-nological legality of the parsed string. The processing cost associated with morphologically ambig-uous and pseudoambiguous nouns indicates that the relationship between the two routes isinhibitory. © 1999 Academic Press

Key Words:morphology; lexical access; inflection; mental lexicon.

ivendea

ethe.g.or-erro

p seda ordr er,1 88;F ine& -m ored esa

uts tions usa asa no-m herh seda rmt entm gh toe enti tesf op-p ean-i fullf

e-

y thtore-Huonipaal

co-for

entsen

ionsousionom

.Maof@

Word recognition is a remarkable cognitability: an adult can recognize tens of thousaof lexical items, even though they often appin different forms (e.g., view, view1s,iew1ing, view1er, pre1view). How are thesorms recognized? Early models suggestedould be recognized either as full forms (eutterworth, 1983) or on the basis of their mhemes (e.g., Taft & Forster, 1975). Howevurrent morphological processing models p

The research reported in this paper was supported bAcademy of Finland (Grant 27774, principal investigaMatti Laine) and by an MCRI (Major Collaborative Rsearch Initiative) grant from the Social Sciences andmanities Research Council of Canada awarded to GJarema (Universite de Montreal), director and co-princinvestigator; Eva Kehayia (McGill University), co-principinvestigator; and Gary Libben (University of Alberta),principal investigator. We are grateful for Marcus Taftinformation about his original pseudoinflection experimand for Harald Baayen, Raymond Bertram, Gary LibbJussi Niemi, and Robert Schreuder for helpful discussDavid Balota, Arthur Samuel, Marcus Taft, and anonymreviewers provided valuable comments on earlier versof this paper. Fred Karlsson and the Turun Sanomat Cpany kindly provided us the corpora of written Finnish

Address correspondence and reprint requests toLaine, Department of Neurology (720), UniversityTurku, FIN-20520 Turku, Finland. E-mail: matti.laine

tutu.fi.

109

sr

y,

,-

ose that both access routes—full form band morpheme-based—are available for wecognition (see Baayen, Dijkstra & Schreud997; Caramazza, Laudanna & Romani, 19rauenfelder & Schreuder, 1992; Niemi, LaTuominen, 1994; Wurm, 1997). It is comonly assumed that the latter route is memanding, requiring longer recognition timnd being more susceptible to errors.Full-form recognition requires the inp

tring to have a corresponding representatored in the input lexicon. This route is thvailable only for a word form that is storedsingle entity. Prime examples would be moorphemic (base form) words. On the otand, a typical candidate for morpheme-baccess would be a polymorphemic word fo

hat is not very frequent but contains constituorphemes that have appeared often enounable their storage. Medium-to-low frequ

nflectional forms would be prime candidaor morpheme-based access. Inflection, asosed to derivation, does not change the m

ng of the stem, and thus would not requireorm storage.

If the full-form route requires a match b

e

-ial

,.

s-

tti

ween the input string and the access represen-

0749-596X/99 $30.00Copyright © 1999 by Academic Press

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

onateplicer

ings or,af

de.n-ncis

cela &oniliaionot

blet b

tifysesibor-ing

d-n-

calplollydi-

75s ac ithb eie onw -l freq Ta te( xedw

o ofi is).T icala ultya realw S)s diese er-i alp ffixs antf forr

byT ed.F ectsm icald an( ectsa theo eri-m ht,1 thep askw on,t ella-t ntsd xedw lyp entl gica ec-o is-t a ofD yen( om-m efixs eli-a d tot 94)d ionm ther xeda icalo ndp theya yn-t em,

110 LAINE, VAINIO, AND HYO NA

tation, how much morphemic informatishould be included in the input string to activthe morpheme-based route? Models that exitly address this issue suggest that the mpresence of an affix or an affix-like letter strwould be enough to cause discernible effectword recognition (Taft, 1994; Taft & Forste1975). According to this view, even a pseudofix (e.g., the final -S in LENS) can impelexical access due to faulty affix recognition

Lexical decision studies focusing on noword targets support the view that the preseof an embedded stem or affix in a nonwordenough to activate the morpheme-based acroute (e.g., Caramazza et al., 1988; JarvelWennstedt, 1993; Laine, 1996). However, nword results are necessarily based on unfamstimuli. Moreover, they represent a situatwhere the full-form recognition route cannparticipate in word recognition. Thus, possiinteractions between the two routes cannoobserved.

In the present study, we aimed to idenconditions under which the morpheme-baaccess route is activated, and to trace posinteractions of the full form versus the mpheme-based recognition route by employreal, familiar word forms as stimuli. Accoringly, this study can shed light on the costraints of morphological processing in lexiaccess. Throughout the experiments, we emnominal case-inflection in a morphologicarich language, Finnish, which is a prime candate for morphological decomposition.

ACTIVATION OF THE MORPHEME-BASED ACCESS ROUTE: EARLIER

EVIDENCE

The seminal study by Taft and Forster (19earched for evidence of morpheme-basedess by visual lexical decision experiments wound stems of prefixed English words. Thssential finding was that bound stems in nords (e.g., *JUVENATE, *DISWHELM) de

ayed negative decisions while bound stemuencies of ambiguous stems (e.g., VENffected positive decisions. Taft and Fors1975) proposed that lexical access of affi
ords is preceded by an automatic prelexicat
-e

n

-

e

ss

-r

e

dle

y

)c-

r-

-)r

peration where an affixed word is strippedts affixes (the prelexical parsing hypotheshe stem is then used as the entry for lexccess. This model predicts that due to fautomatic parsing, even pseudoaffixes inords (e.g., RE- in REPERTOIRE, -S in BIAhould delay lexical access. Subsequent stumploying real words with pseudoprefixes, d

vational pseudosuffixes, and inflectionseudosuffixes appeared to limit prelexical atripping to prefixes and, particularly relevor the present study, inflectional suffixes (eviews, see Taft, 1988, 1991).

The affix-stripping procedure proposedaft and Forster (1975) has been criticizirst, there is some evidence that the effay be task and/or strategy related. The lexecision results of Rubin, Becker, and Freem1979) suggested that pseudoprefixation effre under strategic control and depend onccurrence of prefixed nonwords in an expent (see also Henderson, Wallis & Knig984). However, Taft (1981) demonstratedseudoprefixation effect in a word naming then nonwords were eliminated. In additi

he effect has been observed in letter cancion (Smith & Sterling, 1982), eye movemeuring sentence reading (with pseudoprefiords eliciting longer first fixations than trurefixed words; Lima, 1987), and in a rec

exical decision study with controls for stratend orthographic effects (Pillon, 1998). A snd line of criticism comes from lexical stat

ics. Based on analyses of extensive corporutch and English, Schreuder and Baa

1994) argued that pseudoprefixation is so con in these languages that obligatory pr

tripping would be a hindrance to fast and rble lexical access. Due to problems relate

he prelexical parsing hypothesis, Taft (19iscarded it in his recent interactive activatodel. However, he still maintained that

ecognition delays elicited by pseudoprefind pseudoinflected words are of morphologrigin. As regards inflectional suffixes aseudosuffixes, Taft (1994) suggested thatre automatically parsed off and fed into a s

actic module separate from the lexical syst
lhereby delaying lexical access.

e-isioysal

ar-eartia,

an.g.g

fixc-

te-

b ot?o rmr thw y ai tra& der1 thp

h, ip o-l llyr tew so ando on1 mb ses n-v ofc thw

ss

/o

de-on,

ofbleentandl ac-

ctedx-tesed),

ityand

ad-ave

nput4).esofhe-the

unsde-the

our

ingofachr as

ic-&forosting

both

.g.,

rvedfixtri-

111LEXICAL ACCESS ROUTES TO NOUNS

Another line of evidence for a morphembased access route comes from lexical decstudies focusing solely on nonwords. By stematically manipulating the morphologicstructure of nonword targets in Italian, Camazza et al. (1988) noted a stepwise incrin processing demands: nonwords with pamorphological structure (e.g., *LINKTO*DRODING) were more demanding thmor phologically nondecomposable (e*DROMAR) nonwords. Nonwords consistinof an (illegal) combination of stem plus suf(e.g., *MEAT(1)ED) yielded the longest reaion times and highest error rates.

All in all, there is evidence for morphemased access but its nature (prelexical or nrganization, and relationship to the full fooute remain open. It has been assumedhen both access routes are available, the

ndependently and in parallel (Baayen, DijsSchreuder, 1997; Frauenfelder & Schreu

992). These questions will be examined inresent study.

CENTRAL FEATURES OF FINNISHNOMINAL INFLECTION ANDTHEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR

MORPHOLOGICAL PARSING

The language of the present study, Finnisarticularly suitable for the study of morph

ogical parsing. Finnish is a morphologicaich language with fusional features associaith affixation. Its inflectional system yieldver 2000 possible forms for each nounver 10,000 forms for each verb (Karlss983). Finnish nouns may be marked for nuer, case (about 13 in active use), and posion. In addition, so-called clitic particles, coeying certain pragmatic aspectsommunication, can be added to the end oford (e.g., AUTO1I1SSA1MME1KIN

“car” 1 “s” (plural marker) 1 “in” (inessivecase) 1 “our” (possessive suffix)1 “even”(clitic particle), meaning “even in our cars”). Aregards fusionality, many affixed word formundergo morphophonological variation andstem formation (compare, e.g., AUTO3AUTO1SSA versus ILVES “lynx” 3

¨
ILVEKSE1SSA). However, these changes are
n-

sel

,

),

atct,,e

s

d

,-s-

e

r

in most cases predictable and they can bescribed by a complex system of rules (Karlss1983).

In such a language, morphological parsingpolymorphemic words appears more viathan, for example, in English. Indeed, recexperimental evidence from both normalsaphasics suggests morpheme-based lexicacess for case-inflected Finnish nouns: infleitems elicited longer first fixations, slower leical decision latencies, and higher error rathan comparable monomorphemic (or derivnouns (Hyo¨na, Laine, & Niemi, 1995; LaineNiemi, Koivuselka-Sallinen, Ahlse´n, & Hyona,1994; Laine, Niemi, Koivuselka¨-Sallinen, &Hyona, 1995; Niemi et al., 1994). Fusionalhas not been shown to affect the speedaccuracy of recognition of inflected forms, leing to the hypothesis that the stem variants hindependent representations at the visual ilexicon (Laine et al., 1994; Niemi et al., 199All in all, the Finnish nominal system provida good opportunity to study the functioningthe two access routes in detail. Monomorpmic nouns (assumed to be recognized viafaster full form route) and case-inflected no(assumed to be recognized via the moremanding morpheme-based route) providepoints of comparison to the processing ofcritical target items.

One approach to the morphological parsissue is to examine its feasibility in lightlexical statistics. As noted earlier, this approhas provided rather unfavorable results as faobligatory prefix stripping in Dutch and partularly in English is concerned (SchreuderBaayen, 1994). To obtain comparable dataFinnish, we analyzed the frequencies of mFinnish case inflections and their correspondpseudosuffixes. All case endings appearas real (e.g., elative case form AUTO1STA“car1from”; essive case form PO¨ YTA1NA“table1as”) and as pseudosuffixes (eNA(1)STA “tack”; KAMII( 1)NA “stove”). Ifpseudoaffixation rates were high as obsewith many English prefixes, obligatory sufstripping would be ineffective or even demental to lexical access in Finnish.

The morphologically disambiguated database

isen

ueensesur-ngbleogaticig-onhordbred

ome oison-se

ec-haurtion

in a

ntof anschre-cti-Taft,edt astrol

me-i etct-inghattherate

or anal

edcar-al

ofouns-ec-ding

.g.,

-par-

ol-of

malical

tnedim-

d ion

)


we employed is an unpublished computercorpus of written Finnish with about 1.2 millioword tokens.1 Table 1 shows the number of trword-final case-inflected word types or tokdivided by the total number of word typ(unique word forms) or tokens (word occrences) ending with that particular letter striThe only additional criterion is that the possistem is at least two letters long. As morpholical disambiguation performed by an automparser was not totally complete (full disambuation would require contextual analysis; csider, e.g., the word form KALASTA whiccould be either the elative case form of the wKALA “fish” or the imperative form of the ver“to fish”), the figures should not be consideexact values.

Our data indicate that as far as Finnish ninal inflection is concerned, the success ratstraightforward obligatory suffix strippinggenerally relatively high, although there is csiderable variability between different caforms. Thus, obligatory stripping of case infltions would be more reasonable in Finnish tfor example prefix stripping in English. Olexical statistics indicate that pseudosuffixa

1 This corpus is from a contemporary magazine, anwas kindly provided to us by Professor Fred Karlss

TABLE 1

Parsing Success of Finnish Case Endings:A Lexical Statistical Analysis

Case

Proportion oftrue inflectedforms (types)

Proportion oftrue inflected

forms (tokens

Genetive .48 .44Partitive .54 .45Essive .92 .69Translative .97 .72Inessive .99 .95Elative .72 .64Illative .49 .43Adessive .94 .84Ablative .89 .83Allative .99 .98Abessive .21 .17

University of Helsinki.

d

.

-

-

-f

n

effects, if they exist, should be observablelanguage like Finnish.

EXPERIMENT 1

The first visual lexical decision experimewas designed to test whether the presencepseudoinflection in monomorphemic nou(e.g., -S in BIAS) hinders lexical decision. Suan effect would indicate that pseudosuffixessembling case inflections are sufficient to avate the morpheme-based access route (1988; 1994). If this is true, pseudosuffixwords should show a similar processing cosotherwise comparable case-inflected conwords that presumably undergo morphebased access (Laine & Koivisto, 1998; Niemal., 1994). Here also nonword targets (“infleed” versus “monomorphemic”) are interestas a relative delay in refuting a nonword tcarries a case inflection provides support forassumption that those suffixes have sepaaccess representations (see Laine, 1996, fearlier study in Finnish). Accordingly, the reword targets in Experiment 1 includpseudosuffixed nominative singular nouns (rying a word-final letter string similar to a recase inflection, e.g., IKKU(1)NA “window”where nonmorphemic -NA is a homographthe essive case ending), case-inflected n(e.g., VANKI1NA “prisoner1as”), and nominative singular nouns carrying no pseudoinfltions (e.g., MITALI “medal”). The nonwortargets either carried an inflectional end(e.g., *VAMI1LTA where LTA is the ablativecase marker) or were nonmorphemic (e*NOLTINKA).

Method

Participants. Twenty-one university students, 10 females and 11 males, served asticipants. The participants in this and the flowing experiments were native speakersFinnish and had normal or corrected-to-norvision. None of them reported any neurologillness.

Apparatus and procedure.The experimenwas run with a PC using a specially desigreaction time program which synchronized stt,
ulus presentation with the raster beam. The par-

ccurinreinttimme

umin

ndestheticrde

etso op larT asi ndp ed

dExrm).

unsmiconfrebas),Frs o-rc

ofas

cre-toish

iedeingf-ter4tters.g.,

m

s zedc gets hes

R

ectr threes eanl gesf ataa longR ager t ex-p

ine

. ifi-c fort ici-p ,

-,

rkessivtat

ffix

cteotenoof

95)weitia

ghlyt ao

ean-g on


ticipants were to decide as quickly and as arately as possible whether a letter string appeaat the center of a computer screen was aFinnish word. A centrally presented fixation po(asterisk) preceded each stimulus. Exposurefor the fixation point was 500 ms and the tiinterval between the fixation point and the stimlus was 1000 ms. Timeout took place 2000after stimulus onset. All stimuli were presentedwhite lowercase letters on a dark backgrouParticipants were run individually and the tstimuli were preceded by 30 practice trials. Inpresent and the following experiments, all paripants saw all stimuli and the presentation owas randomized individually.

Word stimuli.We devised three 20-item sf words (see Appendix 1). Type 1 consistedseudoinflected nouns in nominative singuhe pseudosuffixes corresponded to three c

nflections: elative (-STA), essive (-NA), aartitive (-A).2 Type 2 included case-inflect

nouns with the same three case endings anthe same proportions as in Type 1. In thisperiment, the stems of all case-inflected fowere in nominative singular (i.e., base form3

Type 3 contained nominative singular nocarrying no pseudoinflections (monomorphecontrol words).4 The three sets were matchedaverage length in letters, average lemmaquency (source: Saukkonen et al., 1979) dataincluding approximately 400 000 word tokenaverage surface frequency (source: ProfessorKarlsson’s unpublished computerized corpuwritten Finnish including 1.2 million word tokens), and average bigram frequency (sou

2 Note that even though the partitive -A case maappears to be embedded in both elative -STA and e-NA case markers, phonological restrictions of Finnish sthat the final -A in -NA or -STA (or in any other case suending with -A) cannot be a marker for partitive.

3 In subsequent experiments, part of the case-infleitems had non-nominative stem forms. However, as nearlier, previous systematic studies in Finnish haverevealed any effects of fusionality in the recognitioncase-inflected items (Niemi et al., 1994; Laine et al., 19

4 Due to length requirements, some items in this asas other similar sets were lexicalized derivations. Our inword recognition experiments indicated that even hiproductive derivational forms are recognized as fasmonomorphemic nouns during lexical access (Hy¨na,
Laine, & Niemi, 1995).
-gal

e

-s

.t

-r

f.e-

in-s

-se

edf

e:

Mikkonen, 1972) (Table 2).5 In addition to the60 target stimuli, another set of 60 wordsvarying length and morphological structure wincluded as fillers (see Appendix 2).

Nonword stimuli.We employed two 20-itemsets designed by Laine (1996). They wereated from existing nouns by changing onethree letters so that phonotactic rules of Finnwere not violated. In Type 4, nonwords carrthe inflectional suffix -LTAwhich is one of thtwo surface forms of the ablative case end(e.g., *NELA1LTA). Type 5 included nonafixed nonwords, all ending in the three-letsequence -NKA (e.g., *KAVINKA). Typesand 5 were matched by average length in le(7.45 for both sets), average “stem” (eNELA in *NELA LTA and KAVI in*KAVINKA) bigram frequency (120 for Type4, 122 for Type 5), and by word-final trigrafrequency (1993 for both -LTA¨ and -NKA;ource: Karlsson’s unpublished computeriorpus). In addition to the 40 nonword tartimuli, 80 nonword fillers were included in ttimulus set (see Appendix 2).

esults

In this and the following experiments, incorresponses and reaction times longer thantandard deviations above the individual matency were replaced by the individual averaor the corresponding conditions prior to dnalysis. The rates for errors and replacedTs were 3.2 and 0.6%, respectively. Aver

eaction times and error rates for the preseneriment are reported in Table 3.Word results.In the RT analysis, the ma

ffect of stimulus type was significant [F1(2,40)5 36.95,p , .0001; F 2(2,57) 5 30.86,p ,0001]. Pairwise comparisons indicated signantly longer RTs for the case-inflected thanhe monomorphemic control words [by-partant, F(1,20) 5 60.47, p , .0001; by-item

t(57) 5 6.71, p , .0001] or for the pseudoinflected words [by-participant,F(1,20)5 46.76p , .0001; by-item,t(57)5 26.25,p , .0001].

re

e

ddt

.lll

s 5 Bigram frequencies are based on absolute values, ming that their values across experiments vary dependin
the corpus employed.

tro

tif-

i ,pc eme no-m1. nt,F3 sus

ch

n-ig-ic

-ct

n-ed

rcureaonisall. Osoc

alier

t, actthecialan79,ri-

40,ffix.testec-

ighldichnt.ow

e

)))

)

)


Pseudoinflected and monomorphemic conwords did not differ from each other (bothF and

, 1).The main effect of stimulus type was sign

cant in the error analysis [F1(2,40) 5 16.60, .0001;F 2(2,57)5 6.94,p , .01]. Pairwiseomparisons showed that case-inflected itlicited significantly more errors than the moorphemic items [by-participant,F(1,20) 5

8.18,p , .0001; by-item,t(57) 5 3.31, p ,01] or pseudoinflected items [by-participa(1,20) 5 21.75,p 5 .0001; by-item,t(57) 5.14,p , .01], whereas monomorphemic ver

pseudoinflected items did not differ from eaother (bothF and t , 1).

Nonword results.Decision latencies for nowords carrying an inflectional ending were snificantly longer than those for nonmorphemnonwords [F1(1,20) 5 21.46, p , .001;F 2(1,38)5 13.15,p , .001]. One-way ANOVAs for errors showed a significant effe[F1(1,20) 5 27.04, p , .0001; F 2(1,38) 58.21, p , .01], indicating that suffixed nowords elicited more errors than nonsuffixnonwords.

Discussion

As expected, the results revealed a cleaprocessing cost of case inflection, both withwords and with nonwords. These findings cfirm the assumption that case-inflected Finnnouns are recognised via the computationdemanding morpheme-based access routethe other hand, no processing cost was asated with monomorphemic nouns carryingpseudoinflection. This does not fit with ear

TAB

Item Characteristic

Pseudoinflected

Lemma frequency 65 (73)Surface frequency 17 (20)Length (in letters) 6.8 (0.9)Bigram frequency 156 (56)

Note.Means (standard deviations).

claims (Taft, 1988, 1994) and suggests tha

l

s

tl-hyni-

when a full-form representation is presensuffix-like unit alone is not enough to affelexical access. However, it is possible thatpseudoinflection effect is present under specircumstances, such as when most stimuli inexperiment are inflected (see Rubin et al., 19for such a strategic effect). In the first expement, a bit less than half of the stimuli (110/246%) carried a case-inflection or a pseudosuThe second experiment was designed towhether strategic factors play a role in the rognition of pseudoinflected words.

EXPERIMENT 2

In this experiment, we tested whether a hratio of stimuli carrying a case inflection woubring about the pseudoinflection effect whwe failed to observe in the first experimeRubin et al. (1979) used this method to sh

2

Experiments 1 and 2

Inflected Monomorphemic

71 (58) 59 (64)10 (14) 13 (11)

6.9 (0.8) 6.8 (0.7)145 (36) 142 (41)

TABLE 3

Average Decision Latencies and Error Ratesfor Targets in Experiment 1

Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentag

(SD)

Real wordsPseudoinflected 671 (131) 1.2 (2.2Inflected 771 (161) 5.7 (4.6Monomorphemic 665 (138) 1.0 (2.0

NonwordsNonsuffixed

nonwords 841 (189) 1.0 (2.0Case-inflected

nonwords 906 (220) 7.1 (5.1

LE

s in

t

andtro

-d pat x-p ma 1.

rdsa ns2 phem ulic 20c . Inc nys oa

R

Tw act ares

u-l

P e-infl ci-s trow

on

lussis

y

tedrorsnt,

se-nif-y-

,ndch

ef-asedor-u-

s didmiculiblewas

tedEx-nt.wasrduldwithalsoameaseshanve

uldese

end-ed.not

ised

e

)))


that the prefixation effects observed by TaftForster (1975) might be under strategic con

Method

Participants. Twenty-three university stuents, 15 females and 8 males, served as

icipants. None of them had participated in Eeriment 1. They were tested with the sapparatus and procedure as in ExperimentStimuli.We employed the same target wo

s in Experiment 1: 20 pseudoinflected nou0 case-inflected nouns, and 20 monomoric control nouns. The rest of the 240 stim

onsisted of words (60) and nonwords (1arrying a case-inflection (see Appendix 2)omparison to Experiment 1, twice as matimuli (220/240, 92%) had a case-inflectionpseudosuffix.

esults

The rates for errors and replaced long Rere 2.2 and 0.2%, respectively. Average re

ion times and errors to the word targetshown in Table 4.In the RT analysis, the main effect of stim

us type was statistically significant [F1(2,44)517.53,p , .0001;F 2(2,57)5 4.20,p , .05].

airwise comparisons showed that the casected items elicited significantly longer deion latencies than the monomorphemic conords [by-participant,F(1,22) 5 26.56, p ,

.0001; by-item,t(57) 5 2.76, p , .01] or thepseudoinflected words [by-participant,F(1,22)5 19.78,p , .001; by-item,t(57) 5 2.15,p ,.05]. Pseudoinflected and monomorphemic ctrol words did not differ [by-participant,F(1,22)

TABLE 4


Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentag

(SD)

Pseudoinflected 661 (99) 2.0 (3.3Inflected 697 (113) 3.7 (5.7Monomorphemic 650 (89) 1.1 (2.6

5 2.20,p . .1; by-item,t , 1].

l.

r-

e

,-

)

r

s-

-

l

-

As regards errors, the main effect of stimutype was significant in the participant analy[F1(2,44) 5 3.95, p , .05] and marginallsignificant in the item analysis [F 2(2,57) 52.86,p 5 .07]. Pairwise comparisons indicathat case-inflected items elicited more erthan monomorphemic items [by-participaF(1,22)5 4.97,p , .05; by-item,t(57) 5 2.35,p , .05]. The comparison between cainflected and pseudoinflected items was sigicant in the by-participant analysis only [bparticipant,F(1,22) 5 4.63, p , .05; by-itemt(57) 5 1.56,p . .1]. The pseudoinflected amonomorphemic items did not differ from eaother [F(1,22)5 2.64,p . .1; by-item,t , 1].

Discussion

The results suggest that pseudoinflectionfects are absent even when morpheme-banalysis is encouraged by a high rate of mphologically decomposable items in the stimlus set. Responses to pseudosuffixed wordnot differ from responses to monomorphecontrol words even though most of the stimcarried a case inflection. In contrast, a reliaprocessing cost for case-inflected nounsobserved, replicating Experiment 1.

The RT difference between case-inflecand non-affixed nouns was smaller than inperiment 1 but remained statistically significaThis suggests a strategic component whichable to facilitate recognition of inflected woforms in Experiment 2 but nevertheless conot override the processing cost associatedthe morpheme-based access route. It ispossible that repeated presentation of the scase endings (in Experiment 2, the target cappeared more often in the nonword fillers tin Experiment 1, see Appendix 2) could hacaused some repetition priming which wotemporarily enhance the recognition of thinflectional forms.

EXPERIMENT 3

In Experiments 1 and 2, the same caseings (elative, essive, partitive) were employTo ensure that the results obtained werespecific to those case inflections, we dev
new sets of stimuli with pseudoinflected and

ivee owa

3tictheth

ntenin

demethinroxper

reedlaras),

e 2m

tionivenoerragal

prorpuncyion

rerd

ry-

Tsac-are

u-

ec Tsf no-m2. ar-t ,t ort them anti heb4

e

)))


case-inflected nouns carrying genitive, inessabessive, and translative endings. The ratinflected items in the present experiment39% (see Appendix 2).

Method

Participants.Twenty university students, 1females and 7 males, were enrolled as parpants. None of them had participated inprevious experiments. The apparatus andprocedure were the same as in Experimewith the exception that in this and subsequexperiments, all stimulus words were writtencapitals as some proper nouns were incluExperiments 3 and 5 were run with the saparticipants in a counterbalanced design wia single test session. There was an appmately three-minute pause between the exments.

Stimuli. Three 20-item sets of words wedevised (see Appendix 1). Type 1 includpseudoinflected nouns in nominative singuThe pseudosuffixes corresponded to four cinflections: genitive (-N), inessive (-SSAabessive (-TTA), and translative (-KSI). Typincluded case-inflected nouns with the sathree case endings and in the same proporas in Type 1. Type 3 contained nominatsingular nouns with no pseudosuffixes (momorphemic control words). The three sets wcomparable in average length in letters, avelemma frequency (source: Saukkonen et1979), average surface frequency, (source:Fred Karlsson’s unpublished computerized coof written Finnish), and average bigram freque(source: Mikkonen, 1972) (Table 5). In addit

TAB

Item Characteri

Pseudoinflected

Lemma frequency 37 (38)Surface frequency 6.2 (4.5)Length (in letters) 6.4 (1.2)Bigram frequency 190 (38)


to the 60 target stimuli, another set of 60 words

,f

s

i-

e1t

d.

i-i-

.e-

es

-ee.,f.s

of varying length and morphological structuwas included as fillers. A total of 120 nonwofillers were included as well, 57 of them caring a case inflection (see Appendix 2).

Results

The rates for errors and replaced long Rwere 2.3 and 0.6%, respectively. Average retion times and errors to the word targetsreported in Table 6.

In the RT analysis, the main effect of stimlus type was significant [F1(2,38)5 29.39,p ,.0001;F 2(2,57)5 11.15,p 5 .0001]. Pairwisomparisons showed significantly longer Ror the case-inflected words than for the moorphemic words [by-participant,F(1,19) 59.19,p , .0001; by-item,t(57) 5 3.33, p ,

01] or for the pseudoinflected words [by-picipant, F(1,19) 5 51.99,p , .0001; by-item(57)5 4.56,p , .0001]. The RT advantage fhe pseudoinflected items as compared toonomorphemic items was almost signific

n the by-participant analysis but not in ty-item analysis [by-participant,F(1,19) 5.25,p 5 .053; by-item,t(57) 5 1.23,p . .1].

5

s in Experiment 3


49 (52) 32 (25)5.4 (5.2) 5.7 (4.7)

6.8 (0.8) 6.4 (1.0)171 (47) 172 (31)

TABLE 6


Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentag

(SD)

Pseudoinflected 608 (102) 2.5 (3.8Inflected 673 (103) 3.5 (5.4Monomorphemic 625 (116) 1.3 (2.2

LE

stic

ot

D

s oE thec ctef on,w ef mc exp d aa he-m thep tow thes Exp blt onw tog onw ionw doi

het inm unc cesr ghtp .g.,B 4)a es( hta suffi 9)r

ot

therof aYng.

-ted.

ousdure

releerarein

alre

ethemathenot

seencen thetedtive.unso-s).


The main effect of stimulus type was nsignificant in the error analysis [F1(2,38) 51.61,p . .1; F 2(2,57)5 2.00,p . .1].

iscussion

The present results show that the resultxperiments 1 and 2 were not specific toase endings employed. Instead, case-infleorms consistently impede lexical decisihereas pseudoinflection does not exert an

ect when compared to monomorphemic itearrying no pseudosuffixes. (In the presenteriment, the pseudoinflected items showelmost significant difference to monomorpic words but that was present only inarticipant analysis and the tendency wasard shorter, not longer, decision time.) Atame time, the nonword results obtained ineriment 1 showed that pseudoinflection is a

o affect recognition when attached to a nord stem (see also Laine, 1996). Takenether, the present results with words and nords suggest that a full-form representathen available, overrides any effects of pseu

nflection.In the next experiment, we studied whet

he presence of a word-initial pseudostemonomorphemic (nominative singular) no

ould activate the morpheme-based acoute. Considering the evidence for left-to-rirocessing in visual word recognition (eergman, Hudson & Eling, 1988; Taft, 199nd the importance of the stem in lexical accTaft, 1988), a word-initial pseudostem migffect word recognition even though pseudoxation failed to do so. Indeed, Taft (197

TAB

Item Characteri

Stem-embedded



eported a recognition delay for such forms in

f

d

f-s-n

-

-e---,-

ra

s

s

-

English. However, Andrews (1986) could nreplicate that finding.

EXPERIMENT 4

In the present experiment, we tested whea pseudostem embedded in the initial partmonomorphemic word (equivalent of BARLEincluding BAR and the non-morphemic striLEY) would affect lexical decision in Finnish

Method

Participants. Twenty-three university students, 21 females and 2 males, participaNone of them had participated in the previexperiments. The apparatus and the procewere the same as in Experiment 1.

Stimuli. Three 18-item sets of words wedevised (due to difficulties in finding suitabstimuli, the number of targets was slightly lowthan in the other experiments). The targetsgiven in Appendix 1. Type 1 included nounsnominative singular carrying a word-initipseudostem (e.g., KUKKARO ‘purse’ wheKUKKA is ‘flower’). In this stimulus set, thaverage frequencies were higher forpseudostems than for the full forms (lemfrequency 89 and surface frequency 26 forpseudostems, with three embedded stemshaving a frequency value in this corpus;Table 7 for comparison). This should enhathe appearance of any pseudostem effects iexperiment. Type 2 included case-inflecnouns in essive, inessive, genitive, and partiType 3 consisted of nominative singular nocarrying no word-initial or word-final pseudmorphemes (monomorphemic control word

7

s in Experiment 4


32 (30) 31 (23)5.8 (6.6) 6.7 (7.8)

6.3 (0.8) 6.2 (0.6)147 (40) 138 (30)

LE

stic

The three sets were comparable in average

ncsun’stency

iontive

oed

Tacare

u-

ctem

3. by-pi nb emct

m-u ,pc ctei thes1

id

encehe-

ashe-r-

is inwsere

micse-

healrd-toute.me-acti-di-usthe

-n)eta-chor-gi-ac-the

be-sederi-

ishd a

(forArm

e

1)))


length in letters, average lemma freque(source: Saukkonen et al., 1979), averageface frequency (source: prof. Fred Karlssounpublished computerized corpus of writFinnish), and average bigram frequen(source: Mikkonen, 1972) (Table 7). In additto the 54 targets, 66 real words (18 nominasingular, 48 inflected) and 120 nonwords (60them carrying a case-inflection) were includas fillers (see Appendix 2).

Results

The rates for errors and replaced long Rwere 4.1 and 1.0%, respectively. Average retion times and errors to the word targetsreported in Table 8.

In the RT analysis, the main effect of stimlus type was significant [F1(2,44)5 21.92,p ,.0001; F 2(2,51) 5 6.94, p , .01]. Pairwisecomparisons showed that the case-inflenouns elicited longer RTs than the steembedded nouns [by-participant,F(1,22) 5

4.01,p , .0001; by-item,t(51) 5 2.96, p ,01] or the monomorphemic control nouns [articipant,F(1,22) 5 29.49, p , .0001; by-

tem, t(51) 5 3.44,p 5 .001]. The comparisoetween stem-embedded and monomorphontrol nouns was nonsignificant (bothF and, 1).In the error analysis, the main effect of sti

lus type was significant [F1(2,44) 5 18.49, .0001;F 2(2,51)5 6.26,p , .01]. Pairwiseomparisons showed that the case-infle

tems elicited significantly more errors thantem-embedded [by-participant,F(1,22) 58.99,p , .001; by-item,t(51)5 3.06,p , .01]

TABLE 8


Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentag

(SD)

Stem-embedded 635 (109) 1.5 (3.Inflected 686 (118) 8.7 (7.4Monomorphemic 626 (88) 1.5 (3.1

or the monomorphemic items [by-participant,

yr-

f

s-

d-

ic

d

F(1,22) 5 24.96,p 5 .0001; by-item,t(51) 53.06,p , .01]. The latter two stimulus types dnot differ from each other.

Discussion

The present results indicate that the presof a word-initial pseudostem in monomorpmic nouns does not hinder lexical decisioncompared to otherwise matched monomorpmic nouns with no word-initial pseudomophemes. The lack of a pseudostem effectline with the results reported by Andre(1986). Once again, real case inflections wrecognized more slowly than monomorphenouns, showing the consistency of the cainflection effect in Finnish.

All in all, our results indicate that when tfull-form route is activated, neither a word-finpseudosuffix (Experiments 1–3) nor a woinitial pseudostem (Experiment 4) is ableactivate the morpheme-based access roWhat then is needed to activate the morphebased access route in the presence of anvated full-form access route? A natural candate would be a morphologically ambiguoword form presented in isolation. Considerword BEARING which could be either a nominative singular form (full-form interpretatioor a verb form (morpheme-based interprtion). In the next experiment, we pitted suitems against otherwise comparable monomphemic and case-inflected items. Morpholocally ambiguous words should activate bothcess routes, enabling one to studyrelationship between these routes.

EXPERIMENT 5

In an attempt to study the relationshiptween the full-form and the morpheme-baaccess route, we ran a lexical decision expment with morphologically ambiguous Finnnouns. These nouns have both a full form anmorphologically decomposed interpretationexample, the full form of the noun SEINmeans “wall” but the decomposed foSEI1NA means “coalfish1as,” i.e., it is the
essive case form of the noun SEI).

th

ofin-tingem

asic

micabfrereds oofn’stency

ionrdsrersin

Tac

are

u-

c -in-fl ant ici-p ,

y

usmic,

lussis

onsor-for

nott alanipose, tht o

e

)))


Method

Participants.This experiment was run withe same 21 participants as Experiment 3.

Stimuli. We devised three 20-item setsstimulus words (see Appendix 1). Type 1cluded ambiguous nouns that carried conflicfull form versus decomposed meanings. Typincluded case-inflected nouns with the sacase endings and in the same proportionsType 1. Type 3 contained monomorphemnouns in nominative singular (monomorphecontrol words). The three sets were comparin average length in letters, average lemmaquency of the full form (source: Professor FKarlsson’s unpublished computerized corpuwritten Finnish),6 average surface frequencythe full form (source: Professor Fred Karlssounpublished computerized corpus of writFinnish), and average bigram frequen(source: Mikkonen, 1972) (Table 9). In additto the 60 target stimuli, another set of 60 woof varying length and morphological structuserved as fillers. A total of 120 nonword fillewere included, 61 of them carrying a caseflection (see Appendix 2).

Results

The rates for errors and replaced long Rwere 3.3% and 0.5%, respectively. Mean re

6 Due to the rarity of ambiguous nouns, we couldemploy the limited frequency dictionary of Saukkonen e(1979). For the same reason, it was not possible to mulate the frequencies of the full form versus the decompform of the ambiguous nouns. In the present 20 itemsaverage frequency of the full form was higher than tha

TAB

Item Characteri

Morphologicallyambiguous



the decomposed form.

2ein

le-

f

-

s-

tion times and errors to the word targetsshown in Table 10.

In the RT analysis, the main effect of stimlus type was significant [F1(2,38)5 22.48,p ,.0001; F 2(2,57) 5 9.76, p , .001]. Pairwiseomparisons showed that the RTs for caseected nouns were significantly longer thhose for monomorphemic words [by-partant, F(1,19) 5 63.44, p , .0001; by-item

t(57) 5 4.42, p , .0001] or morphologicallambiguous words [by-participant,F(1,19) 57.28,p 5 .01; by-item,t(57) 5 2.20,p , .05].Moreover, the morphologically ambiguonouns took longer than the monomorphecontrol words [by-participant,F(1,19)5 14.12p 5 .001; by-item,t(57) 5 2.22,p , .05].

As regards errors, the main effect of stimutype was significant in the participant analy[F1(2,38)5 8.88,p , .001] but not in the itemanalysis [F 2(2,57) 5 2.01, p . .1]. In theby-participant analysis, pairwise comparisindicated that the error rate for the monomphemic words was significantly lower thanthe case-inflected words [F(1,19)5 21.88,p ,

.-def

9

s in Experiment 5


37 (34) 34 (44)6.1 (4.8) 7.9 (7.7)

6.5 (0.9) 6.2 (1.2)141 (47) 144 (48)

TABLE 10


Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentag

(SD)

Morphologicallyambiguous 651 (104) 3.0 (3.8

Inflected 691 (117) 5.8 (4.7Monomorphemic 608 (89) 1.5 (3.7

LE

stic

use

l ho

D

ont ntlyl tron had eri esT utn ionO icaa s ap or ctiv edr ttes re-o ni-t ibi-t usw asi ouw tew urc twor r &S bet op reaw ull-f or-p

thet .g.F al1 bec thaw neo uldm oxm usi thf ldh Hoe

u re-c s ofc nw edt nti llya am-b ver-a %.T or-p zeds theo

ana orm isn te asw llt wet ho-l thev slyp

gethist isu-p-the

m-). Ifost,sedho-a-m-.g.,uchnse-

tedwithx-am-

lar


.001] or for the morphologically ambiguowords [F(1,19) 5 5.01,p , .05], whereas thatter two did not differ significantly from eacther [F(1,19)5 2.80,p . .1].

iscussion

As in Experiments 1 to 4, lexical decisiimes of case-inflected nouns were significaonger than those of monomorphemic conouns. Of particular interest was the finding tecision latencies to the ambiguous nouns w

ntermediate to the other two stimulus typhat is, ambiguity slowed down recognition bot as much as straightforward case-inflectur results thus far indicate that morphologmbiguity but not pseudosuffixation inducerocessing cost. We interpret this patternesults as follows: in the presence of an aated full-form route, the morpheme-basoute is activated only when parsing of the letring into a stem plus suffix is possible. Mover, activation of both routes slows recog

ion, indicating that the routes have an inhory relationship. As recognition of ambiguoords was nevertheless faster than that of c

nflected words, we assume that the ambiguords were recognized via the full form rouhich is slowed due to the inhibitory effect. Oonclusions do not support the view that theoutes are fully independent (Frauenfeldechreuder, 1992). Instead, mutual inhibition

ween the routes would account for the lackseudosuffix and pseudostem effects withords in Experiments 1–4: the activated f

orm route prevented activation of single mheme-like units in those items.Even though it is commonly assumed that

wo access routes function in parallel (erauenfelder & Schreuder, 1992; Baayen et997), an alternative interpretation shouldonsidered. This is based on the possibilityhenever a word form is recognized, only of the two access routes is active. This woean that in the present experiment, apprately half of the morphologically ambiguo

tems would have been recognized solely byull-form route, whereas the other half wouave undergone morpheme-based access.
ver, a manually performed post hoc disambig
lte.

.l

f-

r

e-s

-fl

,.,

t

i-

e

w-

ation of these forms on the basis of ourently acquired massive computerized corpuontemporary written Finnish (22.7 millioord tokens; Laine & Virtanen, 1996) show

hat the full-form interpretation was dominan as many as 17 of our 20 morphologicambiguous items. When examining the disiguation results across the 20 items, the age rate of full form interpretations was 86hus it appears less likely that half of the mhologically ambiguous items were recogniolely by the morpheme-based route andther half solely by the full form route.All in all, it seems that in the presence of

ctivated full-form route, an opportunity forphological parsing into stem plus suffixeeded to activate the morpheme-based rouell. Morphologically ambiguous words fulfi

his requirement. In the next experiment,ested whether this effect extends to morpogical pseudoambiguity as well. Considererb PUNISH which could be erroneouarsed as a multimorphemic form PUN1ISH

(note however that unlike the Finnish taritems employed in the next experiment, texample does not involve a stem form thamorphophonologically illegal with the particlar suffix. Moreover, the two interpretations reresent different word classes, whereas withFinnish target words, both full form and decoposed interpretations represented nounssuch forms would also elicit a processing cone could conclude that the morpheme-baaccess route is not concerned with morphopnological legality of stem plus suffix combintions. Instead, legality of stem plus suffix cobinations would be analyzed not until later (evia a centrally based fall-back procedure). Sa conclusion would have important implicatiofor the internal organisation of the morphembased access representations.

EXPERIMENT 6

In this lexical decision experiment, we teswhether the processing cost associatedmorphological ambiguity (Experiment 5) etended to pseudoambiguous forms. Pseudobiguity implies that the nominative singu
-forms in question could be parsed into a stem

cax-

ho-atentart,

3nt

ousdu

etsrcal-heennsin-in

casyps introletsersav-nd

ususin-

caseypes introletsers,av-nddi-20alon-ng

Tsac-ousforeir

trolof

nifi-

mic

)

ic

)


and a suffix but due to morphophonologirestrictions, such a combination is illegal. Eperiment 6 also included a set of truly morplogically ambiguous nouns in order to replicthe processing cost observed in Experimewith new participants and, for the most pnew stimuli.

Method

Participants.Twenty university students, 1females and 7 males, served as participaNone of them had participated in the previexperiments. The apparatus and the procewere the same as in Experiment 1.

Stimuli. We devised six different target s(see Appendix 1). In this experiment, the soufor the lexical data (frequency and bigram vues) was our recently acquired unpubliscomputerized corpus of Laine and Virtan(1996) which includes 22.7 million word tokefrom a major Finnish newspaper. Type 1cluded pseudoambiguous nouns. Type 2cluded case-inflected nouns with the sameendings and in the same proportions as in T1. Type 3 contained monomorphemic nounnominative singular (monomorphemic conwords), comparable to Type 1. All three swere comparable in average length in lettaverage lemma frequency of the full form,erage surface frequency of the full form, a

TAB

Item Characteri

Pseudoambiguous

Lemma frequency 5.4 (5.9)Surface frequency 2.1 (2.9)Length (in letters) 5.5 (0.6)Bigram frequency 1294 (534)

Morphologically ambigu



average bigram frequency (Table 11).

l

5

s.

re

e

d

-e

e

,

Type 4 included morphologically ambiguonouns that carried conflicting full form versmorphologically parsed meanings. Type 5cluded case-inflected nouns with the sameendings and in the same proportions as in T4. Type 6 contained monomorphemic nounnominative singular (monomorphemic conwords) comparable to Type 4. All three swere comparable in average length in lettaverage lemma frequency of the full form,erage surface frequency of the full form, aaverage bigram frequency (Table 11). In adtion to the 120 target stimuli, another set of 1words of varying length and morphologicstructure served as fillers. Altogether 240 nword fillers were included, 164 of them carryia case inflection (see Appendix 2).

Results

The rates of errors and replaced long Rwere 11 and 0.6%, respectively. Average retion times and errors to the pseudoambigutargets and their control words, as well asthe morphologically ambiguous words and thcontrol words, are reported in Table 12.

Pseudoambiguous items and their conwords. In the RT analysis, the main effectstimulus type was significant [F1(2,38) 530.30, p , .0001; F 2(2,57) 5 13.78, p ,.0001]. Pairwise comparisons showed sig

11

s in Experiment 6

Inflected Monomorphe

7.7 (8.7) 6.0 (5.9)1.7 (2.4) 2.1 (2.8)

5.7 (0.8) 5.6 (0.8)1148 (388) 1204 (310

Inflected Monomorphem

22 (26) 17 (19)3.8 (4.9) 3.9 (3.8)

6.3 (1.0) 6.1 (1.0)1309 (459) 1267 (375

LE

stic

ous

cantly longer RTs for case-inflected words than

ci-,u-,

iteby,

ain

emm

i-bigan,orou

ici-,

eirin

nifihanci-

y

tedby-

m-,

emsms

b -i5

andthent,

singllyThe

se itroutelityis

onuldles

rdsose. Aofen-

costndofessec-flictng,lex-&the

.2)

)


for monomorphemic control words [by-partipant, F(1,19) 5 62.74, p , .0001; by-itemt(57) 5 5.23,p , .0001] or for pseudoambigous words [by-participant,F(1,19) 5 16.34p , .001; by-item,t(57) 5 23.01,p , .01]. Inaddition, the pseudoambiguous items eliclonger RTs than the monomorphemic items [participant,F(1,19)5 13.51,p , .01; by-itemt(57) 5 2.22,p , .05].

The error analysis showed a significant meffect of stimulus type [F1(2,38)5 25.49,p ,.0001; F 2(2,57) 5 4.46, p , .05]. Pairwisecomparisons showed that case-inflected itelicited more errors than monomorphemic ite[by-participant,F(1,19) 5 52.43, p , .0001;by-item, t(57) 5 2.98,p , .01]. The comparson between case-inflected and pseudoamous items was significant in the by-participanalysis only [F(1,19)5 7.88,p 5 .01; by-itemt(57) 5 21.43,p . .1]. The same was true fthe comparison between pseudoambiguitems and monomorphemic items [by-partpant, F(1,19) 5 25.50, p 5 .0001; by-itemt(57) 5 1.55,p . .1].

Morphologically ambiguous items and thcontrol words. In the RT analysis, the maeffect of stimulus type was significant [F1(2,38)5 46.42,p , .0001; F 2(2,57) 5 11.55,p 5.0001]. Pairwise comparisons showed sigcantly longer RTs for case-inflected words tfor monomorphemic control words [by-partipant,F(1,19)5 75.51,p , .0001; by-itemt(57)5 4.80, p , .0001] or for morphologicall

TABLE 12


Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentage

(SD)

Pseudoambiguous 706 (77) 16.0 (11Inflected 769 (102) 24.8 (9.4)Monomorphemic 649 (77) 6.5 (6.7)Morphologically

ambiguous 669 (80) 6.8 (5.2)Inflected 724 (77) 16.0 (10.7Monomorphemic 622 (64) 1.3 (2.2)

ambiguous words [by-participant,F(1,19) 5

d-

ss

u-t

s

-

22.65,p 5 .0001; by-item,t(57) 5 2.54, p 5.01]. In addition, the ambiguous items elicilonger RTs than the monomorphemic items [participant,F(1,19) 5 33.43, p , .0001; by-item, t(57) 5 2.27,p , .05].

In the error analysis, the main effect of stiulus type was significant [F1(2,38) 5 22.10p , .0001;F 2(2,57)5 5.54,p , .01]. Pairwisecomparisons showed that case-inflected itelicited more errors than monomorphemic ite[by-participant,F(1,19) 5 30.92, p , .0001;

y-item, t(57) 5 3.29,p , .01] or morphologcally ambiguous items [by-participant,F(1,19)

14.05,p 5 .001; by-item,t(57) 5 2.06,p ,.05]. The comparison between ambiguousmonomorphemic items was significant inby-participant analysis only [by-participaF(1,19) 5 15.43,p , .001; by-item,t(57) 51.23,p . .1].

Discussion

The present results show that a procescost is associated both with morphologicaambiguous and pseudoambiguous nouns.pseudoambiguity effect is interesting becauindicates that the morpheme-based accessdoes not test the morphophonological legaof the morphologically parsed string. Thwould greatly simplify the internal organizatiof the visual input lexicon because one wonot need to build in morphophonological ruat this level.

Error rates for the pseudoambiguous woand their control items were higher than thfor other targets in the present experimentsprobable explanation is that due to the raritysuitable items, both lemma and surface frequcies of these targets were by far lowest.

We have assumed that the processingobserved with morphological ambiguity apseudoambiguity is due to mutual inhibitionthe full-form and morpheme-based accroutes. Another possibility, however, is that rognition is delayed due to a semantic concaused by the two interpretations. If anythipolysemy should speed up, not slow down,ical decision (e.g., Jastrzembski, 1981; MillisButton, 1989), but in the present case,
source of the semantic conflict is different. With

ticmin

kehendasks o

en-tealx-s oheweinByorthed

isucalldehicJade

hicreanct

). Iity

anrlynt

d inffix, i

s osealn,

5nts.

eri-

tned

ulierntim-d thendk byre-

ms.Thentilkeylusre-lank/he

etsin-dedings

ypeina-s),e theere

rageur-ge

ususin-

caseypes introlereererage


morphologically ambiguous items, semanconflict is mediated by two access mechanisnot by a single, full-form access route aspreviously studied ambiguous words liBANK. Accordingly, we attempted to locate tsource of the morphological ambiguity (atrue case-inflection) effect by examining a twhich taps the early, visuoperceptual stagelexical access.

EXPERIMENT 7

In the final experiment we attempted to idtify the locus of the processing cost associawith case-inflection and with morphologicambiguity. When employing simple visual leical decision which encompasses all stagelexical access, it is difficult to track down tsource(s) of an effect. In Experiment 7,utilized the progressive demasking methodtroduced by Grainger and Segui (1990).gradually increasing exposure to the target win a continuous word pattern mask cycle,method slows lexical access and is assumeenhance early, visuoperceptual stages of vword recognition. As compared to visual lexidecision, progressive demasking has yiestronger word frequency and orthograpneighborhood frequency effects (Grainger &cobs, 1996; Grainger & Segui, 1990; Schreu& Baayen, 1997) and differential orthograpneighborhood density effects (Carreiras, Pe& Grainger, 1997) while a presumably semtically based morphological family size effedisappeared (Schreuder & Baayen, 1997case inflection and morphological ambiguslow recognition even in this task, a significpart of the effect must originate from eaphases of lexical access and not from semaambiguity.

Pseudoinflected items were also includethis experiment. Even though no pseudosuation effect was present in Experiments 1–3is possible that a task tapping early stagelexical access might reveal morpheme-baactivation which would not be visible in lexicdecision which involves word form recognitio
semantic activation, and decision-making.
s,

f

d

f

-

d

toal

d

-r

a,-

f

t

ic

-tfd

Method

Participants.Twenty university students, 1females and 5 males, served as participaNone had participated in the previous expments.

Apparatus and procedure.The experimenwas run with a PC using a specially desigprogressive demasking program. The stimwere presented in alternation with a pattmask (a line of hash marks) equal to the sulus length. Each successive cycle increaseexposure time of the stimulus by 16 ms adecreased the exposure of the pattern mas16 ms. On the first cycle, the mask was psented for 284 ms and the stimulus for 16The cycle length was constant at 300 ms.cycles followed each other with no pause uthe participant pressed the reaction timeindicating that s/he recognized the stimuemerging from the pattern mask. When thesponse key was pressed, the screen went band the participant wrote down the stimulus shad recognized.

Stimuli.We employed six different target staken from our earlier experiments. Type 1cluded pseudoinflected nouns. Type 2 inclucase-inflected nouns with the same case endand in the same proportions as in Type 1. T3 contained monomorphemic nouns in nomtive singular (monomorphemic control wordcomparable to Type 1. These three sets wersame as in Experiment 3 and thus they wcomparable in average length in letters, avelemma frequency of the full form, average sface frequency of the full form, and averabigram frequency.

Type 4 included morphologically ambiguonouns that carried conflicting full form versmorphologically parsed meanings. Type 5cluded case-inflected nouns with the sameendings and in the same proportions as in T4. Type 6 contained monomorphemic nounnominative singular (monomorphemic conwords) comparable to Type 4. Types 4–6 wtaken from Experiment 6 and thus they wcomparable in average length in letters, ave
lemma frequency of the full form, average sur-

ge

Ttio

rolof

T eres rdsy ont ,pp nt,F4 or-p me.

m-u ,pc rror thm nt,F2 ds[b ei

m ifi-cb

eirc ine5. de-c usi msb y-p t,F

-cted

ase-nt

m-,-herfornt,

y-,rdid

de-calcog-or

itionis

ono-urceelllo-at is,caludo-

e

8)))

6))

4)


face frequency of the full form, and averabigram frequency.

Results

The rates of errors and replaced long Rwere 4.4 and 1.8%, respectively. Mean reactimes and errors are shown in Table 13.

Pseudoinflected items and their contwords. In the RT analysis, the main effectstimulus type was significant [F1(2,38) 513.29,p , .0001;F 2(2,57)5 10.04,p , .001].

wo of the three pairwise comparisons wtatistically significant: case-inflected woielded longer RTs than monomorphemic crol words [by-participant,F(1,19) 5 13.74

, .01; by-item,t(57) 5 3.56, p , .001] orseudosuffixed control words [by-participa(1,19) 5 14.62,p 5 .001; by-item,t(57) 5.14,p 5 .001]. Pseudoinflected and monomhemic items did not differ significantly froach other [by-participant,F(1,19)5 1.96,p .

1; by-item,t , 1).In the error analysis, the main effect of sti

lus type was significant [F1(2,38) 5 20.68, .0001;F 2(2,57)5 6.86,p , .01]. Pairwiseomparisons showed significantly higher eates for the case-inflected words than foronomorphemic control words [by-participa(1,19) 5 21.11,p , .001; by-item,t(57) 5.96,p , .01] or for the pseudoinflected wor

by-participant,F(1,19) 5 22.29, p 5 .0001;y-item,t(57)5 3.41,p 5 .001]. The differenc

TABLE 13


Condition

RT inmilliseconds

(SD)

Errorpercentag

(SD)

Pseudoinflected 958 (178) 0.8 (1.Inflected 1116 (324) 6.5 (5.4Monomorphemic 981 (194) 1.5 (2.4Morphologically

ambiguous 1091 (278) 3.5 (5.Inflected 1174 (367) 11.8 (8.5Monomorphemic 1018 (239) 2.0 (3.

n error rates between pseudoinflected an

sn

-

re

onomorphemic items failed to reach signance [by-participant,F(1,19)5 3.35,p 5 .08;y-item, t , 1].Morphologically ambiguous items and th

ontrol words. In the RT analysis, the maffect of stimulus type was significant [F1(2,38)

13.21, p , .0001; F 2(2,57) 5 7.67, p 5001]. Pairwise comparisons showed longerision latencies for morphologically ambiguotems than for monomorphemic control iteut this difference was significant in the barticipant analysis only [by-participan(1,19) 5 11.60, p , .01; by-item, t(57) 5

1.51,p . .1]. RTs for morphologically ambiguous items were shorter than for case-inflecontrol words [by-participant,F(1,19) 5 5.89,p , .05; by-item,t(57) 5 2.38,p , .05]. Thedifference between monomorphemic and cinflected control words was highly significa[by-participant, F(1,19) 5 14.62, p 5 .001;by-item, t(57) 5 3.89,p , .001].

In the error analysis, the main effect of stiulus type was significant [F1(2,38) 5 16.14p , .0001;F 2(2,57)5 9.14,p , .001]. Pairwise comparisons showed significantly higerror rates for case-inflected words thanmonomorphemic control words [by-participaF(1,19) 5 22.25,p , .001; by-item,t(57) 53.97, p , .001] or for ambiguous words [bparticipant,F(1,19)5 18.29,p , .001; by-itemt(57) 5 3.36, p 5 .001]. The error rates foambiguous versus monomorphemic itemsnot differ from each other (F 5 1, t , 1).

Discussion

The results obtained by the progressivemasking technique are similar to our lexidecision results: case-inflected words are renized slower than monomorphemic wordspseudoinflected words, whereas the recogntime of morphologically ambiguous wordsintermediate between case-inflected and mmorphemic words. This suggests that the soof the morphological ambiguity effect, as was the true case-inflection effect, is mainlycated at the early stages of lexical access, thassociated with the functioning of the lexiaccess routes. Furthermore, the lack of pse
dinflection effect in progressive demasking con-

tor-orm

tialtionin

calom-in

sinri-s oskinesh,et

6;a-theearre

msinehatas1)xe

isube

no

byrdsr aob-ts

ateor

mof

heg aal

95)

gted

W tsaf-per-tese-ur-

andAsre-

w-icaleg-nde-

issedheho-n.of

in-to

ac-Ex-e oficalad aion-or-fa-stusofr-&

uldllelec-nsmicthat

inther.al


firms that mere pseudoinflection is unableelicit any significant activation of the mopheme-based access route when the full froute is active.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The results are consistent with our iniassumption that the morphological operacritical to our study, nominal case-inflectionFinnish, is a prime example of morphologidecomposition. As compared to otherwise cparable monomorphemic nouns, true caseflected nouns consistently elicited a procescost in both visual lexical decision (Expements 1–6) and a task tapping early stagevisual word recognition (progressive demaing; Experiment 7). These results are in lwith earlier experimental evidence in Finniobtained with both normal individuals (Niemial., 1994; Hyo¨na et al., 1995; Laine, 199Laine & Koivisto, 1998) and with single aphsic patients (Laine et al., 1994, 1995). Givenmorphological richness of Finnish, morphembased organization for inflected forms appereasonable. It enables a Finnish speaker toognize and interpret unfamiliar inflected forwhich are probably encountered daily. In lwith the real word results was the finding tnonwords carrying an ending resembling a csuffix elicited a processing cost (ExperimentThis result supports the idea that case suffihave independent representations in the vinput lexicon (Laine, 1996) and that they canactivated when a full-form representation isavailable.

In contrast to the consistent effect elicitedtrue case inflection, monomorphemic wocarrying a similar ending (pseudosuffix) oword-initial pseudostem did not have anyservable effect on lexical access (Experimento 4 and 7). Thus in the presence of an activfull-form input representation, a pseudosuffixa pseudostem is not enough to activate thepheme-based access route. The lack opseudoinflection effect is not in line with tEnglish data reviewed by Taft (1988) showinsignificant effect of pseudoinflection in rewords. Taft (personal communication, 19
pointed out methodological problems in his
--g

f-

-sc-

e.sal

t

1d

r-a

original study. Due to difficulties in obtaininsuitable stimuli, some of the pseudoinflecitems were very rare (e.g., SAMOY(1)ED,

ORST(1)ED) and only few participanknew them. It is possible that this factorfected the original results. In the present eximents employing pseudoinflection, error rawere low and the stimuli were rigorously slected and controlled for lemma frequency, sface frequency, length, bigram frequency,distribution of suffixes/pseudosuffixes used.regards the lack of pseudostem effect, oursults contrast with those of Taft (1979). Hoever, our results are consistent with the lexdecision results of Andrews (1986) and the sment-shifting results of Feldman, Frost, aPnini (1995; Experiment 1), which did not rveal any pseudostem effects.

Although a pseudosuffix or a pseudostemnot enough to activate the morpheme-baroute when the full-form route is active, tresults of Experiment 5 indicated that morplogical ambiguity does affect lexical decisioOur interpretation is that, under the influencethe activated full-form route, parsing of theput string into a stem and suffix is neededelicit discernible effects of morpheme-basedtivation. The progressive demasking task (periment 7) indicated that a significant sourcthis effect is at rather early stages of lexaccess. Because morphological ambiguity hprocessing cost, we conclude that the relatship between the full-form route and the mpheme-based route is inhibitory rather thancilitatory or neutral. The processing coassociated with morphologically ambiguonouns is not in line with the hypothesisstatistical facilitation in the recognition of mophologically complex words (FrauenfelderSchreuder, 1992). Statistical facilitation worequire full independence of the two paralexical access routes and would imply that rognition of morphologically ambiguous noushould be faster than that of monomorphecontrol words. Instead, our results suggestthe two access routes are truly competitivethe sense that they are able to inhibit each oThis is not a unique finding in morphologic
research: using a priming paradigm, Laudanna,

rteics.reim

on7).astived-de&&b-thais

selngeuit

ctxaa

n,n-to

innlayayautemisg.ot

all deheenExwoa-ob, ain

ernis

ed,ibletive

he-ost

ex-per-

ofut

cti-d thelarntilme-themeonebe-lusfornn-a-

hever-inorile

gepeed)ho-er-talall-and

ctedgi-n-sedrele-l of

r &thatusre-

g ofnd,


Badecker and Caramazza (1989, 1992) repocompetitive inhibition among homographword roots in inflected (but not derived) formRecent studies in auditory processing of pfixed and stem-embedded words have alsoplicated lexical competition during recogniti(Vroomen & de Gelder, 1997; Wurm, 199Moreover, within-stage lateral inhibition hbeen considered an important part of effecinformation retrieval in several interactive moels of lexical processing (e.g., Berg & Scha1992; Grainger & Jacobs, 1996; McClellandRumelhart, 1981; Tikkala, Eikmeyer, Niemi,Laine, 1997). One virtue of the inhibition oserved in our study is that pseudoinflectionsare not so uncommon (see Table 1 for Finndata) would not have a chance to adveraffect word recognition. Thus inhibition amothe two access routes would serve a purpospreventing unnecessary, misleading ambigresolution.

Even though pseudoinflection had no effeon lexical access, another form of pseudoaffition, pseudoprefixation, has been shown tofect word recognition (Lima, 1987; Pillo1998; Smith & Sterling, 1982; Taft, 1981). Ufortunately, there are too few true prefixesenable a pseudoprefixation experiment in Fish. Nevertheless, left-to-right parsing may pa role here: word-initial parts in general macquire a special processing status becacross languages they typically include the s(Cutler, Hawkins, & Gilligan, 1985) whichthe most informative portion of the letter-strinHowever, a left-to-right parsing effect may nbe the full explanation as word-initipseudostems do not appear to affect lexicacision (Andrews, 1986; Experiment 5 in tpresent study; but see Taft, 1979) or segmshifting performance (Feldman et al., 1995;periment 1). It may be that a combination of tfactors, word-initiality and morphological sttus, explains the pseudoprefixation effectsserved in English and in French. Specificallyproductive grammatical (pseudo)morphemeword-initial position could (a) induce strongactivation in its access representation thaword-final unit like pseudoinflection, which
recognized later when the full form (with its
d

--

,

thy

iny

s-f-

-

se

-

t--

-

a

inhibitory potential) also becomes activatand (b) initiate a longer search for a possmeaningful interpretation than a less produclexical unit like a word-initial pseudostem.

In the present study, it was of particular toretical interest to find that the processing cassociated with morphological ambiguitytended to pseudoambiguous noun forms (Eximent 6). This indicates that in the presencean activated full form route, parsing of the inpstring into a stem and suffix is enough to avate the morpheme-based access route, anmorphophonological legality of the particustem plus suffix combination is tested not ulater. The result suggests that the morphebased lexical organization at the level ofvisual input lexicon may be simpler than soresearchers have assumed. Specifically,would not need to postulate connectionstween morphologically appropriate stem psuffix combinations (see Laine et al., 1994,a model incorporating such a structure in Fiish), which add to the complexity of the orgnization of the visual input lexicon. Given trarity of pseudoambiguous forms and the oriding regularity of inflectional paradigmsFinnish, the cost in the form of delayederroneous recognitions would be small whthe benefit in the form of simplified stora(and, as a result, perhaps also increased swould be considerable. Analysis of morphopnological legality (which adults are able to pform, even though variability due to dialecand other factors exists) would thus be a fback procedure and not part of the fastautomatic word recognition process.

The present series of experiments, conduin a little studied language that is morpholocally very rich, have revealed important costraints on the workings of the morpheme-balexical access route. These constraints arevant to attempts to construct a general modemorphological processing (e.g., SchreudeBaayen, 1995). First, our results indicatewhen the full-form route is active, simultaneoactivation of the morpheme-based routequires that there be an opportunity for parsinthe input string into a stem and a suffix. Seco
the morpheme-based access route does not nec-

oirdbery

I

er

cre

mer

ere

mer

rr

r

c

M

t 3

P


essarily test the morphophonological legalitythe parsed stem plus suffix combination. Thour results indicate that the relationshiptween the two lexical access routes is inhibito

APPENDIX 1

The Real Word Targets Employed inExperiments 1 and 2

Pseudoinflected nouns (Type 1)

TAU(1)STA backgroundKII( 1)STA disputeRII(1)STA gameMILJOO(1)NA millionPERSOO(1)NA personLEIJO(1)NA lionIKKU( 1)NA windowVAAKU( 1)NA coat of armsLAKA( 1)NA sheetSAATA(1)NA satanPAKI(1)NA causerieTARI(1)NA storyHISTORI(1)A historyAKATEMI( 1)A academyANATOMI( 1)A anatomyKANSLI(1)A secretarial officeATERI(1)A mealLATTI( 1)A floorKUNNI(1)A honourSAIPPU(1)A soap

nflected Nouns (Type 2)

URA1STA career1 elative case markerLOMA1STA holiday1 elative case markSAVO1STA Savo (proper name)1 elative

ase markerVALTTI 1NA trump 1 essive case markeTULKKI 1NA interpreter 1 essive casarkerVANKI 1NA prisoner1 essive case markAATTO1NA eve 1 essive case markerJUTTU1NA anecdote1 essive case markJOULU1NA Christmas 1 essive casarkerEHTO1NA condition 1 essive case markUHKA1NA threat1 essive case markerPALA1NA bit 1 essive case marker
MUTTERI1A nut 1 partitive case marker
f,-.

SANKARI1A hero 1 partitive case markeRAVINTO1A food 1 partitive case markePAPERI1A paper1 partitive case markerVAUHTI 1A speed1 partitive case markeKELLO1A clock 1 partitive case markerTAHTI1A measure (in music)1 partitive

ase markerKAASU1A gas1 partitive case marker

onomorphemic Nouns (Type 3)

URHEILU sportsTANSSI danceKAPPALE pieceTUNNELI tunnelLUONTO natureLUOSTARI monasteryTORSTAI ThursdayPALATSI palaceMITALI medalHEVONEN horsePERKELE devilSESONKI high seasonANOPPI mother-in-lawMAASTO terrainHERKKU delicacyKURSSI courseTURISTI touristNOVELLI short storyMOOTTORI engineVETOOMUS appeal

The Target Stimuli Employed in Experimen

seudoinflected Nouns (Type 1)

INDE(1)KSI indexSE(1)KSI sexTA(1)KSI taxiKAR(1)TTA mapKEN(1)TTA fieldLAA( 1)TTA slabLAU(1)TTA raftNAVE(1)TTA cow-houseNUO(1)TTA seinePLANEE(1)TTA planetTEL(1)TTA tentVALUU( 1)TTA currencyKA(1)SSA paydeskKI(1)SSA cat
MA(1)SSA mass

e

e

erere

me

me

e

e

ere

rre

m

r

M

t 4

S

ae)

()

(

)(

)(

i

I

er

r

er


PRINSE(1)SSA princessJOUTSE(1)N swanMORSIA(1)N brideSIEME(1)N seedSTADIO(1)N stadium

Inflected Nouns (Type 2)

UHKA 1KSI threat 1 translative casmarker

TUHO1KSI havoc 1 translative casmarker

JONO1KSI queue1 translative case markAIDA 1TTA fence1 abessive case markAKA 1TTA old woman 1 abessive casarkerESTO1TTA inhibition 1 abessive casarkerHUOLE1TTA worry 1 abessive cas

markerKITKA 1TTA friction 1 abessive cas

markerLUVA 1TTA permission 1 abessive cas

markerTAUO1TTA pause1 abessive case markVAIVA 1TTA trouble 1 abessive cas

markerHATU1TTA hat 1 abessive case markerSUU1SSA mouth1 inessive case markeKASA1SSA stack1 inessive case markePIILO1SSA hiding-place1 inessive casarkerOJA1SSA ditch1 inessive case markerSAHA1N saw1 genitive case markerKARJA1N cattle1 genitive case markerMUOVI1N plastic1 genitive case markeRUUSU1N rose1 genitive case marker


RUHTINAS princeMAKKARA sausageVIHANNES vegetableKARITSA lambVAARI grandfatherPAKETTI parcelKEIKKA jobPAASTO fastVAKKA bushelMESTARI master
TELAKKA shipyard
RAUTA ironNALLE teddy bearKANAVA channelSAALIS preyTAAKKA burdenSENAATTI senateKAAKAO cocoaMITALI medalALTTARI altar


tem-Embedded nouns (Type 1)

ASE(1)NTO position (ASE5 gun)ILMA( 1)RI Ilmari (proper name) (ILMA5

ir)KANA( 1)DA Canada (proper nam

KANA 5 hen)KARHU(1)LA Karhula (proper name

KARHU 5 bear)KARI(1)TSA lamb (KARI 5 rock)KARJA(1)LA Karjala (proper name

KARJA 5 cattle)KITA( 1)RA guitar (KITA 5 jaws)KOIRA(1)S male (KOIRA5 dog)KOKKO(1)LA Kokkola (proper name

KOKKO 5 bonfire)KUKKA( 1)RO purse (KUKKA5 flower)LEHTO(1)RI lecturer (LEHTO5 grove)SUO(1)LA salt (SUO5 swamp)TELA(1)KKA shipyard (TELA 5 roller)TUNTU(1)RI mountain (TUNTU 5 feel-

ng)URA(1)KKA contract (URA 5 career)VARA(1)S thief (VARA 5 reserve)VARI(1)S crow (VARI 5 warm water)VASA(1)RA hammer (VASA5 elk calf)


AULA 1SSA assembly hall1 inessive casHOVI1SSA court1 inessive case markeIDA1SSA east1 inessive case markerIDEA1NA idea 1 essive case markerKASA1SSA stack1 inessive case markeKEULA1A bow 1 partitive case markerKIILA 1NA wedge1 essive case markerKOLO1N hole 1 genitive case markerKOSTO1NA revenge1 essive case mark
LAKO1SSA strike1 inessive case marker

r

er

M

t 5

M )

m

por

ge

me

m

t

s

ee

m

ee

me

mr

a

ce

cr

be

me

m

te

(

I

em

em

em

r

erer

r


PAAVI1N pope1 genitive case markerPALA1NA piece1 essive case markerPENTU1NA puppy 1 essive case markePURO1N brook 1 genitive case markerSATO1A crop 1 partitive case markerTAHRA1N stain1 genitive case markerTUKE1NA support1 essive case markerVANKI 1NA prisoner1 essive case mark


ETIIKKA ethicsHAARA branchKAMERA cameraKORKKI corkKORTTI cardLAAKSO valleyLANKKU plankLONKKA hipMAKKARA sausageMATTO carpetNAAPURI neighbourPAKETTI parcelPEIKKO trollPRINSSI princeREITTI routeTONTTI building lotTORPPA hutTULKKI interpreter


orphologically Ambiguous Nouns (Type 1

AARI1A aria or acre 1 partitive casearkerAASI1A Asia (proper name) or donkey1

artitive case markerROMANI1A Romania (proper name)

ypsy1 partitive case markerEDU1STA front or benefit1 elative casarkerSIVU1STA flank or page1 elative casarkerKESKUS1TA Center Party or center1 par-

itive case markerILO1NA Ilona (proper name) or joy1 es-

ive case markerDIA1NA Diana (proper name) or slide1

ssive case markerKAPI1NA riot or scrabies1 essive cas
arker
PERU1NA potato or Peru (proper name)1ssive case markerSEI1NA wall or coalfish 1 essive casarkerVARI1NA vibration or color1 essive casarkerKAARI 1NA Kaarina (proper name) o

rch1 essive case markerPORKKA1NA carrot or ski-stick1 essive

ase markerHAI1TTA drawback or shark1 abessiv

ase markerMARJA1TTA Marjatta (proper name) o

erry 1 abessive case markerLUU1TA broom or bone1 partitive casarkerMER1TA fish-trap or sea1 partitive casarkerETSIN1TA search or view-finder1 parti-

ive case markerALE1KSI Aleksi (proper name) or Al

proper name)1 translative case marker


HOVI1A court 1 partitive case markerMUKI 1A mug 1 partitive case markerLASI1A glass1 partitive case markerJUNA1STA train 1 elative case markerRAO1STA slit 1 elative case markerSOLA1STA pass1 elative case markerELEE1NA gesture1 essive case markerJOULU1NA Christmas 1 essive casarkerSAVU1NA smoke1 essive case markerTULKKI 1NA interpreter 1 essive casarkerILMIO 1NA phenomenon1 essive casarkerTEEMA1NA theme1 essive case markeAATTO1NA eve 1 essive case markerSEIKKA1NA fact 1 essive case markerARMO1TTA grace1 abessive case markSURU1TTA sorrow1 abessive case markJUON1TA plot 1 partitive case markerAHVEN1TA perch1 partitive case markeVYO1TA belt 1 partitive case marker
UHRI1KSI victim 1 translative case marker

t 6

eo

rn

*s

rn

em

*g

e

ci

(*

le

mni

(

r

c

pe

me

m

t*

w*

b

I

em

em

em

em

c

c

c

c

s

crr


Monomorphemic Nouns (Type 3)

ROISTO villainTAULU picturePALKKA salaryNYRKKI fistAPOSTOLI apostleIRENE Irene (proper name)RANTA shoreMARJO Marjo (proper name)TUOMARI judgeKAARME snakeALANKO lowlandsKOUVOLA Kouvola (proper name)LAATIKKO boxVARJO shadowMINUUTTI minuteROTTA ratVAAKA weighing machineTEMPPELI templeKOSTO revengeVARTALO body


Pseudoambiguous Nouns (Type 1)

ANTO(1)N Anton (proper name) or * issuf notes1 genitive case markerII(1)NA Iina (proper name) or * Ii (prope

ame)1 essive case markerKANTO(1)N Kanton (proper name) or

tub1 genitive case markerKEMI(1)A chemistry or * Kemi (prope

ame)1 partitive case markerLAKA( 1)NA sheet or * lack1 essive casarkerLAUKA( 1)A Laukaa (proper name) or

allop 1 partitive case markerPATI(1)NA antique finish or * spavin1

ssive case markerRADO(1)N radon gas or * track1 genitive

ase markerSYLVI(1)A Sylvia (proper name) or * Sylv

proper name)1 partitive case markerVANA( 1)JA Vanaja (proper name) or

ine 1 partitive case markerHIPI(1)A skin or * hippie 1 partitive casarkerJANI(1)TA Janita (proper name) or * Ja

proper name)1 partitive case marker c

KARI(1)TA Karita (proper name)1 *ock 1 partitive case marker

KORO(1)NA corona or * interest1 essivease markerLAPU(1)A Lapua (proper name) or * slip1

artitive case markerPAKA(1)NA pagan or * pack1 essive casarkerPII(1)NA torture or * silicon1 essive casarkerSEI(1)TA Lappish god or * coalfish1 par-

itive case markerUUMA(1)JA Uumaja (proper name) oraist 1 partitive case markerVIRE(1)N Viren (proper name) or

reeze1 genitive case marker


APPE1NA father-in-law 1 essive casarkerIRIS1TA Iris (proper name)1 partitive casarkerKANE1JA rabbit1 partitive case markerLEO1NA Leo (proper name)1 essive casarkerLOH1TA salmon1 partitive case markerMET1TA nectar1 partitive case markerOLIO1NA creature1 essive case markerRAKA1A snot1 partitive case markerSILPPU1A chopped straw1 partitive casarkerTENO1A Teno (proper name)1 partitive

ase markerARMI1A Armi (proper name)1 partitive

ase markerJUVA1N Juva (proper name)1 genitive

ase markerKYME1N Kymi (proper name)1 genitive

ase markerLEPO1A rest 1 partitive case markerMEKKA 1NA Mecca (proper name)1 es-

ive case markerNORO1NA drop 1 essive case markerPIPSA1N Pipsa (proper name)1 genitive

ase markerRIESA1NA trouble 1 essive case markeTATTE1JA boletus1 partitive case markeTUKO1N Tuko (proper name)1 genitive

ase marker

)

e

eha

(e

me

me

m

cma

(r

n

p

s

ec

c

pe

m

p

ce

me

m

I

c

c

re

m

cer

c

er

er

M


Monomorphemic Nouns (Type 3)

ALLI long-tailed duckKUUSAMO Kuusamo (proper name)LAKKA cloudberryLASSO lassoNAHKA leatherORION Orion (proper name)PASSI ramTAKKI blanketTELINE standVALMA Valma (proper name)KUOKKA hoeLAAKERI bearingLANKKU plankMATIAS Matias (proper name)NAURIS turnipPAARMA gadflySAILA Saila (proper name)TEIPPI tapeTERESA Teresa (proper name)SAARA Saara (proper name)

Morphologically Ambiguous Nouns (Type 4

AARI1A aria or acre 1 partitive casemarker

ALE1KSI Aleksi (proper name) or Al(proper name)1 translative case marker

DIA1NA Diana (proper name) or slide1ssive case markerJUHA1NA Juhana (proper name) or Ju

proper name)1 essive case markerKAPU1STA ladle or captain1 elative casarkerKILI 1NA jingle or goat 1 essive casarkerLUU1TA broom or bone1 partitive casarkerPORKKA1NA carrot or ski-stick1 essive

ase markerSAIMA1A Saimaa (proper name) or Sai

proper name)1 partitive case markerSAVO1TTA timberjob or Savo (prope

ame)1 abessive case markerAASI1A Asia (proper name) or donkey1

artitive case markerARI1NA grate or Ari (proper name)1 es-

ive case marker

HAI1TTA drawback or shark1 abessivase markerKAMELI 1A camelia or camel1 partitive

ase markerKARJA1A Karjaa (proper name) or cattle1

artitive case markerKUMI 1NA caraway or rubber1 essive casarkerPAPU1A Papua (proper name) or bean1

artitive case markerSAA1KSI osprey or weather1 translative

ase markerSARA1NA hinge or sedge1 essive casarkerTAIME1N trout or seedling1 genitive casarker


AATTO1NA eve 1 essive case markerALMA 1NA Alma (proper name)1 essive

ase markerAUDI1A Audi (proper name)1 partitive

ase markerKYY 1TA viper 1 partitive case markerMAITO1A milk 1 partitive case markerORPO1NA orphan1 essive case markerPUIJO1N Puijo 1 genitive case markerSALI1A hall 1 partitive case markerSIRKUS1TA circus1 partitive case markeVANU1KSI cotton wool1 translative casarkerAILA 1A Aila (proper name)1 partitive

ase markerARMO1TTA grace1 abessive case markELSA1NA Elsa (proper name)1 essive

ase markerLASTI1NA load 1 essive case markerMOSKA1A trash1 partitive case markerPATA1NA pot 1 essive case markerROMU1KSI junk 1 translative case markSILLI1A herring1 partitive case markerSURU1TTA sorrow1 abessive case markVYO1NA belt 1 essive case marker


ALASKA Alaska (proper name)ENERGIA energyKAMERA camera
KUPOLI dome


LIESI stoveMAROKKO Morocco (proper name)ORVOKKI violetSIMA meadTAIWAN Taiwan (proper name)TITTELI titleEEMELI Eemeli (proper name)

KITARA guitarLENKKI loopLISKO lizardNILKKA ankleSELLI cellSOKKELI foundationTIMANTTI diamond

20)

KAIDE banisters VIIPURI Viipuri (proper name)

APPENDIX 2

The Distribution of Case Inflections Employed in the Experimental Stimuli

Experiment 1

Case

Words Nonwords

Targets Fillers Total % (out of 120) Targets Fillers Total % (out of 1

nominativea 40 45 85 70.83 20 56 76 63.33elative 3 0 3 2.50 0 3 3 2.50essive 9 0 9 7.50 0 9 9 7.50partitive 8 0 8 6.67 0 8 8 6.67abessive 0 3 3 2.50 0 0 0 0.00adessive 0 4 4 3.33 0 0 0 0.00allative 0 3 3 2.50 0 0 0 0.00genitive 0 0 0 0.00 0 4 4 3.33inessive 0 5 5 4.17 0 0 0 0.00ablative 0 0 0 0.00 20 0 20 16.67

Total 60 60 120 100.0 40 80 120 100.0

a The pseudoinflected targets are in this category.

03

33367.6733333

.67

.0

50.6767673

17317

.0

.0077

8337833

67

.0

.17333173

00003350.00

.0


Experiment 2

Case

Words Nonwords

Targets Fillers Total % Targets Fillers Total %

nominativea 40 0 40 33.33 0 0 0 0.0elative 3 0 3 2.50 0 10 10 8.3essive 9 0 9 7.50 0 10 10 8.partitive 8 0 8 6.67 0 10 10 8.3ablative 0 10 10 8.33 0 20 20 16.adessive 0 10 10 8.33 0 20 20 16allative 0 10 10 8.33 0 10 10 8.genitive 0 10 10 8.33 0 10 10 8.illative 0 10 10 8.33 0 10 10 8.3inessive 0 10 10 8.33 0 20 20 16

Total 60 60 120 100.0 0 120 120 100

Experiment 3

nominativea 40 43 83 69.17 0 63 63 52.abessive 9 0 9 7.50 0 14 14 11adessive 0 3 3 2.50 0 2 2 1.essive 0 2 2 1.67 0 2 2 1.genitive 4 2 6 5.00 0 10 10 8.3inessive 4 3 7 5.83 0 11 11 9.partitive 0 4 4 3.33 0 7 7 5.8translative 3 3 6 5.00 0 11 11 9.

Total 60 60 120 100.0 0 120 120 100

Experiment 4

nominative 36 24 60 50.00 0 60 60 50ablative 0 8 8 6.67 0 8 8 6.6allative 0 8 8 6.67 0 8 8 6.6essive 7 0 7 5.83 0 7 7 5.genitive 4 3 7 5.83 0 7 7 5.8illative 0 8 8 6.67 0 8 8 6.6inessive 5 2 7 5.83 0 7 7 5.partitive 2 5 7 5.83 0 7 7 5.8translative 0 8 8 6.67 0 8 8 6.

Total 54 66 120 100.0 0 120 120 100

Experiment 5

nominative 20 40 60 50.00 0 59 59 49abessive 2 0 2 1.67 0 4 4 3.elative 3 0 3 2.50 0 7 7 5.8essive 8 1 9 7.50 0 17 17 14.partitive 6 1 7 5.83 0 13 13 10.8translative 1 4 5 4.17 0 6 6 5.adessive 0 5 5 4.17 0 6 6 5.genitive 0 5 5 4.17 0 4 4 3.3illative 0 0 0 0.00 0 1 1 0.8inessive 0 4 4 3.33 0 3 3 2.ambiguous 20 0 20 16.67 0 0 0 0

Total 60 60 120 100.0 0 120 120 100

a The pseudoinflected targets are in this category.

40)

B

B

C

C

C

F

F


Experiment 6

Words Nonwords

Targets Fillers Total % (out of 240) Targets Fillers Total % (out of 2

nominative* 60 40 100 41.67 0 76 76 31.67abessive 2 12 14 5.83 0 17 17 7.08elative 1 13 14 5.83 0 17 17 7.08essive 13 0 13 5.42 0 27 27 11.25genitive 5 12 17 7.08 0 24 24 10.00partitive 17 29 46 19.17 0 61 61 25.42translative 2 14 16 6.67 0 18 18 7.50ambiguous 20 0 20 8.33 0 0 0 0.00

Total 120 120 240 100.0 0 240 240 100.0

a
The pseudoambiguous targets are in this category.
ical-

in-llele,

aion

M.ho-

ut-

ex-

s oog--

e

ingromy-

ninging

91

G ess-ut

G ncyofies.

H icG.

X.-

H afix-R.ms,r-

J ofn

J r ofthe

K eof

L va-n

L in-xical

Lor-al

REFERENCES

Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological influences on lexaccess: lexical or nonlexical effects?Journal of Memory and Language,25, 726–740.

Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Sgulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a paradual-route model.Journal of Memory and Languag37, 94–117.

Berg, T., & Schade, U. (1992). The role of inhibition inspreading activation model of language productPart 1. The psycholinguistic perspective.Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research,2, 405–434.

ergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W., & Eling, P. A. T.(1988). How simple complex words can be: morplogical processing and word representations.QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology,40A, 41–72.

utterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Bterworth (Ed.),Language production(Vol. 2, pp. 257–294). New York: Academic Press.

aramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lical access and inflectional morphology.Cognition,28,297–332.

arreiras, M., Perea, M., & Grainger, J. (1997). Effectthe orthographic neighborhood in visual word recnition: cross-task comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,23,857–871.

utler, A., Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G. (1985). Thsuffixing preference: a processing explanation.Lin-guistics,23, 723–758.

eldman, L. B., Frost, R., & Pnini, T. (1995). Decomposwords into their constituent morphemes: evidence fEnglish and Hebrew.Journal of Experimental Pschology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,21, 947–960.

rauenfelder, U. H., & Schreuder, R. (1992). Constraipsycholinguistic models of morphological process
and representation: the role of productivity. In G. Booij
.

f

& J. van Marle (Eds.),Yearbook of morphology 19(pp. 165–183). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

rainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic procing in visual word recognition: a multiple readomodel.Psychological Review,103,518–565.

rainger, J., & Segui, J. (1990). Neighborhood frequeeffects in visual word recognition: A comparisonlexical decision and masked identification latencPerception & Psychophysics,47, 191–198.

enderson, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, D. (1984). Morphemstructure and lexical access. In H. Bouma & D.Bouwhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance: Vol.Control of language processes(pp. 211–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

yona, J., Laine, M., & Niemi, J. (1995). Effects ofword’s morphological complexity on readers’ eyeation patterns. In J. M. Findlay, R. W. Kentridge &Walker (Eds.),Eye movement research: Mechanisprocesses and applications(pp. 445–452). Amstedam: Elsevier.

arvella, R. J., & Wennstedt, O. (1993). Recognitionpartial regularity in words and sentences.ScandinaviaJournal of Psychology,34, 76–85.

astrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, numberelated meanings, frequency of occurrence, andlexicon.Cognitive Psychology,13, 278–305.

arlsson, F. (1983).Suomen kielen a¨anne-ja muotorakenn[The phonological and morphological structureFinnish]. Juva, Finland: WSOY.

aine, M. (1996). Lexical status of inflectional and deritional suffixes: evidence from Finnish.ScandinaviaJournal of Psychology,37, 238–248.

aine, M., & Koivisto, M. (1998). Lexical access toflected words as measured by lateralized visual ledecision.Psychological Research,61, 220–229.

aine, M., Niemi, J., Koivuselka¨-Sallinen, P., Ahlse´n, E., &Hyona, J. (1994). A neurolinguistic analysis of mphological deficits in a Finnish-Swedish bilingu
aphasic.Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics,8, 177–200.

ic-

t-nd

89)d

92)gy.

nce

c-er-

ssi-andinn-

on

-you

iveel.

ualho--

9).ordal

H.-

S ho-

.

S lex-

S the

T de:S).

T l

T l of

T

for

vald

7).uis-i-

ed-

and

n-nal.


Laine, M., Niemi, J., Koivuselka¨-Sallinen, P., & Hyo¨na, J.(1995). Morphological processing of polymorphemnouns in a highly inflecting language.Cognitive Neuropsychology,12, 457–502.

Laine, M., & Virtanen, P. (1996).Turun Sanomat compuerised lexical data base.Unpublished database aprogram.

Laudanna, A., Badecker, W., & Caramazza, A. (19Priming homographic stems.Journal of Memory anLanguage,28, 531–546.

Laudanna, A., Badecker, W., & Caramazza, A. (19Processing inflectional and derivational morpholoJournal of Memory and Language,31, 333–348.

Lima, S. D. (1987). Morphological analysis in sentereading.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 84–99.

McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interative activation model of context effects in letter pception. Part 1. An account of the basic findings.Psy-chological Review,88, 375–407.

Mikkonen, V. (1972). Suomen kielen kirjainten frekvenja informaatio-ominaisuuksista [On the frequencyinformational characteristics of the letters in the Fish alphabet]. In O. Ja¨rvikoski (Ed.), Acta Botnica1972 (pp. 20–39). Turku, Finland: Turun yliopistpohjalainen osakunta ry.

Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: now you see it, nowdon’t. Memory & Cognition,17, 141–147.

Niemi, J., Laine, M., & Tuominen, J. (1994). Cognitmorphology in Finnish: foundations of a new modLanguage and Cognitive Processes,9, 423–446.

Pillon, A. (1998). The pseudoprefixation effect in visword recognition: a true -- neither strategic nor ortgraphic -- morphemic effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A, 85–120.

Rubin, G. S., Becker, C. A., & Freeman, R. H. (197Morphological structure and its effect on visual wrecognition.Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbBehavior,18, 757–767.

Saukkonen, P., Haipus, M., Niemikorpi, A., & Sulkala,(1979).Suomen kielen taajuussanasto[Frequency dictionary of Finnish]. Porvoo, Finland: WSOY.

Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H. (1994). Prefix stripp
ing
.

.

re-revisited.Journal of Memory and Language,33,357–375.

chreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morplogical processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.),Morpho-logical aspects of language processing(pp. 131–154)Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

chreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How compsimplex words can be.Journal of Memory and Language,37, 118–139.

mith, P. T., & Sterling, C. M. (1982). Factors affectingperceived morphemic structure of written words.Jour-nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,21,704–721.

aft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic cothe Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,18,21–39.

aft, M. (1981). Prefix stripping revisited.Journal of VerbaLearning and Verbal Behavior,20, 289–297.

aft, M. (1988). A morphological-decomposition modelexical representation.Linguistics,26, 657–667.

aft, M. (1991).Reading and the mental lexicon.Hove, UK:Erlbaum.

Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a frameworkunderstanding morphological processing.Languageand Cognitive Processes,9, 271–294.

Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieof prefixed words.Journal of Verbal Learning anVerbal Behavior,14, 638–647.

Tikkala, A., Eikmeyer, H.-J., Niemi, J., & Laine, M. (199On the production of Finnish nouns: a psycholingtically motivated connectionist model.Connection Scence,9, 295–314.

Vroomen, J., & de Gelder, B. (1997). Activation of embded words in spoken word recognition.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human PerceptionPerformance,23, 710–720.

Wurm, L. H. (1997). Auditory processing of prefixed Eglish words is both continuous and decompositioJournal of Memory and Language,37, 438–461.

(Received April 9, 1998)(Revision received August 17, 1998)

Lexical Access Routes to Nouns in a Morphologically Rich Language

Documents

Transcript of Lexical Access Routes to Nouns in a Morphologically Rich Language