7/30/2019 sr115_06

1/29

Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research1993, SR-115/116, 69-97

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences betweenInflections and Derivations*

Laurie Beth Feldmant

The influence ofmorphological structure was investigated in two types ofword recognitiont asks with Serbian materials. Morphological structure included both inflectional andderivational formations and comparisons were control led for word class and th eorthographic and phonological similarity offorms. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3, the patternof facilitation to target decision latencies was examined following morphologically-relatedprimes in a repet it ion priming task. Although all morphologically-related primesfacilitated targets relative to an unprimed condition, inflectionally-related primesproduced significantly greater effects than did derivationally-related primes. InExperiments 4, 5, and 6 subjects were required to segment and shift an underlined portionfrom one word onto a second word and to name the result aloud. The shifted lettersequence was sometimes morphemic (e.g., the equivalent of ER in DRUMMER) andsometimes not (e.g., the equivalent of ER in SUMMER). Morphemic letter sequences weresegmented and shifted more rapidly than their nonmorphemic controls when they wereinflectional affixes bu t not when they were derivational affixes. These results indicate that(a) morphological effects cannot be ascribed to orthographic and phonological structure, (b)the constituent morphemic structure of a word contr ibutes to word recognit ion and (c)morphemic structure is more transparent for inflectional than for derivational formations.

Morphology underlies th e productivity of th eword-formation process and a word's fit into th esyntactic frame of a sentence. Linguists distinguish between two classes of morphological formations. Words that differ in their derivational affixes but share a base morpheme (e.g.,CALCULATION, CALCULATOR) are generallyconsidered to be different lexical items and tohave different meanings. Words that differ intheir inflectional affixes (e.g., CALCULATING,CALCULATED) but share a base morpheme aregenerally considered to be versions of th e sameThe research reported here was conducted at the Laboratoryfor Experimental Psychology at the University of Belgrade and

was supported by funds from National Institute of Chi ldHealth and Development Grant HD-01994 to HaskinsLaboratories. Portions were presented to the November 1987meeting of the Psychonomic Society. I wish to thank DarinkaAndjelkovic who conducted the experiments and DraganaBarac-Cikoja and Petar Makara who helped prepare th ematerials. Valuable comments on earlier versions of thismanuscript were provided by David Balota, Gary Dell, CarolFowler, James Neely and several anonymous reviewers and Ithank them all.

69

word, with the particular version that appears ina sentence being determined by th e syntax of th esentence. In general, inflectional formations aremore productive, do not change word class membership relative to the base morpheme and aremore constrained by syntax (Anderson, 1982) thanare derivational formations. In addition, meaningsof inflected forms tend to be compositional of themeaning of th e base and affix morphemes,whereas meanings of derived forms are less oftencompositional. The present s tudy examines howinflectional and der ivat ional formations areprocessed.

Four principles of lexical storage have been proposed for words composed of several morphemes,that is morphologically-complex words. First, aprinciple of economic storage makes it appealingto represent complex forms in terms of a basemorpheme. Accounts based on base morphemesare adequate for inflectional forms (e.g.,Caramazza, Laudanna, & Romani, 1988) but areless plausible for derivations, in par t, because (a)th e formation rules for derivations are complex

7/30/2019 sr115_06

2/29

70 Feldman

and there is no way to ascertain whether a partic-ular form has been created and (b) the semanticcontribution of the base morpheme to the meaningof th e morphologically complex derivational formis unpredictable. Second, accounts based on thestem (base morpheme plus derivational affix, i fany e.g., Burani & Laudanna, 1992) posit differentrepresentations for inflections and derivations.For example, in a lexical decision task where bothitems are formed around the same base mor-pheme, words with a derivational affix producedifferent patterns of facilitation between itemsrelat ive to words with only an inflectional affix(Laudanna, Badecker, & Caramazza, 1992).Although it is likely that the lexical representation of inflected and derived forms differs, the re-lation between the two types offormations is underspecified. Third, morphologically complexwords may be r epresented menta lly as wholeforms, without reference to their constituents(Butterworth, 1983). Fourth, Caramazza and hiscolleagues have proposed that both base mor-pheme and whole word are units for lexical access,that these alternatives are not mutually exclusive(e.g., Caramazza, Miceli, Silveri, & Laudanna,1985), and that word frequency may playa keyrole (Caramazza et al., 1988).The repet it ion priming paradigm (Stanners ,Neiser, Hernon, & Hall, 1979), yielded evidence

that morphological relationships constitute aprinciple of organization within the internal lexi-con. The influence ofmorphological relatedness isassessed by comparing lexical decision latency oraccuracy to th e target preceded by a morphologicalrelative to (a) a first presentation of th e targetword (i.e., no prime) and (b) an identical repetitionof the target word. Sometimes the reduction in re-action times and errors that occurs with morpho-logical relatives as primes is equivalent to the ef-fect of an identical repetition (e.g., Fowler, Napps,& Feldman, 1985). Other times, decision latenciesto targets following morphological relatives arereduced relative to first presentations bu t areslower than identical repetitions. The latter pat-tern is ambiguous. I t has been interpreted as evi-dence of separate lexical entries (e.g., Stanners etal., 1979) and as evidence of interrelated entries(e.g., Fowler et al., 1985).Facilitation due to morphological relatedness oc-curs in the lexical decision task across a variety oflanguages including Serbian (Feldman & Fowler,1987), Hebrew (Bentin & Feldman, 1990), as wellas English (Fowler et al., 1985; Feldman, 1992)and American Sign Language (Hanson &Feldman, 1989) and across a variety of conditions.

Facilitation in repetition priming ha s been ob-served when prime and ta rge t ar e in either thesame or different modalities (Fowler, et al., 1985;see also Kirsner, Milech, & Standen, 1983).Primes can be morphologically complex and tar gets can be morphologically simple or primes canbe simple and targets complex (Feldman &Fowler, 1987; Schriefers, Friederici, & Graetz,1992). The latter observation is significant be-cause morphologically simple forms tend to behigher in frequency than morphologically complexforms. For complex targets, both derived and in-flected formations show effects based on morpho-logical relatedness (Fowler et al., 1985; Schrieferset al., 1992).Several studies have t ried to compare patternsof facilitation at long or at short lags for prime-target pairs related by inflection and by deriva-tion. Differences in facilitation (ms) for targets fol-lowing morphologically-related and unrelatedprimes are summarized in Table 1. As shownthere, inflectional primes typical ly producegreater facilitation than derivational primes butth e difference is often not statistically significant.For example, th e words POTARONO andPOTETE are related by inflection and the wordsPOTATORE and POTETE are related by deriva-tion. In a lexical decision task, both pairs pro-duced faster latencies than unrelated pairs(Laudanna et al. , 1992; Exp. 1) . In these experi-ments, morphological relationship was defined ona single lexical item in Italian. Similarly,SPARIZIONE meaning disappearance is definedas a derivation whereas SPARIVANO meaningthey disappeared is defined as an inflection. Onlythe latter slowed recognition of (morphologically-unrelated) SPARATI which is th e pas t participleof shot and is formed from a different but homo-graphic base morpheme (Laudanna et al., 1992;Exp. 3). In a repetition priming task with Germanmaterials (Schriefers et al. , 1992), inflectionalprimes consisting of different inflected adjectiveforms produced greater facilitation than deriva-tional primes consisting of abstract nouns formedfrom adjectives. Finally, in Hebrew (Feldman &Bentin, in press), morphological relationship wasdefined over th e word pair because it is no t alwaysobvious which item is derived from which, bu t nodifferences between inflections and derivationswere observed in the repetition priming task. Inshort, the pattern ofresults observed with variouspriming procedures indicates that differences be-tween inflectional and derivational facilitationhave appeared, but that they are often not reliablysignificant in separate comparisons.

7/30/2019 sr115_06

3/29

Beyand Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 71

Table 1. Summary of facilitation for inflectional and derivational targets following identity, inflectional andderivational primes in immediate and long term priming tasks.

IDENTITYTYPE OF PRIME

INFLECTIONAL DERIVATIONALIINTERVAL

DERrVATIONAL2STUDY:Stanners et aI., 1979. Exp. l a166 181

160 150140 131

Stanners et aI., 1979. Exp. 2b84 4999 39

Stanners et aI., 1979. Exp. 3c120118

Fowler et aI., 1985 d101 7842

Feldman & Fowler, 1987. Exp. Ie54 45Feldman & Fowler, 1987. Exp. 2f90 74

Feldman & Fowler, 1987. Exp. 3g58 50Feldman & Bentin, 1992. Exp. 1h

68 60Schriefers, Friederici, & Graetz, 1992, Exp. 2i

108 9990Laudanna, Badecker, & Caramazza, 1992, Exp. Ij

26

7232

47

59502635

long

long

long

long

longlonglonglonglong

44short

a simple regular targets and inflected primes e.g., BURNS-BURNb simple regular targets and irregular inflected primes e.g., HUNG-HANGc simple regular targets and regular derived primes e.g., SELECTIVE-SELECTdsimple targets with sound change primes e.g., HEALTH-HEALe simple targets with regular inflected primes e.g.. DlNARA-DlNARf inflected targets with simple and inflected primes e.g., DlNAR(OM)-DlNARAg simple targets with inflected sound change targets PETKUIPETKOM-PETAKh complex targets with complex primes e.g. NAFAUNEFEL-NOFELi simple and complex targets with simple and complex primes e.g., ROTEJROTLICH-ROTj inflected targets e.g., RAPIVANOIRAPITORE-RAPIREThe repe ti ti on p riming results summarizedabove clearly demonstrate that under some condi

tions, morphological effects do arise in wordrecognition tasks. However, contrasts between theeffects of inflections and derivations have not beencompelling. Some of the experiments includedboth inflectional and derivational forms but theydid no t explicitly compare these types of morphological formations. When planned comparisons between inflectionally- and derivationally-relatedprime-target pairs have been included, resultshave been equivocal. Fo r example, whereasStanners et al. (1979) reported significant differences in magni tude of facilitation for these two

types of formations when they were regular only,Fowler et al. (1985) found no significant differencealthough small numerical differences typicallywere evident. Although these experiments withEnglish materials included a comparison of facilitation with inflectional and derivational primes,this comparison is not without it s problems. InEnglish, inflectional formations tend to be moresimilar in form and meaning than are derivationalformations (or alternatively, forms related by inflection share a stem as well as a base morphemewhereas forms related by derivation typicallyshare only a stem). This observation is relevantbecause at short lags, orthographic overlap is

7/30/2019 sr115_06

4/29

72 Feldman

sometimes reported to influence the pattern of facilitation in this and s imilar tasks (Emmorey,1989; Napps & Fowler, 1987; Stolz & Feldman, inpress). Moreover, the number of inflectional af-fixes for English is severely limited relative to thenumber of derivational affixes. These limitationsimpede a r igorous experimental comparison between inflectional and derivational formationswith English materials.By contrast, in Serbian it is possible to identifyinflection-derivation pairs with only minimaldifferences in form and meaning. One suchcontrast entails agents and other nouns formedfrom verbs. For example, PEVAC, meaning singer,is formed from the verba l base morpheme PEVand th e derivational affix AC. The same basemorpheme appears in all present tense forms ofthe verb to sing including PEVA and PEVAM.Other sets of inflection-derivation pairs entai lverb forms that share a base morpheme bu t differin aspec t (which reflects temporal properties ofth e verb). Perfective and imperfective aspect canbe marked by th e vowel ofthe suffix, by a prefix orby an infix. Although it is sometimes difficult toascertain which i s the derived form, it is wellestablished that perfective and imperfective verbsin Serbian are derivationally related to each other.(Therefore, in th e present study, derivationwill bedefined relative to a target.) Of course, each canbe inflected to produce different verb forms. Forboth agent and aspect type of derivations, it ispossible to identify inflectional forms with thesame base morpheme so that the orthographic andphonemic overlap of primes with targets ismatched across derivational and inflectionalcomparisons.

The first three of the present experiments wererepetit ion priming experiments in which nativespeakers of Serbian performed a lexical decisiontask with Serbian materials. Targets were preceded by other forms that were either inflectionally or der ivat ionally related to th e target.Inflectional and derivational formations werematched for phonological and orthographic overlap with the target. In Experiment 1, targets suchas PEVA (third person singular verb) were preceded an average of ten items earlier in th e list by(a) an identical repetition, PEVA (b) th e inflectionally-related prime, PEVAM (first person singular verb) or (c) the derivationally-related prime,PEVAC (nominative singular of agentive).Inflectional and derivational primes were matchedwith respect to orthographic and phonologicalsimilarity to th e target but derivational forms didnot prese rve th e word class of the target. In

Experiment 2, prefixed or infixed imperfectiveverb targets in third person plural such asOBARE and GURNU were preceded by (a) anidentical repetition, (b) an inflectionally-relatedprime, OBARIM or GURNEM (first person singula r verbs), or (c) a derivationally-related prime,BARIM or GURAM (first person singular verbs)that differed in aspect. In Experiment 3, perfective targets such as NOSE (third person pluralverbs) were preceded by (a) an identical repetition,(b) an inflectionally-related prime, NOSIM (firstperson singular verbs) or (c) a derivationally-related prime, NOSAM (imperfective f irst personsingular verbs) where the las t differed in aspect.Here, all primes and targets were verb forms andprime-target similarity was matched across onehalf of th e inflectional and derivational primes.Using planned comparisons, target facilitation inlexical decision following inflectionally-relatedprimes and derivationally-related primes wascompared and facilitation following derivationallyrelated primes relative to first presentations wasassessed.

In order to ascertain that the morphological effects observed in repetition priming were not specific to th e lexical decision task, th e effect of morphology was also investigated in a second experimental task. In Experiments 4, 5, and 6, subjectswere required to segment and shift the final sequence of letters from a visually-presented sourceword to a target word and to name the new formaloud. Morphemic segments were compared withtheir phonemically- and orthographically-matchedbu t nonmorphemic controls and both inflectionaland derivational segments were examined. Thestructure of experimental materials for th e present study is described in Table 2.By linguistic accounts, th e component structureof inflections is more transparent than that ofderivations. The repe ti ti on p riming task hasproven itself to be sensitive to morphological relations between prime and target, but attempts tocompare the patterns of facilitation in repetitionpriming for inflectionally- and derivationally-related prime-targets pairs have not yielded unambiguous results. This outcome may reflect th e factthat in English, derivational affixes tend to becomposed of more let ters and to be semanticallyless compositional than are inflectional affixes.Experiment 1 was designed to compare these twotypes of morphological formations when effects ofaffix length are matched. In Serbian, it is easier tomeet these constraints than in English becauseextensive families of words are formed from thesame base morpheme.

7/30/2019 sr115_06

5/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations

Table 2. The morphological constituentsofmorphologically simpleandcomplexwords in Serbian.SlEM

73

WORDSERBIAN

PEVAMPEVACNOS1MNOSAMPRESOMPRELOMCEVICEDIlEDEMBEDEMZIDARKADARBAlAMSAlAMBASTICAKOSTICA

BASE

PEVPEVNOSNOSPRESPRELOMCEVCEDJEDBEDEMZIDKADARBAlSAlAMBASTKOSTICA

SUFFIX:DERIVATION

AC

AR

AM

ICA

SUFFIX:INFLECTION

AM

1MAMOMfracture

EM

MEANING

I singsingerI carry (perfective)I carry (imperfective)press (instrumental)

pipes (nominative plural)he wringsI eatembankmentbrick layersequenceI do magicfairgarden (diminutive)pit

MethodsSubjects. Twenty-seven first year students fromthe Department of Psychology at the University ofBelgrade participated in Experiment 1. All werenat ive speakers of Serbian. All had vision thatwas normal or corrected to normal and had priorexperience in reaction-time studies.Stimulus materials. Twenty-seven Serbian wordtriples were selected. Fourteen consisted of a noun

target in nominative case with an inflectionallyrelated form in instrumental case and a der ivationally-related verb form. For example, the nominative target BROD, meaning boat, was pairedwith i ts instrumental BRODU and with BROD!,the thi rd person singular of the verb meaning tosail which is derivationally-related to BROD, th etarget. The remaining thirteen triples consisted ofverb targets in one of three singular person formswith another inflected form of that same verb andwith th e agentive derived from that verb. For example, the target PEVA, meaning he sings, waspaired with PEVAM, meaning I sing, andPEVAC, meaning singer. All words were highlyfamiliar, contained between three and seven letters, and were printed in Roman script. They arelisted in Appendix 1. Twenty-seven orthographi-cally and phonemically regular pseudowords were

generated by changing one or two letters (vowelwith vowel or consonant with consonant) in basesof other real words. Triplets were generated forthese pseudowords in a fashion analogous to thatfor words (i.e., affixes were real).A member of each morphologically-related word(and pseudoword) triple appeared once as a targetand once as a prime. In the identity condition, th esame form occurred twice. In the inflectionallyrelated condition, the prime was another inflectedform of th e target and it necessarily preservedword class. In the derivationally-related condition,the prime was a verbal form for noun targets anda noun form for verb targets . Inflectionally andderivationally related primes were each one or twoletters longer than the target and within a pair,overlap was perfectly matched phonemically aswell as orthographically. Finally, th e full targetwas contained within th e inflectionally andderivationally related primes. For example, bothBRaD! and BRODU are each one letter longerthan and include th e target BROD. Primes andtargets were separated by an average of 10 inter-vening items with a range was of 8 to 12 items.Procedure. Individually tested subjects per-formed a lexical decis ion task. On each trial, avisual fixation signal accompanied by an auditory

7/30/2019 sr115_06

6/29

74 Feldman

signal appeared for 200 ms then a target letterstring printed in upper case was presented for 750ms. As each target letter string appeared on th eCRT of an Apple II computer, th e subject presseda telegraph key with both hands to indicatewhether or no t it was a word. A press of th efarther key signaled "yes" and th e closer key, "no".Reaction t ime was measured from th e onset of th eletter string. The interval between subject's response and th e onset of th e next experimentaltrial was 2000 ms.Design. For Experiment 1, three test orders eachcontaining 114 items were created. Half of th eitems were words and half pseudowords. Fiftyfour i tems were primes and fifty-four items weretargets. Words and pseudowords were presentedequal ly often as primes and a s ta rg et s. Inaddition, there were six filler items introduced tomaintain th e requisite lags. Each test orderincluded nine tokens o feach of the three types ofprimes (viz., identity, inflectional, derivational)and across test orders, each target was precededby al l three types of prime. Subject s wererandomly assigned to one of the three test ordersand a practice list of ten items preceded eachexperimental list.Results and Discussion

Errors and ext reme response t imes (grea te rthan 2 SD or less than -2 SD from each subject'smean) were eliminated from all react ion timeanalyses. Accordingly, about 4% of all responses

were eliminated. Table 3 summarizes th e meanrecognition times over subjects for target wordsand pseudowords preceded by identity, inflectionaland derivational primes and for th e firstpresentation of those same words as a prime.

Analyses of variance were performed on targetlatencies for words and pseudowords usingsubjects (FlJ and items (F2) as random variables.The analysis included th e first presentation of thetarget as the no prime condition, targets precededby themselves as the identity condition, targetspreceded by an inflected form and targetspreceded by a derived form. For words, there wasa significant effect of type of prime on targetlatencies [Fl(3,78) = 15.66 MSe = 641, p < .001;F2(3,78) = 8.13, MSe = 1597, p < .001] but theeffect of prime with th e error measure missedsignificance [Fl(3,78) = 2.66, MS e = 46, P < .054;F 2 (3,78) = 0.88]. The results of plannedcomparisons on decision latencies indicated thatfacilitation from derivationally-related primes wassignificantly weaker than facilitation frominflectionally-related primes [Fl(1,26) = 6.58, MSe= 383, p < .016; F2(1,26) = 3.1, MSe = 4950, p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

7/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 75

Facil itat ion was assessed by examining differences in latencies (and errors) to targets precededby a prime and t o f ir st presentations of targets.Consequently, prime presentations necessarilyoccurred earlier in the list than did targets.Because there is evidence that latencies get fasteras subjects proceed through th e list, and becausefacilitation following derivations tended to beweak relative to facilitation following inflections,it is important to determine whether or notfacilitation from derivations was correlated withserial position of the prime. In Experiment 1, th ecorrelation between serial position of th e primeand the difference between latencies for firstpresentations and latencies following derivationalprimes was r = -.048. Therefore, th e magnitude offac il itat ion was not distorted by th e no primebaseline. Note, however , that any potentialbaseline problem i s not relevant when comparingfacilitation following inflectional and derivationalprimes because position of t he targe t (and th etarget item) were identical.The present experiment with Serbian materialsreplicates previous findings in th e same language(Feldman & Moskovljevic, 1987; Feldman &Fowler, 1987) as well as other languages (Fowleret aI., 1985; Bentin & Feldman, 1990).Specifically, relative to a no prime condition,morphologically-related word forms facilitatedeach other at lags that average 10 interveningitems but pseudoword analogs did not. Insummary, facilitation was observed in the patternof target latencies for all types of morphologicallyr ela ted pr imes and the amount of facilitationvaried by type of prime. I t is interesting to notethat although identity and inflectional primestended to yield statistically equivalent facilitationin earlier studies (e.g., Feldman & Fowler, 1987),under some circumstances derivations have beenobserved to produce facilitation that wassignificantly reduced relative to t he identi tycondition (Feldman & Moskovljevic, 1987; Exp. 2;Schriefers et al., 1992). Nevertheless, no publishedexperiment with Serbian materials included, oreven permitted, a direct comparison betweeninflectional and derivational types of primes.

The present study extends previous repetitionpriming results in Serbian by contrasting twotypes o f morphological formations while tightlycontrolling their similarity. With phonemic andorthographic overlap equated between inflectionally- and derivationally-related prime forms, therewas evidence of enhanced facilitation for targetsfollowing inflectionally-related primes relative to

derivationally-related primes. This distinction canbe represented in th e lexicon. Perhaps the linkagebetween whole word forms that share a base morpheme is stronger (or the internal coherence oftheir constituents is weaker) for inflectionally-related forms than for derivationally-related forms.Unfortunately, th e composition of experimentalmaterials in the present experiment is consistentwith another account. In Experiment 1, al lderivational formations differed in word classfrom their morphologically-related target whereasall inflectional formations (necessarily) preservedword class. Specifically, translations of agentivessuch as singer primed verb targets such as hesings and verb forms such as he sails primedderived noun targets such as boat. While suchchanges are, in fact, characteristic of derivationalprocesses in al l languages, they make anunequivocal interpretation of th e contrast betweeninflectional and derivational pairs more difficult.I t is important to note that although, in th erepeti tion priming task, no effects of semantics imilar ity have been r epor ted with visuallypresented relatives and lags of 10 items (Bentin &Feldman, 1990; Napps, 1989) or with auditorilypresented materials presented successively(Emmorey, 1989; but see Radeau, 1983;Slowiaczek, 1994), it is nevertheless possible thatderivations are semantically more distinct fromt he ir t arge ts than ar e inflections and thatsemantic similarity can, under somecircumstances, contribute to the pa tte rn offacilitation. Accordingly, Experiment 2 entailed acomparison of th e pattern of facilitation withSerbian inflections and derivations that a)consistently preserved word class, b) weresemantically quite close in meaning and c) wereconstructed with attention to their orthographicsimilarity to the target.

EXPERIMENT 2Inflectional affixes tend to alter th e meaning of

the base morpheme in predictable ways (Aronoff,1976) whereas the effect of derivational affixes isl es s consi st en t. Consequen tly, infl ec tionalformations tend to be similar in form and meaningto other forms that share a base morpheme (andstem) and differ with respect to inflectional affixwhereas derivational formations tend to differ inform and meaning from other forms that share abase morpheme and differ with respect toderivational affixes (and stem). In Serbian it ispossible to identify inflection-derivation pairs withonly minimal differences in meaning and form.

7/30/2019 sr115_06

8/29

76 Feldman

One such contrast entails verbs that differ withrespect to aspect. Generally stated, aspect reflectsthe temporal properties of th e verb. These includeinceptive forms of stative verbs and iterativeforms of verbs that describe discrete events.All th e experimental materials for Experiment 2were verb forms. Targets were preceded byidentity, inflectionally- or derivationally-relatedprimes. Inflected primes were other forms of th esame verbs that differed in person. Derivedprimes were forms of lexically-distinct verbscomposed from the same base morpheme thatdiffered in aspect and person from t he t arg etword. The manipulation on derivation alternatedperfective and imperfective forms. Semantically,this distinction is relat ively minor entailingcontrasts between semantic notions such ascompleted and progressive actions in HE SATDOWN and HE WAS SITTING or between eventsand states such as HE RECOGNIZES and HEKNOWS. (Note that progressivity isgrammaticalized in English whereas stativity islexicalized (Lyons, 1977)). I t is important tounderscore, however, that in Serbian, unlikeEnglish, th e perfective and imperfective forms ofthe verbs included in th e present study areconsidered distinct lexical entries.

I t is relevant to note that there is no consensusabout the morphological status of aspectualformations either across l anguages or acrosstheorists (compare Anderson, 1982 with Bybee,1985). In the present study, it is assumed thataspect is a derivational process. I t is restricted byits meaning to a particular semantic class ofSerbian verbs (Partridge, 1964 in Bybee, 1985).Moreover, it was also always th e case that twodistinct verbal entries existed in th e dictionary.Note however, that these formations do no tchange word cla ss a s is typical of derivationalformations. In Experiment 2, aspect was markedby the addition of either a pref ix or an infix to thebase morpheme. Consequently, forms related byinflection shared both a base morpheme and as tem (base morpheme p lus de riv ationa l affix)whereas forms related by derivation shared a basemorpheme but differed with respec t to stem. Forexample, th e words OBARIM and BARIM ar eboth formed from th e base BAR and th einflectional affix 1M. They differ with respect tothe presence of a prefix which is part of the stem.Accordingly, th e stems are OBAR and BAR,respectively.The outcome of Experiment 1 indicated that

with controls for orthographic overlap, the lexical

representation of morphological relatedness by inflection and derivation differed. If this outcomereflects typ e of morphological relation as distinguished from effects of preserving or alteringwordclass, then consistent with the results ofExperiment 1, in Experiment 2 facilitation fromprimes that ar e inflectionally-related to thei r targets should be greater than from primes that ar ederivationally-related. Of course, th e absence of adifference is ambiguous. I t could indicate that th eeffect observed in Experiment 1 does reflectchanges in word class between prime and target.Alternatively, it could indicate that aspect inSerbian is no t a derivational relationship butrather, a less general inflectional relationship.If, as sometimes claimed (e.g., Taft & Forster,1975; Bergman, Hudson, & Eling, 1988), prefixesbut not o ther affixes ar e stripped from the basebefore lexical access is attempted, then thepattern for prefixed primes should differ from thatof infixed primes. Alternatively, if activation inrepetition priming is based on the stem (base plusderivational affix) rather than th e base alone assometimes claimed (Burani & Laudanna, 1992)then infixed forms should show a pattern similarto that of prefixed forms. Because inflectionsshared both base and stem whereas derivationsshared a base morpheme only, derivations shouldproduce weaker facil itat ion than inflectionswhenever the stem and base morpheme differ.In summary, as in Experiment 1, patterns offacilitation for primes related by inflection and by

derivation ar e examined in Experiment 2. Bothinflectional and der ivat ional primes alwaysincluded the full bas e morpheme and theirinflectional affixes were matched for letter length.In contrast to Experiment 1, in which orthographic and phonological overlap was perfectlymatched but word c la ss d if fe red betweenderivational but not inf lect ional pr imes, inExperiment 2, th e presence of a prefix or an infIxrendered inflectional primes more similar to theirtargets than derivational primes (that included noaffix) bu t all were verb forms.MethodsSubjects. Thirty-six first year s tudents similar

in characterist ics to those of Experiment 1,pa rtic ip ated in Exper imen t 2. None hadparticipated in Experiment 1.Stimulus materials. Forty-eight Serbian word

triples were selected. Each included three verbforms: a target verb, a prime that wasinflectionally re la ted and a prime that was

7/30/2019 sr115_06

9/29

Beyond Ortlwgraphy and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 77

derivationally related to th e t arge t. Targetsconsisted of present-tense verb forms in the thirdperson plura l. Each was composed of a basemorpheme and an aspectual affix. Inflected formswere first person singular of those same verbs.Derived forms were first person s ingu la r o fdifferent verbs fo rmed from th e same basemorpheme without an aspectual affix. (Theseforms are designated as derived because they arerelated by derivation to the target.) Inflectionaland derivational primes were always presented inthe same person and number. Items are listed inAppendix l .Typically, t he t arget and inflected prime wereimperfective forms and the derived prime wasperfective. They were al l formed from the samebase morpheme but, because of the addition of anaffix, they differed with respect to their stems.Derivation was defined rel ati ve to the targe trather than on an isolated word. Structurally, al lmembers of a triple were composed of th e samebase morpheme but differed with respect to thepresence of an affix, either prefix or infix. Forexample, perfective forms of the base morphemeBAR, meaning cook, included BARIM, BARIS,BAR!...BARE whereas imperfective forms such asOBARIM, OBARIS, OBAR!...BARE include th eprefix O. Other than th e prefix or infix, th eorthographic and phonemic overlap of primes andtheir morphologically-related targets was perfectlycontrolled by selecting third person plural formsending in E as targets and necessarily as identityprimes (e.g., OBARE), forms ending in 1M (e.g.,OBARIM) as inflectionally-related primes andverbs differing in aspect (e.g., BARIM) as thederivationally-related primes. Perfective forms ofthe base morpheme GUR, meaning push, includeGURAM, GURAS, GURA...GURAJU whereasimperfective forms such as GURNEM, GURNES,GURNE. ..GURNU include the infix N. For infixedrelatives, targets and identity primes ending in U(e.g., GURNU), inflectional primes ending in EM(e.g., GURNEM) and derivational primes endingin AM (e.g. , GURAM) were presented whereinflectional and derivational primes were alwaysin the same person and number. In summary, theorthographic and phonological similarity of bothinflectional and derivational primes was matchedto the target so that both included the full basemorpheme although due to th e prefix or infix,overall overlap for inflectional forms was slightlygreater than that for derivational forms.Pseudoword triples were created by substitutingvowels or consonants within o ther base mor-

phemes in order to create meaningless bases thatwere orthographically legal. To these, real inflected affixes were appended in order to c reatesets of pseudowords that differed only with respect to affix. The distribution of pseudoword af-fixes was matched to those for words. Pseudowordtargets were preceded by identity, inflectionally(or derivationally-) related pseudoword primes orby a real word prime. The value in including aword prime with a pseudoword target was to examine whether facilitation in repetition primingextends to strings without lexical status.Three test orders were created. Each contained200 items and included equal numbers of word

and pseudoword targets preceded an average often items earlier i n the list by a morphologicallyrelated prime. In each test order, eight tokens foreach of the three types of prime were presented.Across the three test orde rs, each word orpseudoword target was preceded by all three typesof morphologically related primes. In contrast toprevious repetition priming studies, herepseudoword targets were preceded 33% ofthe timeby a word prime formed from the same basemorpheme.Procedure. The procedure was identical to that

of Experiment 1.Results and DiscussionMean decision latencies (for responses less than2 SD or greater than -2 SD from each subject'smean) and error r ates in Experiment 2 are summarized in Table 3. Errors and outliers accounted

for approximately 6% of all responses. An analysisof lexical decision latencies for words revealed asignificant effect of type of prime [F 1(3,105) =45.06, MSe = 1726, p < .001; F2(3,138) = 27.73,MSe =2865, p < .0001]. Effects of affix type weresignificant [F1(l,35) = 46.51, MS e = 1321, p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

10/29

78 Feldman

infixed condition [Fl(1,35) =1.96,MSe=2883,p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

11/29

BeyondOrthography and Phonology: Differences between Inf!ectiotl$ and Derivations 79

EXPERIMENT 3The natural confound between inflections and

derivations noted above was eliminated in thethird experiment. Specifically, forms related byinflection tend to be more similar in terms oforthography and phonology than forms related byderivation. This i s because derived forms share abase morpheme but differ with respect toderivational affix and therefore s tem whereasinflected forms share both their base morphemeand their stem. The materials for Experiment 3consisted of another set ofverbs related by aspect.In each instance, two entries were formed aroundthe same base morpheme; however, they differedwith respect to t he set of inflectional affIXes eachrequired. That is, many i tems shared both theirbase morpheme and their stem and they differedonly with respect to their thematic vowel (Scalise,1984). I f differences between facilitation byinflection and derivation are observed with thematerials of Experiment 3, they cannot beattributed to orthographic overlap or to repetitionof the base morpheme bu t not the stem.MethodsSubjects. Thirty-six first year students similar

in characteristics to those of th e first twoexperiments participated in Experiment 3. Nonehad participated in Experiments 1 or 2.Stimulus materials. Twenty-six word triples in

Serbian were selected. Each included three verbforms: a target verb, a prime that wasinflectionally-related, and a prime that wasderivationally-related to the target. Targetsconsisted of present tense verb forms in the firstor third person plural. Inflected forms were firstperson singular of those same verbs. Derivedforms were first person singular of different verbsformed from th e same base morpheme thatdiffered in th e temporal qualities of th e actionthey conveyed. Inflectional and der ivat ionalprimes were always presented in the same personand number. Items are listed in Appendix 1.The orthographic and phonemic overlap of

primes and their morphologically-related targetswas carefully controlled and two patterns wereincluded. Structurally, all members of a t riple inthe matched pattern were verbs constructed fromth e same base morpheme and stem but theydiffered with respect to the (thematic) vowelaround which th e inflectional affix was formed.For example, in one pattern, perfective forms ofth e base morpheme NOS meaning carry ar egenerally formed around the vowel I such as

NOSIM, NOSIS NOSI.. .(but) NOSE whereasimperfective forms ar e generally formed around Asuch as NOSAM, NOSAS NOSA .. .NOSAJU.Forms ending in E served as targets andnecessarily as identity primes (e.g., NOSE), formsending in 1M or EM (e.g., NOSIM) served asinflectionally-related primes, and verbs differingin aspect (e.g., NOSAM) served as thederivationally-related primes. Thirteen such pairswere selected. Thirteen pairs followed a secondunmatched pattern in which the inflectionallyrelated prime overlapped by one or two lettersmore than did the derivationally-related prime.For example , forms ending in AMO (e.g.,NAZIVAMO) served as targets and as identityprimes, forms ending in AM (e.g., NAZIVAM)served as inflectional primes and forms ending inEM (e.g., NAZOVEM) served as derivationalprimes. Note that for these triples, inflectionalprimes preserved both th e I and A vowels of th etarget whereas the derivational primes did not.Pseudoword triples were created by substitutingvowels or consonants within other base morphemes in order to create meaningless bases thatwere orthographically lega l. To these , r ea l inflected affixes were appended in order to createsets of pseudowords that differed only with respect to affix. As with words, pseudoword targetswere preceded by identity, inflected and derivat ionally-related primes. Inflected and derivedforms consisted of a nonsense base morphemewith a legal affix. The distribution of pseudowordaffixes was matched to those for words.In summary, as in Experiments 1 and 2, bothinflectional and derivational primes always included the full base form and their affixes were

matched for letter length. In contrast toExperiment 1, in which orthographic and phonological overlap was perfectly matched bu t wordclass differed between prime and target, derivational as well as inflectional primes inExperiments 2 and 3 preserved word class of thetarget. In contrast to Experiment 2, in which orthographic and phonological overlap between inflectional and derivations primes was not perfectlymatched, in Exper iment 3 matched and mismatched overlap was systematically manipulated.In the condition in which orthographic and phonological overlap were mismatched, inflectionalprimes were more similar to their targets thanwere derivational primes because th e inflectionalprimes (i.e., those ending in AM) preserved thevowels of th e target form whereas none of th ederivational primes did. In the condition in whichorthographic and phonological overlap were

7/30/2019 sr115_06

12/29

80 Feldman

matched, inflectional and derivational primeswere equally similar to their targets.

Three test orders were created. Each contained114 items and included equal numbers of wordand pseudoword targets preceded an average ofte n items earlier in t he list by a morphologicallyrelated prime. In each test order, four or fivetokens of each of the three types of matched andunmatched primes were presented. Across th ethree test orders, each word or pseudoword waspreceded by al l three ty pes of morphologicallyrelated primes.Procedure. The procedures were identical tothose ofExperiments 1 and 2.Results and Discussion

Mean decision latencies (for responses less than2 SD or greater than -2 SD from each subject 'smean) and error rates in Experiment 3 ar e summarized in Table 5. Accordingly, approximately5% of responses were eliminated. An analysis oflexical decision latencies for words revealed asignificant effect of type of prime (F 1(3,105) =23.40, MSe = 2598,p < .001; F2(3,72) = 11.17, MSe= 2396, P < .0001]. Effects of orthographic andphonological overl ap (ma tch) were s igni fi cantin th e analysis by subjects (F1(1,35) = 21.14, MSe= 3607, p < .001] but not in th e analysis byitems (F2(l,24) = 2.54; MS e = 86181; p < .12].Importantly, th e interaction of type and match didno t approach significance in either analysis.

Nevertheless, comparisons between inflectionsand derivat ions were examined separately formatched and mismatched items. Target latenciesfollowing orthographically-matched inflectionalprimes were faster than target latencies followingderivational primes (F1(1,35) = 6.26, MSe =2197,p < .014; F2(l,12) = 4.73, MSe = 1150, P < .05].However this pattern missed significance formismatched primes [Fl(1,35) = 2.06, MSe = 2197,p < .15; F2(1,12) =1.23]. Finally, latencies for targets following derivational primes were significantly faster than for f irst presenta tions whenoverlap was mismatched (Fl(l,105) =28.58MSe =2197 , p < .001; F2(1,12) = 8.81, MSe = 2814, p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

13/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 81

The pattern of target latencies indicated thatidentical repetition and inflectional primes bothproduced significant and equivalent facilitation.Matched derivational primes produced significantly reduced facilitation relative to th e inflectional condition and significant facilitation relat ive to th e no prime condition. The present resultsreplicate previously observed effects ofmorphological relatedness in the repetition priming task andextend those results by revealing a significantdistinction between the effect on targets of inflectional and derivational primes that share boththeir s tem and their base morpheme.Effects of orthographic and phonologic overlapbetween prime and target on th e pattern offacilitation across prime types were systematicallyexamined because inflectional relatives tend to bemore similar than derivational relatives. Matchedand mismatched overlap never interacted withtype of prime although planned comparisonsindicated that th e difference between targetspreceded by inflections and by derivations wasstatistically more reliable for matched pairs thanfor mismatched pairs. This pattern is no tanticipated if differences in magnitude offacilitation between inf le ct iona lly- andderivationally-related primes reflects extent oforthographic overlap with th e target. Moreover,because th e semantic differences betweeninflectional and derivational relatives was small,it cannot readily be attributed to greater semanticoverlap for inflections relative to derivations.

The materials selected for Experiment 3 areunique in that for many items inflectional andderivational relatives were both formed aroundthe same base morpheme and differed only withrespect to th e vowel from which th e inflectionalaffixes were formed. Because no derivational affixwas introduced, relatives shared both their basemorpheme and their stem. Thus, the results ofExperiment 3 indicate that the difference betweeninflections and der ivat ions in the repetitionpriming task cannot be attributed to greaterfacilitation for stems than for bases.

In the present study, morphological relativesproduced facilitation to target decision latencies inthe repetition priming task but the interpretationof these lexical decision results is not straightforward. I t ha s been suggested that th e results obtained with this task may reflect binary decisionprocesses that are specific to this task (Balota &Chumbley, 1984) or alternatively that expectancyand post-lexical mechanisms are involved as wellas lexical activation (Neely, 1991). Obviously, it isimportant to provide converging evidence from

other experimental tasks for the contribution ofmorphology to word recognition. In the three remaining experiments, morphological effects ar einvestigated in a new experimental task.

EXPERIMENT 4The outcome of the first three experiments using

th e repetition priming paradigm suggestedprocessing differences between inflectional andderivational formations. Another source ofevidence for the role of morphology in lexicalprocessing derives from the pattern of errorsobserved in the production of spontaneous speech(Cutler, 1980; Dell, 1986; Fromkin, 1973; Garrett,1980, 1982; Stemberger, 1985). One prevalenttype of error entails the reordering ofmorphemicelements so that th e stem or affix of a wordmigrates from the intended word to another site.The pattern for stems and affixes tend to differ(Garrett, 1976). Although there ar e confoundedprosodic differences, this observation has beeninterpreted as evidence that th e base morphemeand inflectional components of a morphologicallycomplex word are separable. Moreover, when wordfinal elements are misordered, those that ar emorphemic are. more likely to shift than arephonemically equivalent but nonmorphemicsegments (Sternberger, 1984) and this differencecannot be attributed to frequency differences(Dell, 1990). Finally, inflectional affixes are morel ike ly to migrate than are derivational affixes(Garrett, 1982). Collectively, these observationsindicate that th e cons titu en t s tr uc tu re ofmorphologically complex words is available to th eproduction mechanism and are consistent with theclaim that inflectional and derivational forms maybe treated d iff er en tl y (see also Badecker &Caramazza, 1989; Miceli & Caramazza, 1988).

In Experiments 4, 5 and 6, an experimental taskinspired by the pattern of speech errors inspontaneous speech was developed in order toprovide converging evidence for the claim that themorphological consti tuents of a word can beavailable to a processing mechanism. The segmentshifting task entails deliberately shifting segmentsfrom a source word to a target word and rapidlynaming the product aloud. The experimentalmanipulation exploits the fact that th e morphemicstructure ofmany words is not wholly transparentand that the same sequence of letters (e.g., ER)can function morphemically in one context (e.g.,DRUMMER) and nonmorphemically in ano ther(e.g., SUMMER). Letter sequences which aremorphological in the context of some source wordsand nonmorphological in the context of others

7/30/2019 sr115_06

14/29

82 Feldman

were shifted onto th e same target word.Pronunciation latencies for the same targetsformed from morphemic and nonmorphemicsource words are compared. The segment shiftingprocedure used in Experiment 4 is depicted inFigure LMethodsSubjects. Twenty-six students at the Universityof Belgrade participated in the experiment in par

tial fulfillment of the requirements for anIntroductory Psychology course. All had experience with reaction time studies but none had par-ticipated in previous experiments in this study.The data from nine addition subjects were eliminated because their error rates exceeded 20%.Stimulus materials. Sixteen pai rs o f Serbianwords were constructed for each oftwo morphological types and these constituted the source wordsfor Experiment 4. Each pair of source words in

cluded a morphologically complex word composedof a base morpheme and a morphological suffIxand a morphologically simple control word. Thecontrol word ended with the same sequence of letters that functioned morphemically in its pair.Morphemic and nonmorphemic endings were controlled for phonemic and syllabic structure ( Tyler& Nagy, 1989). The Serbian analog of inflected

words such as WINNING and matched morphologically simple words such as INNING constituted an inflectional type pair. For example, inflectional source words consisted ofmasculine singular instrumentals such as PRESOM, whichmeans press, and nonmorphemic controls cons is ted of morphologically simple words endingwith th e same sequence of letters without a morphemic function such as PRELOM, which meansfracture, in nominative case. Note that the OMsequence appeared on morphemic and non-morphemic source words of equal length and thatsource and target words were semantically unre-lated.A second morphological type consisted of homographic morpheme affixes. Pairs of source wordsconsisted ofmorphologically complex source wordswith morphological affixes that were compatiblewith the target word (same syntactic category andgender) and morphologically complex sourcewords that were not. That is, the Serbian analogofnominal or verbal S was shifted to anotherwordof th e same (cons is tent ) or a different(inconsistent) word class. For example, the nominative plural I from CEVI, meaning pipes, or thethird person singular I from CEDI, meaning hewrings was shifted to the target word RAD in order to form the word RADI meaning he works.

200ms

PRESOM

PRESOMTOP

"TOPOM"

Figure 1. The original segment shifting procedure.

PRELOM

PRELOMTOP

"TOPOM"

500ms

1500 msclock starts

clock stops

7/30/2019 sr115_06

15/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differmces between Inflections and Derivations 83

Note that in both source words the I ismorphemic. What differs for homographic affixesis the consistency or inconsistency of the syntacticcategory of the source word and the targe t word.Source words fo r th e segment shiftingexperiments ar e described in Table 1 and arelisted in Appendix l .Procedure. Following the presentation of a fixation point for 200 ms, a source word with a portion

underlined appeared for 500 ms. Immediately afterwards, the target word appeared below th esource word and a clock started. Both words remained vis ible for 1500 ms. A blank field followedthe display and lasted for 2000 ms.Subjects were instructed to segment and shift

the designated segment from a source word on to atarget word and to name th e new result aloud asrapidly as possible. For example, th e OM of th esource word PRESOM was underlined andsubjects were instructed to shift that sequence oflet ters to the target word TOP in nominative casein order to produce TOPOM, which means cannonin instrumental case. Onset to vocalization wasmeasured and errors were recorded. A sequence of13 practice items preceded the experimental listwhich included eight tokens each in themorphemic-nonmorphemic and morphemicincompatible conditions.Results and DiscussionMeans for Experiment 4 are summarized inTable 6. All correct scores less extreme than 3 SDfrom the mean for each subject were included in

an analysis of variance (approximately 14% of al l

scores were eliminated)and revealed a significanteffect ofmorphological type (inflection/homograph)[Fl(1,25) =7.53, MSe =1278,p < .01; F2(1,30) =4.85, MS e =1222, p < .04]. The interaction ofmorphological s tatus and morphological type wassignificant in th e analysis by subjects [Fl(l,25) =11.89 MS e = 437, P < .003], but was onlymarginally significant in the analysis by items[F2(1,30) =2.96, MSe =1550, P < .10]. The effectof morphological status was no t significant. Aplanned comparison between morphological andnonmorphological segments was significant for theinflectional type of affix [Fl(1,25) = 10.44, MSe=585, p < .001; F2(l,15) =3.25, MSe =1115, p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

16/29

84 Feldman

The observed effect could reflect th e lexicalrepresentation ofmorphological structure such asthe process of segmenting, from the source, asequence of letters that constitutes a morphemiccomponent and of affixing that sequence to th etarget. That is, segmentation of morphologicalunits could underlie th e effect. Similarly, it ispossible that the internal s tructure of wordscomposed of multiple morphemes differ i n the ircoherence relative to morpho logica lly s implewords. I t should be pointed out that coherence,defined in terms of sequential probabilitiesbetween letters, is a no t plausible account,because the compos it ion of morphemic andnonmorphemic sequences was well matched inthis study (see also Rapp, 1992). Nevertheless, therepresentation of morphologically complex wordsmay encompass their sub-word units, andmorphological coherence may be relevant. Insummary, morphemic affixes were more easilysegmented from a source word than werenomnorphemic controls presumably because theavailability of sublexical morphologicalcomponents determined morphological coherence.In effect, the imposed shifting of letter sequencesfrom morphologically-simple words is difficultbecause it i s a rb it ra ry , whereas th e shifting ofletter sequences from morphologically-complexwords is relatively easy because it is principledand follows morphological structure.

EXPERIMENT 5The purpose of Experiment 5 was to replicatethe resul ts of the previous experiment and toallow a new comparison between inflectional andderivational morphological types. In an attempt toincrease th e magnitude of the effects observed in

th e previous experiments, the segment of thesource word that subjects had to shift was notspecified when th e source word appeared. Instead,i t was indicated 750 ms later and wassimultaneous with the appearance of the targe tword. The comparison between inflectional andderivational affixes was again examined. I f theconstituent structure of inflections is moretransparent than that of derivations, then effectsshould be more systematic for inflections. Finally,if the segment shifting effect is sensitive tostrategies imposed by the subject and if subjectsanticipate segmenting morphological affixes, thenlimiting preparation time before the onset of thetarget may increase the magnitude of the effectbecause the component structure of themorphemic source word, bu t not its control, will beavailable before it is visually specified.

MethodsSubjects. Twenty-four students at the

University ofBelgrade participated in Experiment5 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for anIntroductory Psychology course. All hadexperience with react ion t ime s tudies but nonehad participated in previous experiments i n thi sstudy. No subject's data were eliminated becauseoferror rates in excess of 20%.Stimulus materials. Eighteen pairs of Serbian

words were constructed fo r each of twomorphological types and these constituted thesource words. Each pair of source words includeda morphologicallY complex word (composed of abase morpheme and a morphological suffix) and amorphologically simple control word. The controlword ended with the same sequence of letters thatfunctioned morphemically i n i ts pair. Inflectionaltype source words consi st ed of first personsingular verbs ending in EM such as KRADEM,which means I steal, and nonmorphemic controlsconsisted of morphologically simple words endingwith th e same sequence of letters without amorphemic function such as BADEM, whichmeans almond, in the nominative case. Note thatth e EM sequence appeared on morphemic andnonmorphemic source words whose length differedby no more than one letter.A second morphological type consisted of agentives which are derivational morphemes. Thesepairs of source words consisted of morphologicallycomplex source words and morphologically simplesource words ending in th e sequence AR or AC.For example, derivaJional source words consistedof agents such as CUVAR, meaning guard, innominative case and nonmorphological controlsconsisted of morphologically simple words such asSTVAR, meaning thing, in nominative. In bothcases, the AR was shifted to the target word RADin order to form th e word RADAR, meaningworker. Subjects were instructed to add theshIfted segment from the source word to the targetword and to name it aloud.Procedure. In an at tempt to increase the size ofthe effect observed in the previous experiment, thepresentation conditions of Experiment 5 weremodified. The segment of th e source word thatsubjects had to shift was not indicated at the sametime that the source word appeared. That is, thesource word first appeared alone and withoutunderlining. After 750 ms, the ta rget wordappeared below the source word, th e segment ofth e source word that subjects had to shift wasunderlined, and a clock started. A blank fieldfollowed the display and lasted for 2000 ms.

7/30/2019 sr115_06

17/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 85

Subjects were instructed to segment and shiftth e designated segment from a source word onto atarget word and to name th e new result aloud asrapidly as possible. For example, the EM of th esource word JEDEM was underlined and subjectswere instructed to shift that sequence of letters tothe target word KUJE in order to produceKUJEM, which means I hammer. Onset tovocalization was measured and errors wererecorded. A sequence of 13 practice items precededth e experimental list which included nine tokensof morphemic and nonmorphemic source words inthe inflectional and derivational conditions.Results and DiscussionAn analysis ofvariance on correct latencies less

extreme than 3 SD from the mean for each subject(approximately 6% of all responses were eliminated) revealed significant effects ofmorphologicaltype (inflection/derivation) [Fl(I,23) = 13.78, MSe= 2487, p < .002] and morphological status(morpheme/nonmorpheme) [Fl(I,23) = 9.1, MSe =913, P < .007] by th e subjects' analysis but onlymorphological type approached significance by theitems' analysis [F2(1,34) =2.75, MS e =5139, p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

18/29

86 Feldmnn

EXPERIMENT 6An attempt at replication of differences in inflectional and derivational processing with differ

en t materials necessitated a modification of th esegment shift ing procedure described above. Inthis experiment, as in th e previous segment shifting experiments, subjects had to sh ift the affixfrom the source word to the target word. In contrast to th e procedure of the previous experiments,in Experiment 6, subjects had to delete the original affix on t he targe t word before substitutingthe shifted segment. As in Experiments 4 and 5,subjects had to name th e resulting word aloud.The addition of th is s tep whereby subjects had todelete the original affix (or it s orthographicallyand phonemically matched control) rendered th etask more difficult bu t it permitted th e comparison of morphological constructions for inflectionaland derivational formations to be expanded.MethodsSubjects. Twenty-six students from th e samepopulation as those in previous experimentspar tic ip ated in Experiment 6. None hadparticipated in previous experiments in this study.

Stimulus materials. Materials consi st ed o fthirty-six Serbian word pairs including equalnumbers of inflectional and derivational morphological types and their nonmorphemic controls. Asin th e previous experiment, the inflectional typeconsisted of first person singular verbs such asPROGONIM, meaning I capture, and their nonmorphemic controls such as SINONIM, meaningsynonym. They were sh ifted to inflected targetssuch as DELE, meaning they share. In the presentexperiment, in order to respond DELIM, meaningI share, subjects had to delete th e original affix(viz., E) and substitute the 1M affix. The derivational type contrast consisted of singular diminu-

tives ending in ICA such as BASTICA, meaninglittle garden, and their controls such as KOSTICA,meaning seed. They were shifted to target such asBUBA, meaning bug and subjects respondedBUBICA, meaning little bug.Procedure. The procedure of Experiment 6 waslike that of Experiment 5 (bu t not 4), in that th esegment of th e source word that subjects had tosl).ift was not specified at the same t ime that thesource word appeared. Instead, it was indicatedafter 750 ms when th e target word appeared.However, in both th e inflectional and derivationalconditions of Experiment 6, subjects had to dropth e original (morphemic) affix on the target and tosubstitute th e affix from the source word. That is,th e final vowel on words such as BACE and BUBAwas deleted before adding 1M or ICA respectively.Finally, filler trials in which no portion wasunderlined were a lso inc luded. In those cases,subjects were required to repeat the target wordin its original form.Nine tokens in the morphemic andnonmorphemic conditions were included for bothth e inflectional and derivational conditions.Results and DiscussionAn analysis of variance on correct latencies less

extreme than 3 SD from th e mean (so that approximately 6% of a ll responses were eliminated) revealed a significant effect of morphological type(inflection/derivation) [Fl(l,25) = 60.03, MS e =3295, p < .001; F2(l,34) = 17.12, MSe = 8177 p

7/30/2019 sr115_06

19/29

Belfand Orthographyand Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 87

The effect of morphological status of affix (56ms) was significant for inflectional type pairs[Fl(l,25) =14.01, MSe =2960, P < .001)] by subjects and was marginally significant by items[F2(l,34) =3.24, MSe =7182, p < .08)]. For derivational pairs, th e effect was in the opposite direct ion (-11 ms) and was not significant [Fl(1,25) =.54]. The significant effect for inflections and thenonsignificant change in direction for derivationsproduced the marginally significant interaction ofaffix by morphological type. For errors, the effectof morphological type was significant by subjects[Fl(1,25) =9.82, MSe =575, P < .005; F2(1,34) =7.73, MSe = 398, p < .09] but the main effect ofmorphological s ta tu s and the interaction of contrast by type did not app roach significance.Because latency and error patterns for the targetsfollowing inflected primes in Experiment 6 suggested a speed accuracy tradeoff, correlations between measures were computed. Neither the correlations for morphemic and nonmorphemic conditions separately nor th e pooled correlation approached significance. Evidently, latencies did notdecrease as errors increased.The results of Experiment 6 are consistent withthe segment shifting results of the previous experiments whereby morphological segments areshifted faster than their nonmorphemic controls.The pattern of errors goes in the opposite directionbut it was not statistically significant nor was itproduced by a speed-accuracy tradeoff. Althoughthe results with items as a random factor areweak, the pat tern was replicated with (a) the inflectional affixes for instrumental nouns inExperiment 4 (b) first person singular verbs inExperiments 5 and 6. The se t of experimentalmaterials for Experiment 6 required a modification to th e experimental procedure whereby theoriginal affix on the target word had to be deletedbefore the shifted segment could be appended andit allowed a valuable replication of the previousresults. Specifically, the effect of segment shiftingwas significant for inflectional pairs bu t not forderivational pairs. These results are consistentwith the linguistic distinction between morphological types noted above and with the pattern ofproduction error whereby inflections enter intospeech errors more frequently than do derivations(Garrett, 1980). This finding suggests that th emorphological structure of inflectional and derivational formations does differ.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONIn the repetition priming paradigm, the patternof facilitation among lexical decision latencies for

target words that were preceded by morphologicalrelatives provided evidence that skilled readers ofSerbian are sensitive to the constituent structureof morphologically complex words. I t was notnecessary for identical forms to be r epeated inorder to reduce target decision latencies.Repet it ion of th e same base morpheme in adifferent but related morphologically-complexword also produced facil itat ion. Evidence ofmorphological relatedness in repetition priming isconsistent with the resul ts of s imilar s tudiesconducted across a va rie ty of languages andmorphological contexts, and generally, it isinterpreted as evidence that morphology isrepresented in the lexicon.

Similarly, th e f ai lu re to find facilitation inlexical decision among target pseudowords thatwere preceded by other pseudowords constructedfrom the same meaningless base morpheme andreal morphemic suffixes, or by words constructedfrom the same meaningful base morpheme in anillegal combination with a real affIX, is consistentwith the outcome of other studies that have usedthis experimental task. Although small facilitationeffects for pseudoword targets sometimes havebeen reported in lexical decision with repetitionpriming (e.g., Bentin & Feldman, 1990), it is neverth e case that pseudoword effects are numericallylarger than word effects and most typically theyare smaller. I t ha s been suggested that forpseudowords, under some encoding conditions, theadvantage of repeating the same or a very similarorthographic and phonemic pattern is offset by theinappropriateness of responding "word" to afamiliar pseudoword pattern (Balota & Chumbley,1984; Duchek & Neely, 1989; Feustel, Shriffrin &Salasoo, 1983). That is , familiarity offsets anyadvantage associated with r epea ting a "no"response.

The present experiments conducted withSerbian materials permitted a rigorous comparison of two types of morphological formations.When inflectionally- and derivationally-relatedprime-target pairs were compared, significantlygreater facilitation was observed for inflectionalrelatives than for derivational relatives. Thisfinding was observed in Experiment 1, in whichderivational formations differed in word classfrom inflectional formations bu t were equal lysimilar with respect to phonological and orthographic overlap, in Experiment 2, in which all formatives were verbs and targets following derivationally-related primes differed with respect to theaddition of e ither a prefix or a suffix, and inExperiment 3, in which one half of the primes

7/30/2019 sr115_06

20/29

88 Feldman

were perfectly matched for overlap as well asword class with their targets and one half sharedone letter more in the inflectional condition thanin the derivational condition.

When derivationally-related prime-target pairswere compared with first presentation, significantfa ci li ta tion was observed for agentives inExperiment 1, for prefixed targets in Experiment2, and for mismatched pairs in Experiment 3.Facilitation following derivational primes was notsignificant in the analysis by subjects for infixeditems (Experiment 2). The planned comparison byitems for matched items (Experiment 3) was notsignificant although the latency differences wereconsistent with a pattern of facilitation. Therel iabi li ty of facilitation from derivationallyrelated primes may be low and th e no primebaseline may overestimate the magnitude offacilitation (but see discussion of results forExperiment 1-3). However, the same pattern wasobserved in three experiments. Moreover, whenth e planned comparisons for no prime andderivational conditions i n the three experiments(five conditions) were combined into one statisticaltest (Winer, 1971 p.49), results indicated thatfacilitation was significant [X2 (10) = 48.21 P

7/30/2019 sr115_06

21/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations 89

thographically similar form plays a role at shortlags, at long lags, as in the repetit ion primingtask, there was neither a facilitative nor inhibitoryeffect on the target of o rthog raph ic andphonological similarity between morphologicallyunrelated prime and target.

The primary finding of Experiments 1, 2 and 3was that inflectional primes produced significantly greater facilitation than did derivationalprimes and that derivational primes produced facilitation relative to the no prime condition. Thisoutcome was observed under experimental conditions that a) perfectly matched formal overlap ofprime and ta rget but left word class free to vary(Exp. 1), b) perfect ly control led word class by using only verb forms and manipulated position inwhich affix was added and c) perfectly controlledword class by using only verb forms bu t matchedletter overlap of inflectional and derivational relatives on only one half of the items (Exp. 3).

I t is evident that the lexical representation ofinflectional and derivational formations must differ. Several accounts have been proposed. I t ha sbeen suggested that, in the lexicon, th e linkagebetween whole word forms that share a base morpheme is stronger for inflectionally-related formsthan for derivationally-related forms or that theconnections between components must be strongerfor inflectional than for derivational formations.This is consistent with the linguistic claim thatthe component structure of inflectionally-relatedforms is more transparent than that of derivationally-related forms. Alternatively, as notedabove, inflectional formations tend to share a basemorpheme and stem and differ with respect to inflectional affix whereas derivational formationstend to share a base morpheme and differ with respect to derivational affixes and stem.Accordingly, if both stems and bases are taken asunits to be activated in repetition priming, thenthe difference between inflections and derivationscould reflect redundant activation for inflectionsrelative to derivations. Results of Experiment 3indicate that this account is incomplete, at best.Inflectional relatives like NOSIM and derivationalrelatives like NOSAM share both base morphemeand stem bu t they did not produce equivalent target facilitation.Results ofthe segment shifting task also providecompelling evidence that the morphological statusofa word's constituents influences performance inrecognition tasks. Although differences betweeninflectional and derivational affixes were weakerin this task, in that analyses by i tems tended tohave significance levels around p < .10, a similar

outcome was observed in three experiments withdifferent manipulations on inflectional affixes.Importantly, th e results were consistent withthose obtained in repetition priming. In th e segment shifting task, morphological effects weremore reliable for inflectional affixes relative totheir controls than for derivational affixes andtheir controls. Phonological and orthographicproperties of a source word were matched in theexperimental design and sequences that createdmorphological segments were manipulated moreefficiently than nonmorphological controls over avariety of inflectional environments. The morphological origins of a segment were evident despi tethe fact that all of the responses articulated bysubjects were frequent words and that responseswere the same in th e morphological and nonmorphological conditions.

In that the internal structure of words formedwith inflectional affixation may be more transparent than that of words with derivational affixation, and effects were more reliable for inflectionsthan for derivations, an account of the segmentshifting experiments based on ease of segmentation is plausible. Similarly, th e emphasis could beon coherence at the boundary between sublexicalword units. In languages such as Serbian (andEnglish) in which morphemes are concatenated toform complex forms, there is a temptation to describe morphemes in terms of boundanes betweenorthographic or phonological sequences ofunits. Asshould be obvious from the present discussion,however, these lexical representations must besufficiently abstract to accommodate changes inform as well as the word context of which the sequence is a part. Admittedly, it is difficult to dist inguish between segmentation of and coherencebetween morphemic components when morphology is concatenated.An investigation of morphological effects in anonconcatenative language such as Hebrew is less

amenab le to an account based on sequence,however. In Hebrew, the root or base morpheme ofa word is represented by a discontinuous patternof (usually) three consonants. Vowels carrying aninflectional function ar e infixed between theseunits. Consequently th e base morpheme is no trealized as an uninterrupted unit within the word.I t is necessarily abstract with respect tophonological (and sometimes orthographic)patterning and yet, effects of morphologicalrelatedness have been demonstrated both inrepet it ion priming (Bent in & Feldman, 1990;Feldman & Bentin, 1994) and in segment shifting(Feldman, Frost & Pnin i, in press). In Hebrew,

7/30/2019 sr115_06

22/29

90 Feldman

ease of segmentation ra ther than coherence mayprovide the more accurate account.Alternatively, th e locus of the segment shiftingeffect could reflect strategies that vary on a trialby trial basis and reflect compatibility betweensource and target word. Accordingly, word classcompatibility effects for affixes from source andtarget words would be anticipated. The CEVICEDI comparison in Experiment 4 indicated thatwhen affixes were shifted from a source word ofth e same or a different word class as the target,latencies were equivalent. Similarly, th e results ofsegment shifting experiments in Hebrew(Feldman, Frost & Pnini, in press) indicate thatmorphological effects can be observed when theaffix is shifted to a meaningless target string.Segment shifting effects are not expected on pseudoword targets if the effect reflects compatibility.Evidently, th e locus of the segment shifting effectis not yet well understood but, at this point, a lexical locus tied to morphemic as distinguished fromorthographic components seems likely.In summary, two very different experimental

paradigms provide strong support for th e psychological processing of th e morpheme and for a distinction between the processing of inflectional andderivational formations. Similarity of form definedby orthographic and phonological overlap of morphologically-related primes and targets is not anecessary condition to produce facil itation.Similarity of form in the absence of morphologicalrelatedness is not a sufficient condition to producetarget facil itat ion or inhibition at long lags.Patterns of activation over orthographic or phonological units cannot describe morphological effects.Importantly, they cannot account for th e differences between inflections and derivations whensemantic similarity is controlled. Evidently processing of a word is sens it ive to that word's constituent morphemic structure.

REFERENCESAnderson, S. R. (1982). Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry,13,571-612.Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative Grammar.Cambridge, MA : MITPress.Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. 1. (1984). Are lexical decision a goodmeasure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in theneglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340-357.Badecker, W., & Caramazza, A. (1989). A lexical distinction be..tween inflection and derivation. Linguistic Inquiry, 20,108..116.Bentin, S., & Feldman, 1. B. (1990). The contribution ofmorphological and semantic relatedness to repetition primingat short and long lags: Evidence from Hebrew. Quarterly JournalofExperimental Psychology, 42A, 693-711.

Bergman, B., Hudson, P., & Eling, P., (1988). How simplecomplexwords can be: Morphological processing and wordrepresentations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,4OA,41-72.Burani, C, & Laudanna, A., (1992). Units of representation forderived words in the lexicon. In R Frost and L. Katz (Eds.)Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning (pp. 361-376).Amsterdam: ElsevierSciencePublishers RV.Butterworth, R (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth(Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1). London and San Diego:Academic Press.Bybee, J. H. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Caramazza, A, Laudanna, A., & Romani, C (1988). Lexical accessand inflectionalmorphology. Cognition, 28, 287-332.Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Silveri, M. C, & Laudanna, A. (1985).Reading mechanisms and the organization of the lexicon:Evidence from acquired dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2,81 ..114.Cutler, A. (1980). Errors of stress and intonation. In V. A. Fromkin(Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance. New York: AcademicPress.Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval insentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 285-321.Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type onphonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5,313-349.Duchek, J. N., & Neely, J. H. (1989). A dissociative word ..f requency x levels-of -processing interac tion in episodicrecognition and lexical decision tasks. Memory & Cognition, 17,148-162.Emmorey, K. D. (1985). Auditory morphological priming in thelexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 73-92.Feldman, 1. B. (1992). Morphological relationships revealedthrough the repetition priming task. In M. Noonan, P.Downing, & S. Lima (Eds.) , Literacy & Linguistics.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.FEldman, L. B., & Andjelkovit, D. (1992). Morphological analysisin word recognition. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Phonology,orthography, morphology and meaning (pp. 343 ..360). Amsterdam:Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Feldman, L. B., & Bentin, S. (1994). Morphological analysis ofdisrupted morphemes: Evidence from Hebrew. QuarterlyJournal ofExperimental Psychology, 47A, 407-435.Feldman, L. B., Frost, R. & Pnini, D. (in press). Morphemes neednot be contiguous units. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition.Feldman, L. B., & Fowler, C. A. (1987). The inflected noun systemin Serbo-Croatian: Lexical representation of morphologicalstructure. Memory & Cognition, 15, 1-12.Feldman, L. B. & Fowler, C. A. (1987b) Morphemic segments shiftfaster than their nonmorphemic controls. Paper presented tothe Psychonomic Society, Seattle, WA.Feldman, L. B., & Moskovljevit, J. (1987). Repetition priming isnot purely episodic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory & Cognition, 13,573-581.Feustel, T. c., Shriffrin, R. M., & Salasoo, A. (1983). Episodic andlexical contributions to the repetition priming effect in wordidentification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112,309-346.Fowler, CA., Napps, S. E., & Feldman, L. B. (1985). Relationsamong regular and irregularmorphologically related words inthe lexicon as revea led by repet it ion priming. Memory &Cognition, 13,241-255.Fromkin, V. A. (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. Mouton:The Hague.

7/30/2019 sr115_06

23/29

7/30/2019 sr115_06

24/29

92 Feldman

APPENDIX 1Experiment 1 materials

TARGET IDENTITY INFLECTION DERIVATIONblud blud bludom bludimbol bol bolom bolanbranim branim branis branikbrod brod brodu brodibroj broj broju brojibura bura burom burancud cud cudom eudimcvet cvet cvetom cvetandeo deo delom delimdocek docek docekom docekangovor govor govorom govorimgrad grad gradom gradimhlad hlad hladom hladanigras igras igram igraclorn lorn lomom lomimnosam nosam nosas nosasobaram obaram obaras obaracpeva peva pevam pevacplivam plivam plivas plivacracuna racuna racunam racunarrad rad radom radimslikas slikas slikam slikarspava spava spavas spavactragas tragas tragam tragacvaja vaja vajam vajarvodis vodis vodim vodiczvoni zvonl zvonim zvonik

7/30/2019 sr115_06

25/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between In(lections and Derivations 93

Experiment 2 materialsTARGET IDENTITY INFLECTION DERIVATION

PREFIXED:obare obare obarim barimocede ocede ocedim cedimociste oCiste ocistim Cistimobodre obodre obodrim bodrimoderu oderu oderem deremoljuste oljuste oljustim ljustimiseku iseku isecem secemiskoce iskoce iskocim skocimisele isele iselim selimulepe ulepe ulepim lepimurade urade uradim radimubodu ubodu ubodem bodemzgrabe zgrabe zgrabim grabimzbroje zbroje zbrojim brojimzbace zbace zbacim bacimzdrobe zdrobe zdrobim drobimzgnjece zgnjece zgnjeCim gnjecimzbrisu zbrisu zbrisem brisemslete slete sletim letimsmute smute smutim mutimsprze sprze sprzim przimsmrve smrve smrvim mrvimstresu stresu stresem tresemslome slome slomim lomim

INFIXED:birkaju birkaju birkam biramcarnu carou carnem caramdirnu dirnu dirnem diramdzarnu dzarnu dzarnem dzaramgurnu gurnu gurnem guramjavnu javnu javnem javimJurnu jurnu jurnem jurimkidnu kidnu kidnem kidamkucnu kucnu kucnem kucammere mere merkam merimmrdnu mrdnu mrdnem mrdamnjuse njuse njuskam njusimpadnu padnu padnem padampirkaju pirkaju pirka pirisednu sednu sednem sedamsevnu sevnu sevnem sevamsuste suste suskam sustimsvirkaju svirkaju svirkam sviramturnu turnu turnem turamvirkaju virkaju virkam viramvirnu virnu virnem virimvrdnu vrdnu vrdnem vrdamzivnu zivnu zivnem zivimzovnu zovnu zovnem zovem

7/30/2019 sr115_06

26/29

94 Feldman

Expariment 3 materialsTARGET IDENTITY INFLECTION DERIVATION

MATCHED:bace bace bacim bacamcite cite ci6m cicemdobiju dobiju dobijam dobijemklize klize klizim klizamlupe lupe lupim lupamnose nose nosim nosamodbiju odbiju odbijam odbijemopuste opuste opustim opustamsede sede sedim sedamspero spero speram speremvode vode vodim vodamvoze voze vozim vozamcuce tute tu6m tutnem*

MISMATCHED:dirnemo dirnemo dirnem diramduvnemo duvnemo duvnem duvamnapijamo napijamo napijam napijemnatapamo natapamo natapam natopimnazivamo nazivamo nazivam nazovemnaturamo naturamo naturam naturnemobaramo obaramo obaram oborimobijamo obijamo obijam obijemodvajamo odvajamo odvajam odvojimpotapamo potapamo potapam potopimpovijamo povijamo povijam povijemskidamo skidamo skidam skinemzovnemo zovnemo zovnem zovem

*not included i n the analysis

7/30/2019 sr115_06

27/29

Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations

Experiment 4 materials95

MORPHOLOGICALLYCOMPLEXWORD

INFLECTIONSslavompresomprozomakeijommaljembojempaleemhieemprolecemtucemadresomprincemarkadometikomkafanomantenom

HOMOGRAPHIC MORPHEME

MORPHOLOGICALLYSIMPLEWORD

slalomprelomprolomaksiommelemboemparfemharemproblemtotemagronomprijemastronomekonomkareinomanatom

TARGET

radtopgrofdankrajmuzbrojnozcajkonjkumkoslayzidze tsa t

cedidavideligadjakidamrZIcamikostabujacrpikrstiprskapadamastaprastagleda

eevi jaddani cuddedi gostgara rakkipa Ianmravi gledcari reckosa nosbuta zeeervi cadjkosti zubprsta lukpoda klubmosta domplasta sirgliba sin

7/30/2019 sr115_06

28/29

96 Feldman

Experiment 5 materialsi%MORPHOLOGICALLY MORPHOLOGICALLY TARGETCOMPLEX SIMPLE

WORD WORDDERIVATIONS

berat kolat le tbirat vrat pIestuvar stvar redkuvar ajvar mlinlimar ormar lugmerat :tarat kovorat trat vozpekar bakar kalemribar dabar stanrudar sudar domslikar plakar grobsumar samar brodsvirat otirat glastrubat korbat krojvidar radar drugvinar bunar zubzidar kadar lekzlatar litar pu t

INFLECTIONSbajam sajam kidabiram jaram pitaderem bagrem berediktiram dijagram diagramjedem bedem klujekradem badem ka:temajam zajam diraorem harem dignepajam pojam bujaperem melem pasepijem prijem dodepletem sistem baktepostim kostim daviprogonim sinonim delitonem fonem pisuudaram epigram kupavajam najam padazidam islam peva

7/30/2019 sr115_06

29/29

Bet(ond Orthography and Phonology: Dif(erences between Inflections and Derivations

Experiment 6 materials

97

MORPHOLOGICALLYCOMPLEXWORD

DERIVATIONSvranicaspravicapelenicabasticasavanicasobicamasnicakadicanajavicakravicabananicabanjicapesmicarolnicazabavicatasnicasarmicasaunica

INFLECTIONSbajamdererndiktirarnjedernkrademmajamorempajarnperempijempletempostirnprogonirntonernudaramvajamzajamzidarn

MORPHOLOGICALLYSIMPLEWORD

stanicazdravicavodenicakosticatavanicaubicamasnicaladicakijavicakrivicapijanicabrnjicapesnicabolnicabradavicakosnicasamicasapunica

sajambagremdiagrambedernbademzajarnharemjaramrnelempnJemsistemkostimsinonimfonemepigramnajampojamislam

TARGET

kantabundakrpabubatablakucapritagumakastabaraguzvakiflakorpabasnapalmapostaranategla

kidajuberngadjajuklujukazudirajudignukupajupasudodjupodjudavedelepisubirajupadajububajupevaju