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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

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.