LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 2000, 15 (4/5), 421–444
Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root
frequency in masked morphological priming
` ne Giraudo
Héle
University of Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France
Jonathan Grainger
CNRS and University of Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France
Four visual lexical decision experiments using the masked priming paradigm
tested for effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency
with primes varying in degree of morphological and orthographic overlap
with free root targets in French. Experiments 1 and 3 showed that only high
frequency morphologically related primes produce signiŽcantly faster
response times compared to orthographic control primes. On the other
hand, no signiŽcant orthographic priming effects were observed in the
present study, except in Experiment 2 where the most frequent orthographic
primes produced signiŽcantly more errors than the other priming conditions.
In Experiment 4 similar levels of morphological priming were obtained to
free root targets with high and low cumulative root frequencies. These
Žndings are interpreted within the framework of a supralexical representation of morphological information in memory.
Over the last decade the masked prime paradigm has gradually been
adopted as an important tool for uncovering the fast and highly
automatised processes that underlie printed word perception. Masked
priming combined with the lexical decision task (Forster & Davis, 1984)
has helped deŽne the relative role played by orthographic, phonologic,
morphologic, and semantic information in the process. One interesting
` ne Giraudo, Behavioural Sciences Unit,
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Héle
Institute of Child Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N
1EH, UK. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for criticism of a Žrst version of this work.
` ne Giraudo is currently post-doctoral research fellow at the Institute for Child Health,
Héle
Behavioural Sciences Unit, University College London. Part of the present research was
supported by a Fyssen Foundation (Paris) award to the Žrst author.
c 2000 Psychology Press Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01690965.html
422
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
dissociation has been observed in prior studies using prime exposures of
around 60 ms: whereas morphologically related primes facilitate processing relative to unrelated word primes (e.g., Drews & Zwitserlood, 1995;
Forster, Davis, Shocknecht, & Carter, 1987; Frost, Forster & Deutsch,
1997; Grainger Colé & Segui, 1991), orthographically related primes tend
to inhibit target word processing, generating longer response times (RTs))
and/or more errors (Drews & Zwitserlood, 1995; Grainger & Ferrand,
1994; Segui & Grainger, 1990).
What speciŽc architecture for lexical processing would predict this
observed dissociation? Grainger et al. (1991) and Drews and Zwitserlood
(1995) have argued that the inhibitory effects of orthographic priming
reect competitive processes acting across whole-word representations
(via within-level inhibition in an interactive activation network, McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981, for example). On the other hand, according to
these authors morphological facilitation is hypothesised to arise via shared
morpheme units located above the level of whole-word form representations (a supralexical architecture for morphological processing as
schematised in the lefthand panel of Figure 1; Giraudo & Grainger, in
press; Grainger et al., 1991).1 When primes and targets share the same
root, the activation of the root representation by the prime stimulus
facilitates processing of the target word via excitatory connections between
morphemic representations and appropriate whole-word representations.
Thus, according to the above account, a morphologically related prime
generates two conicting effects: within-level inhibition acting across
simultaneously activated word forms, and top-down facilitation from
shared morphemic representations.
Since form overlap across morphologically related items is generally
much lower than in situations where form-related inhibitory priming is
observed (Segui & Grainger, 1990), this allows the facilitatory morphological component to dominate (Grainger et al., 1991). Keeping target
frequency as high as possible will further help morphological facilitation to
dominate over form-level inhibition. The higher the surface frequency of
the target word, the greater its resistance to within-level inhibition. All the
targets tested in the present experiment were relatively high frequency free
roots. Using free roots as targets in a masked prime paradigm has the
added advantage that participants are never consciously exposed to
1
The ‘‘supra’’ in supralexical refers to a general framework for studying language
comprehension where information ows from lower-level, form-centred representations to
higher-level, meaning-centred representations. The ‘‘lexical’’ in supralexical refers to the
assumption that representations for whole-word forms (orthography and phonology) are part
of this processing hierarchy.
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
423
Figure 1. Two possible locations for morphemic representations in a hierarchically organised
processing framework that moves from low-level stimulus analysis to high-level semantic
representations. The architectures differ with respect to where in this processing hierarchy
morphemic representations are situated relative to whole-word (orthographic or phonological) representations. Furthermore, in the sublexical model morphemic representations are
form-based (orthographic and phonological codes for roots and affixes) and used to parse the
stimulus input, whereas in the supralexical model they are form and modality-independent.
morphologically complex stimuli, and therefore cannot adopt strategies
that might be particular to this type of stimulus.2
One key manipulation in the present study involves varying the printed
frequency of morphologically complex prime words (their surface
frequency) while maintaining both target frequency and cumulative root
frequency (the summed frequency of all derived words sharing the same
root) constant. According to the supralexical model of morphological
representation, more frequent morphologically related primes should
enhance effects of morphological priming. In this model, morpheme unit
activation is a function of the activation of all whole-word representations
that share that morpheme. During prime word processing under the brief
temporal conditions of masked priming, the only signiŽcantly activated
word unit is the prime word itself whose activation level is a function of its
surface frequency (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981). Thus the activation
level of supralexical morphemic representations will be a function of the
surface frequency of the prime word. Grainger et al. (1991) found that
prime word frequency (medium or low) did not interact with effects of
morphological priming. However, target word frequency covaried with
2
This also avoids the delicate issue of deciding what are the appropriate nonword stimuli
to use in a lexical decision experiment with morphologically complex target words. The choice
is vast: simple nonwords, singly complex nonwords (root + nonafŽx; nonroot + afŽx), doubly
complex nonwords (illegal combination of root + afŽx). This choice is highly likely to
inuence participants’ lexical decision strategies, and therefore merits a fuller investigation on
behalf of researchers in this Želd.
424
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
prime frequency in this experiment (medium frequency targets were
primed with low frequency words, while low frequency targets were
primed by medium frequency words). In Experiment 1 of the present
study, prime frequency is varied while maintaining target frequency
constant.
At a more general level of theorising, the present study aims to test two
different accounts of masked morphological priming, both expressed
within the framework of a hierarchical activation model of language
comprehension that includes whole-word form representations and
morphemic representations that intervene between lower-level form
analyses and higher-level semantic representations (Figure 1). Both of
these accounts propose morphemic representations as the locus of masked
morphological priming effects. Thus, all words that share the same
morphological root (i.e., belong to the same morphological family) are
hypothesised to be linked to a common representation that corresponds to
the shared root. Prime stimuli that contain the same root as target stimuli
(i.e., morphologically related primes) generate facilitatory priming via
preactivation of the root representation. Prime presentation leads to
growth of activation in a given morphemic representation thus conferring
an advantage in the processing of target stimuli that contain the same
morpheme. Here we assume that the size of morphological priming effects
are proportional to the activation level of the critical morpheme after
prime word presentation.
The critical distinction between the two accounts concerns where, in the
processing hierarchy from form to meaning, the morphemic representations are hypothesised to be located. According to the supralexical
hypothesis, morphemic representations are located directly after wholeword representations in the processing hierarchy that moves from lowerlevel form analysis of the stimulus to higher-level semantics (lefthand
panel of Figure 1). The predictions of this type of model have been
discussed above. According to the sublexical hypothesis on the other hand,
morphemic representations are located immediately before whole-word
representations (righthand panel of Figure 1). The latter hypothesis is
embodied in all models that invoke a prelexical morphological parsing
mechanism whereby morphemic representations are extracted from the
stimulus without reference to whole-word representations. Taft (1994), has
described one possible implementation of this hypothesis within the
interactive-activation framework.
In the sublexical approach, morphemic representations are contacted
before whole-word representations, and their activation level during prime
processing in the masked prime paradigm will not depend on the surface
frequency of the prime stimulus. One critical point here is the assumption
that the temporal constraints imposed by masked priming do not allow
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
425
potential feedback mechanisms to have signiŽcantly modiŽed the activation level of processing units at target word onset (after 57 ms of prime
processing in the present study). In other words, sublexical morphemic
representations will not have received signiŽcant feedback from wholeword representations within this brief time interval. Interactivity is
assumed to inuence processing in later stages of target word recognition
as the system settles into a stable pattern of activation across orthographic,
phonological, morphemic, and semantic units.
It is important to note that priming effects obtained in prior
experimentation using the masked prime procedure of the present study
can be captured with purely feedforward mechanisms. For example,
phonological priming effects (e.g., Ferrand & Grainger, 1992) can be
explained by prime stimuli activating sublexical phonological representations that are then used in the processing of the target word. This could
explain why effects that may require feedback mechanisms, such as
semantic priming effects with the lexical decision task, are particularly
elusive with such short prime exposure durations (e.g., Rastle, Davis,
Marslen-Wilson, & Tyler, this issue). Thus, assuming no signiŽcant topdown inuences from whole-word representations to morphemic representations, the sublexical hypothesis depicted in the righthand panel of
Figure 1 predicts that the surface frequency of morphological primes
should not affect priming. This is examined in Experiment 1.
EXPERIMENT 1
Experiment 1 was designed to test for effects of prime word surface
frequency in masked morphological priming. Free roots were primed
either by a high frequency morphologically related sufŽxed word prime, a
low frequency morphologically related sufŽxed word prime, or by a
medium frequency orthographically related word.
Method
Participants Thirty-six psychology students at the University of
Provence (France) participated in the experiment. In this and the following
experiments all participants were native speakers of French and reported
normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
Design and stimuli. Thirty free roots were selected as targets (see
Appendix A). Each target word was tested in three priming conditions
deŽning the three levels of the Prime type factor (high frequency sufŽxed
word, low frequency sufŽxed word, and orthographic control). Thus each
sufŽxed word target was primed by the following word primes: (1) a high
frequency sufŽxed word sharing the same root (e.g., amitié–ami); (2) a low
426
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
frequency sufŽxed word sharing the same root (e.g., amiable–ami) and (3)
a monomorphemic word with the same initial letter sequence as the target
(e.g., amidon–ami where [ami-] in amidon does not constitute a root
morpheme in French). Targets were 4.7 letters long on average and primes
7.8 letters long. Free root targets had a printed frequency of 663
occurrences per million on average. High frequency sufŽxed word primes
had a printed frequency of 160 occurrences per million on average, low
frequency sufŽxed word primes had a printed frequency of 13 occurrences
per million on average and orthographic control primes had a printed
frequency of 19 occurrences per million on average (Imbs, 1971). Primetarget pairings were counterbalanced across three experimental lists
associated with three independent groups of participants, such that each
participant was tested in all three priming conditions but saw a given target
word once only. Thirty morphologically simple nonwords were added for
the purposes of the lexical decision task. The nonword targets resembled
real roots and were primed either by nonwords formed by the target plus a
derivation sufŽx (e.g., moureur–moure), or by unrelated nonwords.
Procedure The masked priming procedure by Forster and Davis (1984)
was used. Each trial consisted of the following sequence of three stimuli: A
forward pattern mask composed of hash marks (#) presented for 500 ms,
followed by the prime-stimulus presented for 57 ms, which in turn was
immediately replaced by the target string (word or nonword) which
remained on the screen until participants responded. Primes were
presented in upper case and targets in lower case (with the necessary
accents in French). The pattern mask was the same length as the primeword. Participants were instructed to respond as rapidly and accurately as
possible whether the letter string in lower case was or was not a French
word. Participants responded ‘‘yes’’ by pressing one of two response
buttons with the foreŽnger of their preferred hand and ‘‘no’’ by pressing
the other response button with the foreŽnger of the other hand.
Participants were not informed of the presence of prime-words.
Results
Mean RTs and percent errors for each experimental condition for word
targets are given in Table 1. ANOVAs by participants (F1) and items (F2)
were performed on these data. The analysis showed a signiŽcant effect of
prime type that was signiŽcant by participants but only marginally so by
items (F1(2, 66) = 4.97, p < .01; F2(2, 58) = 3.10, p = .05).
Planned comparisons showed that only high frequency morphological
primes facilitated target processing relative to orthographic control primes
(F1(1, 33) = 11.88, p < .0025; F2(1, 29) = 5.46, p < .05). Low frequency
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
427
TABLE 1
Mean lexical decision latencies for correct responses, percentage of errors (in
parentheses), standard deviations to word targets and net morphological priming
effects relative to the orthographic control condition in Experiment 1
Prime type
High frequency morphological primes
Low frequency morphological primes
Orthographic control primes
RT
SD
Net effect
596 (1.4)
611 (1.7)
621 (5.0)
78.0
81.8
88.2
25*
10
Note. * p < .05 by participants and items.
morphologically related primes did not differ signiŽcantly from orthographic controls (F1(1, 33) = 1.18, p > .10; F2(1, 29) = 1.42, p > .10).
There was a marginally signiŽcant different between the high frequency
and low frequency morphological prime conditions in the analysis by
participants (F1(1, 33) = 3.81, p = .05; F2(1, 29) = 1.84, p > .10).
An analysis of the error rates to word targets showed a signiŽcant effect
of prime type by both participants and items (F1(2, 66) = 4.16, p < .025;
F2(2, 58) = 5.28, p < .01). Planned comparisons showed that both high and
low frequency primes inuenced target processing relative to orthographic
primes (F1(1, 33) = 4.20, p < .05; F2(1, 29) = 7.64, p < .01 and F1(1, 33) =
7.54, p < .01; F2(1, 29) = 5.12, p < .05, respectively). The difference
between high and low frequency primes was not signiŽcant (Fs < 1). An
analysis of RTs and error rates to nonword targets showed no signiŽcant
effects.
EXPERIMENT 2
The results of Experiment 1 Žt with the predictions of a supralexical
architecture where morphemic units are situated above the whole-word
representations such that morphemic representations only receive activation from low-level stimulus analysis via whole-word representations.
Experiment 2 was designed to examine effects of the same frequency
manipulation with primes having similar degrees of form overlap with
targets as in the morphological conditions of Experiment 1, without being
morphologically related to targets. To this end, the free root targets tested
in Experiment 1 were primed either by a high frequency orthographically
related prime, a low frequency orthographically related prime, or an
unrelated medium frequency prime (e.g., chaume–ami).
Method
Participants. Thirty psychology students at the University of Provence
participated in Experiment 2. They had not participated in Experiment 1.
428
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
Design and stimuli. The 30 free roots used in Experiment 1 served as
targets (see Appendix B). Each target word was tested in three priming
conditions deŽning the three levels of the prime type factor: (1) a high
frequency word sharing the same initial letter sequence as the target (e.g.,
amiral–ami where [ami-] in amiral is not a root); (2) a low frequency word
sharing the same initial letter sequence as the target (e.g., amidon–ami,
where [ami-] in amidon is not a root, and (3) a monomorphemic unrelated
word (e.g., chaume–ami). Targets were 4.7 letters long on average and
primes 6.9 letters long. Free root targets had a printed frequency of 663
occurrences per million in average. High frequency orthographic primes
had an average printed frequency of 60 occurrences per million (due to
constraints in stimulus selection this value could not be any higher), low
frequency orthographic primes had an average printed frequency of 4
occurrences per million, and unrelated control primes had an average
printed frequency of 32 occurrences per million (Imbs, 1971). Prime-target
pairings were counterbalanced across three experimental lists associated
with three independent groups of participants, such that each participant
was tested in all three priming conditions but saw a given target word only
once. The 30 morphologically simple nonwords tested in Experiment 1
were primed either by nonwords sharing the same initial letters as the
target (e.g., mountes–moure), or by unrelated nonwords.
Procedure. This was the same as in Experiment 1.
Results and discussion
Mean RTs and percent errors for each experimental condition for word
targets are given in Table 2. ANOVAs by participants (F1) and items
(F2) were performed on these data. The analysis showed that the effect
of prime type was not signiŽcant, neither by participants nor by items
(Fs < 1).
An analysis of the error rates to word targets was performed and showed
a signiŽcant effect of prime type by both participants and items (F1(2, 54)
= 3.90, p < .05; F2(2, 58) = 3.41, p < .05). Planned comparisons showed
TABLE 2
Mean lexical decision latencies for correct responses, percentage of errors (in
parentheses), standard deviations to word targets and net orthographic priming
effects relative to the unrelated condition in Experiment 2
Prime type
High frequency orthographic primes
Low frequency orthographic primes
Unrelated primes
RT
SD
Net effect
659 (6.7)
662 (2.3)
673 (3.3)
60.4
76.9
83.3
14
11
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
429
that high frequency orthographically related primes interfered marginally
with target processing relative to unrelated primes (F1(1, 27) = 3.06, p <
.08; F2(1, 29) = 2.96, p < .09) and produced signiŽcantly more errors than
low frequency orthographic primes (F1(1, 27) = 7.57, p < .025; F2(1, 29) =
4.62, p < .05). The difference between low frequency orthographic and
unrelated primes was not signiŽcant (Fs < 1). An analysis of RTs and
error rates to nonword targets showed no signiŽcant effects.
The results of Experiment 2 provide a partial replication of prior work
showing that high frequency orthographically related primes tend to
produce interference (rather than facilitation) in target word processing. In
the present experiment this interference effect was evident in the error
rates, but not in RTs. The lack of an effect in RTs could be due to several
reasons. First the degree of orthographic overlap is much smaller than in
previous studies, and second, we tested relatively high-frequency target
words. Prior work has shown that inhibitory effects of orthographic
priming are strongest with low-frequency targets (Grainger, 1992; Segui &
Grainger, 1990). The critical result, however, is that varying prime word
frequency in conditions of form overlap similar to the morphological
prime-target pairs of Experiment 1, we found that, if anything, high
frequency primes tend to inhibit, and not facilitate, target word
recognition. This suggests that prime word frequency differentially
inuences the processing of form information and morphological
information.
Experiment 3 was designed to replicate the inuence of prime word frequency on morphological priming using frequency-matched orthographic
and unrelated primes and a larger stimulus set than in Experiment 1.
EXPERIMENT 3
Method
Participants. Sixty psychology students from the University of Provence participated in the experiment. They had not participated in the
previous experiments.
Design and stimuli. Sixty free roots were selected as targets (see
Appendix C). Each target word was tested in six priming conditions
deŽning the combination of the three levels of the prime type factor
(morphologically related sufŽxed word, orthographically related word, and
unrelated word) and the two levels of the prime frequency factor (high or
low printed frequency). Thus each sufŽxed word target was primed by the
following word primes: (1) a high frequency sufŽxed word sharing the same
root (e.g., amitié–ami); (2) a low frequency sufŽxed word sharing the same
root (e.g., amiable–ami), (3) a high frequency orthographically related
430
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
monomorphemic word (e.g. amiral–ami where [ami-] in amiral is not a root
morpheme in French), (4) a low frequency orthographically related
monomorphemic word (e.g., amidon–ami where [ami-] in amidon is not a
root morpheme in French), (5) a high frequency unrelated monomorphemic word (e.g., juillet–ami), and (6) a low frequency monomorphemic
word (e.g., morpion–ami). Targets were 5 letters long on average and
primes 7.6 letters long. Free root targets had a printed frequency of 549
occurrences per million on average. High frequency sufŽxed word primes
had a printed frequency of 109 occurrences per million on average, low
frequency sufŽxed word primes had a printed frequency of 9 occurrences
per million on average, high frequency orthographic word primes had a
printed frequency of 104 occurrences per million on average, low
frequency orthographic word primes had a printed frequency of 3 occurrences per million on average, high frequency unrelated word primes had a
printed frequency of 112 occurrences per million on average and low
frequency unrelated word primes had a printed frequency of 8 occurrences
per million on average (Imbs, 1971). Prime-target pairings were counterbalanced across six experimental lists associated with six independent
groups of participants, such that each participant was tested in all six
priming conditions (Prime type Prime frequency) but saw a given target
word once only. Sixty morphologically simple nonwords were included for
the purposes of the lexical decision task. As in the previous experiments,
the nonword targets resembled real roots and were primed either by
nonwords formed by the target plus a derivational sufŽx (e.g., moureur–
moure), by an orthographically related nonword (e.g., mountes–moure), or
by unrelated nonwords. Each participant received a total of 120
experimental trials: 60 word trials and 60 nonword trials.
Procedure. This was the same as in Experiments 1 and 2.
Results and discussion
Table 3 provides the mean correct RTs and percentage of errors in the
different experimental conditions for word targets. An analysis of variance
was performed on these data using participants (F1) and items (F2) as
random variables.
The main effect of prime type was signiŽcant by both participants and
items (F1(2, 108) = 7.18, p < .0025; F2(2, 118) = 3.56, p < .05) while the
effect of prime frequency was not signiŽcant (F1 < 1; F2 < 1). The Prime
type Prime frequency interaction was signiŽcant by subjects (F1(2, 108)
= 5.88, p < .005; F2(2, 118) = 1.74, p > 10). The effect of prime type was
signiŽcant for targets preceded by high frequency primes (F1(2, 108) =
13.12, p < .0003; F2(2, 118) = 4.61, p < .025), while there was no effect
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
431
TABLE 3
Mean correct lexical decision latencies, percentage of errors (in parentheses) and
standard deviations of RTs to word targets in each priming condition. Net
morphological priming effects relative to the unrelated condition are given for each
prime frequency in Experiment 3
Prime type
Morphological
Prime frequency
High frequency primes
Low frequency primes
Orthographic
Unrelated
RT
SD
RT
SD
RT
SD
Net effects
622 (1.3)
640 (3.5)
97
89
648 (4.2)
642 (4.2)
98
84
655 (3.8)
645 (4.0)
100
90
33*
5
Note. * p < .05 by participants and items.
of the prime type for targets preceded by low frequency primes (F1 < 1;
F2 < 1). Planned comparisons showed that high frequency morphologically related primes produced faster RTs than high frequency
unrelated primes (F1(1, 54) = 14.45, p < .001; F2(1, 59) = 6.54, p <
.025) and high frequency unrelated primes (F1(1, 54) = 22.21, p < .0003;
F2(1, 59) = 8.73, p < .005). No signiŽcant difference was observed
between the high frequency orthographic and high frequency unrelated
prime conditions (F1(1, 54) = 1.01, p > .010; F2 < 1). Finally, planned
comparisons showed that no signiŽcant differences were observed
between the three low frequency prime conditions (Fs < 1).
An analysis of the error rates showed no main or interaction effects. An
analysis of the RTs and error rates to nonword targets showed no
signiŽcant effects.
The results of Experiment 3 once again demonstrate that prime word
frequency inuences the size of masked morphologically priming effects
with free root targets in the lexical decision task. On the other hand, the
orthographic prime condition did not differ signiŽcantly from the
unrelated prime condition in either the RT or the error analyses, and
prime word frequency did not modulate this absence of priming effects. As
noted in the discussion of Experiment 2, the absence of an inhibitory effect
of orthographically related primes is likely due to two factors: target word
frequency and degree of orthographic relatedness. All targets had high
printed frequencies in the present study, and the degree of orthographic
relatedness was on average lower than in prior work showing inhibitory
effects (e.g., Grainger, 1992; Segui & Grainger, 1990).
EXPERIMENT 4
The fact that morphological priming is observed with high frequency free
root targets in Experiments 1 and 3, is problematical for any dual-route
432
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
account of morphological processing according to which target surface
frequency determines the relative involvement of morphological representations (via a sublexical morphological parsing route). A dual-route
theorist could argue, however, that by preactivating sublexical morphological representations, the masked priming paradigm artiŽcially increases
the use made of the morphological parsing route, hence generating
morphological priming effects. By preactivating the appropriate sublexical
morphological representation, speed of processing via the morphological
route becomes faster than via the whole-word route, even for very high
frequency target words. If this were to be the case, then since cumulative
root frequency (the summed frequency of all words that contain a given
root) is assumed to increase the speed of morphological processing in such
models (e.g., Burani & Caramazza, 1987), then morphological priming
effects should interact with the cumulative root frequency of target words.
Smaller priming effects should be obtained with targets having low
cumulative root frequencies. This is examined in Experiment 4.
Method
Participants. Thirty psychology students from the University of
Provence participated in the experiment. They had not participated in
the previous experiments.
Design and stimuli. Thirty free roots with a low cumulative frequency
(the sum of the printed frequencies of the free root and all words derived
from this root) and small family size3 (e.g., ours) and 30 free roots with a
high cumulative frequency and large family size (e.g., cire) were selected as
targets (see Appendix C). These two stimulus sets deŽne the target type
factor. The average cumulative frequencies were 125 and 211 occurrences
per million (Imbs, 1971) for the two groups of targets, and the average
family size 3.3 and 17.8. Targets in the low and high cumulative frequency
group were matched for length in letters (5.3 and 5.0 respectively) and
surface frequency (114 and 107 occurrences per million respectively). Each
target word was primed by (1) a sufŽxed word sharing the same root (e.g.,
ourson–ours; cireur–cire), (2) an orthographic control word (e.g., ourlet–
ours; cirrus–cire), and (3) an unrelated word (e.g., agenda–ours; goyave–
cire). These conditions deŽne the three levels of the prime type factor.
Primes for the low and high cumulative frequency targets were matched
3
We did not attempt to separate out effects of type and token counts of cumulative root
frequency. Furthermore, since word frequency was matched across the two sets of targets
which were free roots, our cumulative frequency manipulation is equivalent to what de Jong
et al. (this issue) refer to as family frequency.
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
433
for surface frequency (10 occurrences per million) and length (between 6
and 10 letters long). All participants were tested in all six experimental
conditions (Prime type Target type) but saw each target once only. Sixty
morphologically simple nonwords were included for the purposes of the
lexical decision task. As in the previous experiments, the nonword targets
resembled real roots and were primed either by nonwords formed by the
target plus a derivational sufŽx (e.g., moureur–moure), or by unrelated
nonwords. Each participant was tested in a total of 120 experimental trials:
60 word trials and 60 nonword trials.
Procedure. This was the same as in the previous experiments.
Results and discussion
Table 4 provides the mean correct RTs and percentage of errors in the
different experimental conditions for word targets. An analysis of variance
was performed on these data using participants (F1) and items (F2) as
random variables.
The main effect of prime type was signiŽcant by both participants and
items (F1(2, 54) = 17.40, p < .0001; F2(2, 116) = 11.43, p < .001) while the
effect of target type was not signiŽcant (F1 < 1; F2 < 1). The Target type
Prime type interaction was not signiŽcant (F1 < 1; F2 < 1). There were
signiŽcant effects of prime type for both free root targets with low
cumulative frequencies (F1(2, 54) = 9.49, p < .001; F2(2, 58) = 8.11, p <
.01) and free root targets with high cumulative frequencies (F1(2, 54) =
9.38, p < .001; F2(2, 58) = 3.57, p < .05). Planned comparisons showed
that morphologically related primes produced faster RTs than orthographic primes (F1(1, 27) = 13.81, p < .0025; F2(1, 58) = 8.62, p < .01) and
unrelated primes (F1(1, 27) = 23.02, p < .0003; F2(1, 58) = 32.85, p <
TABLE 4
Mean correct lexical decision latencies, percentage of errors (in parentheses) and
standard deviations to word targets with low and high morphemic frequencies. Net
morphological priming effects relative to the unrelated condition are given for each
type of target in Experiment 4
Type of primes
Morphological
Type of target
Low cumulative frequency
High cumulative frequency
Orthographic
Unrelated
RT
SD
RT
SD
RT
653 (4.4)
652 (3.1)
77
62
682 (6.4)
673 (5.3)
80
60
691 (5.6)
698 (3.6)
Note. * p < .05 by participants and items.
SD Net effects
64
66
38*
46*
434
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
.0001). An analysis of the error rates showed no main or interaction effects,
and an analysis of RTs and error rates to nonword targets showed no
signiŽcant effects.
The results of Experiment 4 show that cumulative root frequency does
not inuence the size of morphological priming on free root targets.
SufŽxed word primes facilitated the processing of free root targets with low
and high cumulative frequencies. Thus, a manipulation designed to
modulate the involvement of morphological processing (according to a
generic dual-route model), did not lead to variations in morphological
priming. No main effect of cumulative frequency was observed to the high
frequency free root targets in Experiment 4. Prior studies demonstrating
cumulative root frequency effects have used targets with relatively low
surface frequencies (e.g., Burani & Caramazza, 1987; Colé, Segui, & Taft,
1997; Meunier & Segui, 1999).4 Furthermore, effects of morphological
family size have so far only been reported for words with relatively low
surface frequencies (de Jong et al., this issue; Schreuder & Baayen, 1997).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
First, the present study shows that masked morphological priming can be
obtained with derived word primes and free root targets with high surface
frequencies. Obtaining masked morphological priming with free root
targets is a particularly important result in that it demonstrates that
morphological priming can be observed in conditions where participants
have no conscious contact with morphological information during the
experiment: primes are not identiŽable, and targets are morphologically
simple words. Furthermore, using free roots as targets has the advantage of
avoiding the delicate problem of deciding which type of nonword target is
appropriate in lexical decision experiments examining morphological
processing. At a theoretical level, the fact that high frequency free root
targets were shown to be sensitive to morphological priming (Experiments
1, 3, and 4) is evidence against any form of dual-route model of
morphological processing where morphological inuences should only be
observable in words of low printed frequency (e.g., Caramazza, Laudanna,
& Romani, 1988; Schreuder & Baayen, 1995).
Second, the present study demonstrates that the surface frequency of
morphological primes affects the size of morphological priming. In
Experiments 1 and 3, high surface frequency derived word primes showed
signiŽcant facilitation relative to form control primes, whereas low
4
Note that the average surface frequency of the high frequency targets in Meunier and
Segui’s (1999) study, was only 18 occurrences per million, which is quite low compared to the
frequencies of target words in the present study.
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
435
frequency primes did not. This particular result was predicted by a
supralexical model of morphological representation, where effects of
morphology necessarily depend on processing of a whole-word form that
gives rise to effects of surface frequency. In Experiments 2 and 3 a similar
frequency manipulation with form-related primes showed no effects
relative to unrelated primes in the RT data. However, in the error analysis
the high frequency form primes produced an inhibitory effect relative to
unrelated primes, but only in Experiment 2. So the general picture that is
conŽrmed by the present study, and already envisaged in the work of
Grainger et al. (1991) and Drews and Zwitserlood (1995), is one in which
pure form overlap across words tends to generate competitive processes,
the strength of which depend on the frequency of the prime and target
stimuli and the degree of orthographic overlap between them (Grainger,
1992), while morphological overlap engenders facilitation (via positive
resonance between morphemic representations and whole-word representations) that increases as a function of the frequency of the morphologically related prime. As noted in the discussion of Experiment 3, the high
printed frequency of the target words tested in the present study, plus the
relatively low level of orthographic overlap across primes and targets, are
two possible reasons why there was little evidence of inhibitory form
priming.
Finally, Experiment 4 demonstrated that variations in cumulative root
frequency did not inuence the size of masked morphological priming
effects obtained with free root targets. Within a dual-route framework,
reducing the cumulative frequency of free root targets was expected to
reduce involvement of the morphological processing route, hence
diminishing morphological priming effects obtained with high frequency
targets.
Surface frequency and pseudomorphemes
The fact that only the high frequency derived word primes produced
signiŽcant morphological priming in Experiment 1 is taken as support for a
supralexical model of morphological representation. Further support for
such a model has been obtained in experiments showing an absence of
priming from pseudoroots and pseudoafŽxes in the masked prime
paradigm (Giraudo & Grainger, 2000). In these studies, primes containing
pseudoroots or pseudoafŽxes produced effects that did not differ
signiŽcantly from unrelated primes, while true derived word primes
sharing a root or an afŽx with derived word targets produced signiŽcantly
faster RTs. Using the same line of argument as used to interpret the effects
of prime surface frequency in the present study, we suggested that only a
supralexical representation of morphology could accommodate these
436
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
results. A sublexical account of morphological representation would
predict no difference between primes containing a true morpheme or a
pseudomorpheme that is shared with the target, since morphemes must be
rapidly extracted from the stimulus without consideration of the
compatibility of remaining information. On the other hand, morphemic
representations that only receive activation (from bottom-up processes)
via whole-word forms that contain that morpheme will not be sensitive to
stimuli containing pseudomorphemes, and will show effects of prime word
surface frequency as observed in Experiments 1 and 3 of the present study.
There is evidence, however, that pseudopreŽxed stimuli are harder to
classify as words than matched monomorphemic controls (e.g., Pillon,
1998). This is typically taken as prime facie evidence against a supralexical
account of the morphological representation, since the cost in processing
caused by a pseudopreŽx is assumed to arise via some form of prelexical
morphological parsing process. As Pillon (1998) points out, there are a
number of problems in selecting the appropriate control words in these
experiments, a fact that might help explain divergences in the results
obtained in prior studies, and a point that certainly calls for caution when
interpreting such effects. These problems in stimulus selection are partly
obviated by the use of a priming paradigm (Giraudo & Grainger, 2000).
Furthermore, a recent study in Finnish (Laine, Vainio, & Hyönä, 1999) did
not Žnd any processing cost for pseudosufŽxes and pseudostems, thus
suggesting that the pseudomorpheme effect, if it exists independently of
other factors, is limited to preŽxes.
Cumulative root frequency
No main effect of cumulative root frequency was observed in lexical
decision times to free root targets in Experiment 4. As noted in the
discussion of this experiment, prior work showing effects of cumulative
frequency have used words with relatively low surface frequencies (e.g.,
Burani & Caramazza, 1987), so the use of high frequency targets in the
present study may explain the observed absence of an effect. Research
showing facilitatory effects of cumulative root frequency with low
frequency words and not with high frequency words, has often been used
in support of so-called dual-route models of morphological processing
where the surface frequency of the complex target word determines the
relative involvement of morphological decomposition in the recognition of
this word. However, the fact that morphological priming is obtained with
high-frequency free root targets in the present study is evidence against
this frequency-biased dual-route conception of morphological processing.
Two recent sets of results suggest that prior observations of cumulative
root frequency effects may in fact reect the correlation of this variable
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
437
with other more relevant variables. Thus, the work of Schreuder and
Baayen (1997; see also de Jong et al., this issue) has pinpointed one
hitherto unexpected critical variable: a type count of morphological family
size. This measure simply provides the number of derived words in a given
morphological family (i.e., that share the same root) independently of their
surface frequencies and their inected forms. These authors have
demonstrated that, while controlling for other relevant variables, increasing the family size of target words leads to faster lexical decision responses
to these words.
Another critical line of evidence has recently been provided by Meunier
and Segui (1999) who demonstrated that the relative frequency ranking of
the target word within its morphological family determines lexical decision
performance to sufŽxed derived words. Increasing the number of family
members whose surface frequency is greater than that of the target word,
leads to poorer performance in an auditory lexical decision task.
Combining this observation in the auditory modality with the family size
effect reported by Schreuder and Baayen (1997) in the visual modality, it
appears that it may well be the frequency distribution of the morphological
family that is the critical variable here. In other words, it might not be the
total number of family members (family size) that is critical, but rather the
presence or not of members that have a relatively high surface frequency.
When family frequency is controlled (see de Jong et al., this issue) then
manipulations of family size imply that words with a low family size must
have some members with relatively high surface frequencies in the family,
while words with a high family size are likely to have morphological
families composed of words all having relatively low surface frequencies.
Thus, the family size effect that is observed when family frequency is
controlled, may at least partly reect an inhibitory inuence of the
presence of family members with high surface frequencies in the words
having a low family size (Meunier & Segui, 1999).
Morphology, form and meaning
The present results therefore add to the already impressive amount of
evidence arguing for the explicit representation of morphological
information in memory (e.g., Deutsch, Frost & Forster, 1998; Drews &
Zwitserlood, 1995; Feldman, 1994; Frost et al., 1997; Grainger et al., 1991;
Laudanna, Badecker, & Caramazza, 1992; Marslen-Wilson, Komisarjevsky-Tyler, Waksler, & Older, 1994). Of course, when morphological
relations across words are learned in the absence of explicit instruction (as
is generally the case for derivational morphology), then it is the systematic
co-occurrence of form and meaning overlap that must be detected by the
learner. At the outset, therefore, morphology is nothing other than a
438
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
combination of form and meaning overlap across words. We argue,
however, that the learning process derives explicit representations
corresponding to morphemes, and that these morphemes act as a partial
interface between whole-word form representations and the representation of semantics, at least as far as French derivational morphology is
concerned. The present study provides converging evidence in favour of
this hypothesised supralexical representation of derivational morphology.
This may well turn out to be a language-speciŽc solution to the processing
and representation of morphology. Given large variations in factors such
as average word length, the salience of cues to word boundaries in speech,
and the transparency and productivity of morphological structures,
languages are likely to differ with respect to the relative weight that is
assigned to whole-word versus morpheme-sized representations in parsing
the stimulus input. Only systematic cross-linguistic comparisons will allow
us to clarify this important issue.
REFERENCES
Burani, C. & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 217–227.
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inectional
morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332.
Colé, P., Segui, J., & Taft, M. (1997). Words and morphemes as units for lexical access.
Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 312–330.
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K.I. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed
differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1238–1255.
De Jong, N., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (this issue). The morphological family size effect
and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 329–365.
Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995) Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word
recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21,
1098–1116.
Feldman, L.B. (1994). Beyond orthography and phonology: Difference between inections
and derivations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 442–470.
Ferrand, L. & Grainger, J. (1992). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition:
Evidence from masked nonword priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
45A, 353–372.
Forster, K.I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical
access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 680–
698.
Forster, K.I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with
graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211–251.
Frost, R., Forster, K., & Deutsch, A, (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of
Hebrew? A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(4), 1–28.
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (in press). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical
representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
439
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). On the role of derivational afŽxes in recognizing complex
words: Evidence from masked priming. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Grainger, J. (1992). Orthographic neighborhoods and visual word recognition. In R. Frost &
L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning. Amsterdam: North
Holland.
Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word
recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384.
Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1994). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition:
Effects of masked homophone primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 218–233.
Imbs, P. (1971). Etudes statistiques sur le vocabulaire fancais: Dictionnaire des fréquences
vocabulaire littéraire des XIXe et XXe siecles. Paris: Librairie Marcel Didier.
Laine, M., Vainio, S., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Lexical access routes to nouns in a morphologically
rich language. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 109–135.
Laudanna, A., Badecker, W., & Caramazza, A. (1992). Processing inectional and
derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 333–348.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Komisarjevsky-Tyler, L., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology
and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–33.
McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context
effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic Žndings. Psychological Review, 88,
375–405.
Meunier, F., & Segui, J. (1999). Frequency effects in auditory word recognition: The case of
sufŽxed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 327–344.
Pillon, A. (1998). The pseudopreŽxation effect in visual word recognition: A true—neither
strategic nor orthographic—morphemic effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 51A, 85–120.
Rastle, K., Davis, M.H., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., & Tyler, L.K. (this issue). Morphological and
semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 15, 507–537.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1995). Modelling morphological processing. In feldman, L.B.
(Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, pp. 131–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of
Memory and Language, 37, 118–139.
Segui, J., & Grainger, J. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbours:
Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 16, 65–76.
Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological
processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.
440
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
APPENDIX A
Stimuli used in Experiment 1
High surface frequency Low surface frequency Orthographic
morphological primes morphological primes controls
Targets
pureté
artiste
amitié
rêveur
bonté
maladie
muraille
grossier
hauteur
jeunesse
Žnalement
justement
richesse
terrain
criminel
changement
couverture
difŽculté
liberté
longueur
sanglant
tardif
tournant
blancheur
froideur
gardien
gravité
imaginaire
romantique
Žnesse
puriste
artisan
amiable
rêveusement
bonnement
maladif
muret
grossiste
hautement
jeunot
Žnaliste
justesse
richement
terreau
criminalité
changeur
couvreur
difŽcilement
librement
longuet
sanguin
tardivement
tourneur
blanchâtre
froidure
garderie
gravement
imagerie
romanesque
Žnement
purin
artichaut
amidon
revêche
bonze
malabar
` ne
mure
groseille
havane
jeudi
Žnnois
jument
richelieu
terrible
crinoline
chandail
couvent
dilemme
libellule
lombric
sanglier
tarentule
tournesol
blaireau
froment
gardon
gravas
impôt
romanichel
Žnance
pur
art
ami
rêve
bon
malade
mur
gros
haut
jeune
Žn
juste
riche
terre
crime
changer
couvrir
difŽcile
libre
long
sang
tard
tourner
blanc
froid
garde
grave
image
roman
Žn
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
APPENDIX B
Stimuli used in Experiment 2
High surface frequency Low surface frequency
orthographic primes
orthographic primes
Unrelated
controls
Targets
pupille
article
amiral
revers
bonnet
malabar
murmur
Žnance
grotte
hanche
jeudi
jument
ricochet
terrible
critique
chantier
couvent
diamant
libraire
loisir
sanglot
tartine
tourment
blague
fromage
garage
gravier
impôt
romaine
Žssure
banane
manteau
chaume
lustre
farine
caribou
casque
crapaud
laurier
square
` re
bie
amende
mascotte
décembre
obstacle
ardoise
épingle
graisse
ambassade
chêvre
horloge
pastille
sommaire
ampoule
lessive
cognac
biscuit
citron
casserole
ûte
pur
art
ami
rêve
bon
malade
mur
Žn
gros
haut
jeune
juste
riche
terre
crime
changer
couvrir
difŽcile
libre
long
sang
tard
tourner
blanc
froid
garde
grave
image
roman
Žn
purin
artichaut
amidon
revêche
bonze
malaga
` ne
mure
Žnnois
groseille
havane
jeun
jujube
richelieu
terriŽer
crinoline
chandail
couenne
dilemme
libellule
lombric
sanglier
tarentule
tournesol
blaireau
froment
gardon
gravas
impact
romanichel
Žrme
441
442
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
APPENDIX C
Stimuli used in Experiment 3
High frequency primes: Prime type
Low frequency primes: Prime type
Morphological Orthographic Unrelated Morphological Orthographic Unrelated Targets
purement
artiste
amitié
rêveur
bonté
tardif
tournant
blancheur
froideur
gardien
gravité
imaginaire
jeunesse
justement
richesse
terrain
criminel
changement
couverture
difŽculté
liberté
romantique
Žnalement
maladie
magique
coupure
mineur
collier
laideur
louange
chanson
vitrine
métallique
armement
menteur
misérable
penseur
passage
` re
barrie
drapeau
chevalier
banquier
bataillon
bâtiment
pupille
article
amiral
revers
bonnet
tartine
tourment
blague
fromage
garçon
gravier
impôt
jeudi
jument
ricaner
terrible
critique
champagne
couvent
diamant
libraire
romaine
Žnance
malice
magasin
coupole
mince
colline
laisser
louche
chantier
vitesse
métairie
araignée
menton
mission
pension
passion
baraque
dragon
cheville
banquette
beteau
bâton
insecte
domaine
juillet
secours
culture
ampoule
essence
caserne
coussin
théâtre
pendule
rancune
origine
sauvage
sourcil
octobre
logique
victime
automne
novembre
occasion
vestibule
assiette
couloir
appétit
platane
cahier
taureau
chambre
colombe
réexe
bouquet
vaisselle
faisseau
galerie
obstacle
auberge
science
` ge
colle
urgence
manuscrit
médaille
régulier
mercredi
puriste
artisan
amiable
rêveusement
bonnement
tardivement
tourneur
blanchâtre
froidure
garderie
gravement
imagerie
jeunot
justesse
richement
terreau
criminalité
changeur
couvreur
difŽcilement
librement
romanesque
Žnaliste
maladif
magicien
couperet
minier
collerette
laideron
louable
chanteur
vitrier
métallurgie
armurier
menterie
miséreux
pensable
passeur
barrette
drapier
chevalin
bancaire
batailleur
bâtisse
purin
artichaut
amidon
revêche
bonze
tarentule
tournesol
blaireau
froment
gardon
gravats
impact
jeun
jujube
richelieu
termite
crinoline
chamois
couenne
dilemme
libellule
romanichel
Žnnois
malaga
magnum
couperose
minet
collyre
laiton
loulou
chancre
vitriol
métacarpe
armagnac
menthe
misogyne
pentagone
pastel
barrique
dragée
chevrotine
banquise
bâtard
batracien
amazone
` ne
oxyge
morpion
biscuit
gazelle
alvéole
guépard
carotte
vanille
cricket
bistrot
cigogne
gouache
éclipse
pruneau
cocaõ¨ne
embolie
génisse
basilic
anecdote
cantique
chronique
astrakan
chignon
sardine
` re
hate
boléro
` ze
trape
cagoule
épinard
binoche
javelle
codicille
dialecte
chardon
réglisse
beignet
météor
arlequin
pommade
phosphate
aspirine
stigmate
alphabet
pur
art
ami
rêve
bon
tard
tourner
blanc
froid
garder
grave
image
jeune
juste
riche
terre
crime
changer
couvrir
difŽcile
libre
roman
Žn
malade
mage
couper
mine
col
laid
louer
chant
vitre
métal
arme
mentir
` re
mise
penser
passer
barre
drap
cheval
banque
bataille
bâtir
PRIME WORD FREQUENCY
APPENDIX CÐ
443
cont.
Stimuli used in Experiment 3
High frequency primes: Prime type
Low frequency primes: Prime type
Morphological Orthographic Unrelated Morphological Orthographic Unrelated
Targets
modestie
communauté
équipage
formation
mollement
glacial
grandeur
guérison
lucidité
mouchoir
musculaire
modeste
commun
équipe
former
mou
glace
grand
guérir
lucide
moucher
muscle
moderne
commissaire
équivoque
formidable
mollusque
glaive
grange
guéridon
lucarne
mouette
museau
fauteuil
cathédrale
tonnerre
` re
cimetie
cartouche
écaille
appareil
paquebot
sommaire
chocolat
labyrinthe
modestement
communard
équipier
formateur
mollasse
glaçon
grandement
guérisseur
lucidement
moucheture
musculature
module
commissure
équinoxe
formol
molleton
glaõ¨eul
granule
guérite
luciole
mouon
muscade
almanach
salamandre
marabout
clavicule
catapulte
fenouil
seringue
nénuphur
balustre
cervoise
naphtaline
444
GIRAUDO AND GRAINGER
APPENDIX D
Stimuli used in Experiment 4
Low cumulative frequency
Prime type
High cumulative frequency
Targets
Morphological Orthographic Unrelated
ourson
policier
toiture
bergerie
orageux
billeterie
plagiste
juteux
mairie
ruelle
jupon
` re
tabatie
saladier
bijoutier
aubergiste
ordurier
sudiste
montagnard
trésorier
trajectoire
futurisme
périodique
fruitier
saisonnier
astucieux
dattier
chandelier
bustier
théière
démomiaque
ourlet
ploisson
toison
bergamote
oracle
billion
plagiat
jujube
maille
ruban
judas
tabasser
salamandre
bigorneau
aubergine
ordinal
sufŽxe
` re
monaste
tresse
tramontane
funiculaire
permanence
frusques
saindoux
astrakan
daurade
chancelier
bufe
théorème
démocrate
agenda
immeuble
gazette
cocktail
foulard
cataclysme
arlequin
baobab
agneau
chêvre
lilas
bourrique
perruche
chevreuil
prospectus
escalope
lombric
périphérie
groseille
controverse
cellulose
champignon
morphine
cataplasme
synagogue
tétanos
apostrophe
giroe
chamois
escadrille
Prime type
Targets
Morphological Orthographic Unrelated
ours
police
toit
berger
orage
billet
plage
jus
maire
rue
jupe
tabac
salade
bijou
auberge
ordure
sud
montagne
trésor
trajet
futur
période
fruit
saison
astuce
datte
chandelle
buste
thé
démon
cireur
menteur
laitier
cassure
vitrage
briseur
pliable
gelure
barrette
muraille
poterie
louable
hachure
copier
balançoire
plâtrier
Žlage
couchette
cordelette
alcoolique
` re
glacie
chanteur
réglable
plunage
collage
crêperie
chauffage
lavage
rondelle
bandeau
cirrus
menton
laitue
cassoulet
vitriole
bristol
plinthe
gelule
barrique
murmur
potence
loutre
hachisch
copeau
balalaõ¨ka
platine
Žlou
couleuvre
corbillard
alcôve
gladiateur
chantier
réglisse
pluriel
collyre
crecelle
chaumière
larynx
ronchon
bandit
goyave
abeille
gorille
pharaon
bécasse
houblon
anchois
basket
cerfeuil
scrupule
gazelle
caniche
luciole
brioche
coquelicot
insuline
coccyx
sacerdoce
mayonnaise
millimètre
acropole
anecdote
autruche
baleine
fenouil
éléphant
escargot
cactus
capucine
corbeau
cire
mentir
lait
casser
vitre
briser
plier
gel
barre
mur
pot
louer
hache
copie
balance
plâtre
Žl
coucher
corde
alcool
glace
chant
règle
plume
coller
crêpe
chauffer
laver
rond
bande