Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T06:54:23.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Written Type and Token Frequency Measures of Fifty Spanish Derivational Morphemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2016

Miguel Lázaro ,
Joana Acha ,
Víctor Illera  and
Javier S. Sainz
Miguel Lázaro*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Joana Acha
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Víctor Illera
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Javier S. Sainz
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miguel Lázaro. Universidad Complutense. Campus de Somosaguas. 28223. Pozuelo de Alarcón. Madrid (Spain). Phone: +34–913943116. E-mail: miguel.lazaro@ucm.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several databases of written language exist in Spanish that manage important information on the lexical and sublexical characteristics of words. However, there is no database with information on the productivity and frequency of use of derivational suffixes: sublexical units with an essential role in the formation of orthographic representations and lexical access. This work examines these two measures, known as type and token frequencies, for a series of 50 derivational suffixes and their corresponding orthographic endings. Derivational suffixes are differentiated from orthographic endings by eliminating pseudoaffixed words from the list of orthographic endings (cerveza [beer] is a simple word despite its ending in -eza). We provide separate data for child and adult populations, using two databases commonly accessed by psycholinguists conducting research in Spanish. We describe the filtering process used to obtain descriptive data that will provide information for future research on token and type frequencies of morphemes. This database is an important development for researchers focusing on the role of morphology in lexical acquisition and access.

Keywords

databasederivational morphemelexical accesssublexical units
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E75
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Luedeling, A. & Kyto, M. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics (pp. 900–919). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2014). Experimental and psycholinguistic approaches to studying derivation. In Lieber, R. & Stekauer, P. (Eds.), Handbook of derivational morphology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Wurm, H. L., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words. A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 419–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). Productivity: Theories. In Stekauer, P. & Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 315–334). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 390–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, S., Laine, M., & Karvinen, K. (1999). The interplay of words formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. M. (2000). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: Get by with a little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00201 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 489–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.489 Google ScholarPubMed
Bosque, I., & Pérez, M. (1987). Diccionario inverso de la lengua española [Inverse dictionary of the Spanish Language]. Madrid, Spain: Gredos.Google Scholar
Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 624–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.521022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 217–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., & Laudanna, A. (2003). Morpheme-based lexical reading: Evidence from pseudoword naming. In Assink, E. & Sandra, D. (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 241–264). New York, NY: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Thornton, A. M., & Laudanna, A. (1997). Accessing and naming suffixed pseudo-words. In Booij, G. E. & van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Burani, C., Marcolini, S., De Luca, M., & Zoccolotti, P. (2008). Morpheme-based reading aloud: Evidence from dyslexic and skilled Italian readers. Cognition, 108(1), 243–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burani, C., Marcolini, S., & Stella, G. (2002). How early does morpho-lexical reading develop in readers of a shallow orthography? Brain and Language, 81, 568–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., Thornton, A. M., Iacobini, C., & Laudanna, A. (1995). Investigating morphological non-words. In Dressler, W. U. & Burani, C. (Eds.), Crossdisciplinary approaches to morphology (pp. 37–53). Wien, Austria: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation . In Butterworth, B. (Ed.), Language production (pp. 257–294). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casalis, S., Colé, P., & Sopo, D. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 114–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0006-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casalis, S., Dusautoir, M., Colé, P., & Ducrot, S. (2009). Morphological effects in children word reading: A priming study in fourth graders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 761–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151008X389575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Sonnensthul, I., & Blevins, J. (2003). Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual mechanism account. In Baayen, H. & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 151–125). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Corral, S., Ferrero, M., & Goikoetxea, E. (2009). LEXIN: A lexical database from Spanish kindergarten and first-grade readers. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1009–1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, S. K., Izura, C., Soca, R., & Dominguez, A. (2015). Age of acquisition and imageablity norms for base and morphologically complex words in English and in Spanish. Behavioral Research Methods, 48, 349–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0579-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Morphological resonance in the mental lexicon. In Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 65–88). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1246–1258. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duranovic, M., Tinjak, S., & Turbic-Hadzagic, A. (2014). Morphological knowledge in children with dyslexia. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 699–713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10936-013-9274-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1002–1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960802164242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraudo, H., & Voga, M. (2014). Measuring morphology: The tip of the iceberg? A retrospective on 10 years of morphological processing. Carnets de Grammaire, 22, 136–167.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2006). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 Google Scholar
Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 203–235). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Juhasz, B. J., & Berkowitz, R. N. (2011). Effects of morphological families on English compound word recognition: A multitask investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 653–682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.498668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. B., & Schultz, J. (2013). Connectivity, not frequency, determines the fate of a morpheme. PloS One, 8, e69945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. B., & Schultz, J. (2014). Word formation is aware of morpheme family size. PloS One, 9, e93978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093978 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperman, V., & van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Individual differences in visual comprehension of morphological complexity. In Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C., & Shipley, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1643–1648). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., & van Dyke, J. A. (2013). Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 802–823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030859 Google ScholarPubMed
Laudanna, A., Burani, C., & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes as processing units. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 295–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lázaro, M. (2012). The effects of base frequency and affix productivity in Spanish. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 505–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38861 Google Scholar
Lázaro, M., Acha, J., de la Rosa, S., García, S., & Sainz, J. (2016). Exploring the derivative suffix frequency in Spanish speaking children. Reading and Writing, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9668-2 Google Scholar
Lázaro, M., Illera, V., & Sainz, J. (2015). The role of derivative suffix productivity in the visual word recognition of complex words. Psicológica, 36, 165–184.Google Scholar
Lázaro, M., & Sainz, J. S. (2012). The effect of family size on Spanish simple and complex words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9186-y CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martin, F., Kostic, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niswander, E., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2000). The processing of derived and inflected suffixed words during reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 389–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language, 85, 106–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modelling morphological processing. In Feldman, B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sebastián, N., Cuetos, F., Martí, M. A., & Carreiras, M. F. (2000). LEXESP: Léxico informatizado del español. [Lexesp: A Spanish Computerized Lexical DataBase]. Barcelona, Spain: Ediciones de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (2007). Connectionist models of reading. In Gaskell, G. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 235–250). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, L. S. (2008). Morphological awareness skills of English language learners and children with dyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(1), 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.adt.0000311413.75804.60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12, 219–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008196330239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. (1995). The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinese study. In Feldman, L. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 293–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 745–765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traficante, D. (2012). From graphemes to morphemes: An alternative way to improve reading skills in children with dyslexia. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 2, 163–185.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90002-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windsor, J., & Hwang, M. (1999). Derivational suffix productivity for students with and without language-learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 220–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4201.220 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed