Neurocognitive mechanism for morphological complex word processing
ABULIZI Abudukelimu1,2, JIANG Minghu1,2, YAO Dengfeng1,2, ABUDUKELIMU Halidanmu3
1. Laboratory of Computational Linguistics, School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;
2. Center for Psychology and Cognitive Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;
3. State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Abstract：Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate electrophysiological correlates of Uyghur morphological word processing in lexical decision paradigms. Four stimuli were used with monomorphemic words, bimorphemic inflected nouns (case suffix is added to the stem), monomorphemic pseudowords (changing one or two letters in monomorphemic nouns) and inflected pseudowords (changing one or two letters in stems). The mean phonemic length of all the words was controlled to be six letters long. EEG data showed N400 effects for the bimorphemic complex words and pseudowords in the 350-550 time windows. The N400 effects for the bimorphemic pseudoword were demonstrated that subjects failed all lexical searches when processing bimorphemic pseudowords. The effect for the bimorphemic complex words most probably reflects the access and possible interaction of the stems and suffixs. The EEG data also showed the differences in the neurocognitive underpinning that supports monomorphemic words, bimorphemic inflected words and both types of pseudoword processing. The mean amplitudes for bimorphemic words are more negative in the right hemisphere electrodes than for monomorphemic words. The experimental results reveal that native Uyghur speakers represent and access inflected Uyghur words in a morphologically decomposed form, while monomorphemic words are accessed as a single form.
Coltheart M, Curtis B, Atkins P, et al. Models of reading aloud： Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches?[J]. Psychological Review, 1993, 100(4)： 589-608.
[2]
Post B, Marslen-Wilson W, Randall B, et al. The processing of English regular inflections： Phonological cues to morphological structure[J]. Cognition, 2008, 109(1)： 1-17.
[3]
Mcqueen J M, Cutler A. Morphology in Word Recognition[M]. Oxford： Blackwell Publisher, 1998.
[4]
Butterworth B. Lexical representation[C]//Language Production. London： Academic Press, 1983： 257-294.
[5]
Bradley D. Lexical representation of derivational relation[C]//Juncture. Saratoga, CA： Anma Libri, 1980： 37-55.
[6]
Kempley S, Morton J. The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition[J]. British Journal of Psychology, 1982, 73(4)： 441-454.
[7]
Lukatela G, Gligorijevi Ac＇5 B, Kosti Ac＇5 A, et al. Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon[J]. Memory & Cognition, 1980, 8(5)： 415-423.
[8]
Feldman L B. Morphological Aspects of Language Processing[M]. Hillsdale, NJ： Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1995.
[9]
Morton J, Marshall J C. Psycholinguistics 2： Structures and Processes[M]. Cambridge, MA： MIT Press, 1979.
[10]
Taft M, Forster K I. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, 14(6)： 638-647.
[11]
Taft M. Prefix stripping revisited[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1981, 20(3)： 289-297.
[12]
Mackay D G. Derivational rules and the internal lexicon[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17(1)： 61-71.
[13]
Jarvella R J, Meijers G. Recognizing morphemes in spoken words： Some evidence for a stem-organized mental lexicon[C]//The Process of Language Understanding. New York, USA： Wiley, 1983： 81-112.
[14]
Caramazza A, Laudanna A, Romani C. Lexical access and inflectional morphology[J]. Cognition, 1988, 28(3)： 297-332.
[15]
Niemia J, Laineb M, Tuominenc J. Cognitive morphology in finnish： Foundations of a new model[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1994, 9(3)： 423-446.
[16]
玛依拉·亚克甫, 周晓林. 词素效应到底是什么？——来自维吾尔语的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2004, 36(5)： 515-524.YAKUP Mahire, ZHOU Xiaolin. What are really morphological effects in lexical processing? Evidence from the Uyghur language[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2004, 36(5)： 515-524. (in Chinese)
[17]
Hankamer J. Morphological parsing and the lexicon[C]//Lexical Representation and Process. Cambridge, MA, USA： MIT Press, 1989： 392-408.
[18]
Gürel A. Decomposition： To what extent? The case of Turkish[J]. Brain and Language, 1999, 68(1-2)： 218-214.
[19]
Münte T, Say T, Clahsen H, et al. Decoposition of morphologically complex words in English： Evidence from event-related brain potentials[J]. Cognitive Brain Research, 1999, 7： 241-253.
[20]
Linares R E, Rodriguez-Fornells A, Clahsen H. Stem allomorphy in the Spanish mental lexicon： Evidence from behavioral and ERP experiments[J]. Brain and Language, 2006, 97(1)： 110-120.
[21]
Weyerts H, Münte T F, Smid H G, et al. Mental representations of morphologically complex words： An event-related potential study with adult humans[J]. Neuroscience Letters, 1996, 206(2-3)： 125-128.
2017, Vol. 57 
