Abstract
Suffixes have been shown to be recognized as units of processing in visual word recognition and their identification has been argued to be position-specific in skilled adult readers: in lexical decision tasks suffixes are automatically identified at word endings, but not at word beginnings. The present study set out to investigate whether position-specific coding can be detected with a letter search task and whether children already code suffixes as position-specific units. A preregistered experiment was conducted in Italian in which 3rd-graders, 5th-graders, and adults had to detect a target letter that was either contained in the suffix of a pseudoword (e.g., S in flagish) or in a non-suffix control (e.g., S in flagosh). To investigate sensitivity to position, letters also had to be detected in suffixes and non-suffixes placed in reversed position, that is in the beginning of pseudowords (e.g., S in ishflag vs. oshflag). Results suggested position-specific processing differences between suffixes and non-suffixes that develop throughout reading development. However, some effects were weak and only partially compatible with the hypotheses. Therefore, a second experiment was conducted. The effects of position-specific suffix identification could not be replicated. A combined analysis additionally using a Bayesian approach indicated no processing differences between suffixes and non-suffixes in our task. We discuss potential interpretations and the possibility of letter search being unsuited to investigate morpheme processing. We connect our example of failed self-replication to the current discussion about the replication crisis in psychology and the lesson psycholinguistics can learn.
Highlights
Evidence for morphemes as units of processing in reading comes mainly from two phenomena: the morpheme interference effect and morphological priming effects
The left-to-right bias seems to vanish by grade 5. It is opposite in adults, which were better at detecting a letter in the regular position at the end of the string
Even in adults, there was no difference between suffixes and non-suffixes in their regular position, as we found in Experiment 1 and would have expected if suffixes were processed as position-specific units
Summary
Evidence for morphemes as units of processing in reading comes mainly from two phenomena: the morpheme interference effect and morphological priming effects. Beyersmann, Ziegler, & Grainger (2015) used a different task to test the hypothesis that suffixes (and prefixes) are processed as reading units They employed a letter search task with affixed and non-affixed pseudowords and found that participants took longer to detect a target letter when it was part of a suffix in a pseudoword (e.g., R in filmure) than when it was part of a non-suffix ending (e.g., R in filmire). Facilitation from suffixes in the reading of real words has been shown as early as in 2nd grade in several languages (English: Beyersmann, Castles, & Coltheart, 2011; French: Casalis et al, 2015; Quémart et al, 2012; German: Hasenäcker, Schröter, & Schroeder, 2017; Italian: Burani et al, 2002; Burani, Marcolini, De Luca, & Zoccolotti, 2008; Marcolini, Traficante, Zoccolotti, & Burani, 2011) These studies leave open at what level of processing suffixes play a role – at lower visuo-orthographic or at higher lexico-semantic levels. It appears useful to test morphological processing with other tasks that tap into early visuo-orthographic identification of suffixes
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.