Memory & Cognition
i 984,12 (3), 264-269
Evidencefor an abstract lexical
representationof word structure
MARCUS TAFT
(Jniversityof New south wales,Kensington, New south wales,Australia
particular visually presented word was a homo
subjects were required to judge whether, a
aloud, subjects had difficulty with words
thJword
read
to
instrucGJ
phone or roi. when
"lt
diiferent from that suggested by their
whose orthography suggesil;;;t"rtorosi";iri*.tot"
There were no major problems en'
rtND).
FlNEDlti"-"piil;*ith
homophones,for example,
the same morphological struc'
pair'had
of tn" no-"pno"ic
countered when the two -r-u"tr
to read the word aloud before
insiructed
*l"re
r"bjects
wn""
KNEAb.ture, for example,
it. *orphologicauy different items improved
moking a decigion, however, trr.i, poro.rirutt"" o"
wordsLre represented in the lexicon as stem
inflected
tt
tir-rt,
*-g;r-t-r,
markedly. This result,
"t i"""r".r
-ote abstrict phonological representation
plus affix
" reading aloud'
by
p:roduced
";e;;;d,rfr;;iil";;o"g
representation
ph"tt"[i.
than the ;;;i
the
The experimentsreportedin this paperad-dressed
structure.
bfiword
representation
rexicar
issue of the
..\ilordstructure,,referstothemorphology,orthogruptv,
uiru*rd
and pronunciation of a word. Itis geiierally
availmakes
a-word
for
entry
that accessto the lexical
the
and
word
the
of
sound
the
about
able information
Rubenstein,
spellingof the word (e.g.,Morton, 19g0;
arso
r9.,4; Seidenberg& Tanenhaus, rg'7g),and it has
of a
structure
morphological
the
that
been demonstrated
representation
lexical
tire
in
.*pr.rred
word is someho*
t ' . t ' - 'taitaeorri.r,
"":'","
v t r ; t - t ' - trgly
u l n e t ' r1g7l;Taft,
(e.g.,Gibson&Guinet,
lgTs).
Although it is often supposedthat information about
p r onunc iat ionan d s p e l l i n gb e c o m e sa v a i l a b l eo , i ," ui rittle aitivated once a rexicarentry has been accessed,
informatiJn.
this
of
nature
the
paid
to
tention has been
It seemsto be genera[y assumedihat orthogrupty ;;
pronunciation are representedin a form similui to tt ui
proin which they manilest themselveswhen ou.rtry
altefnisuggested_an
however,
(19g2),
duced.Hendenon
tive to this assumptionby centeringon ifre well-d.u.rof.o
linguistic notion bf a *o.phophonemic lexical ,rprrJ.*
,.rgtation (N. Chomsky & Halle, 1963). nrno.rror,
gestedthat there is one abstractrrpr.r.ntution thaiiiboth
corporatesmorphologicalstructure and from which
derived
be
cT
pronunciation and orthography
one
The morpr,oft on.-il riu.r of representationis
relatedhavethe
in whichwords that are morphemicaily
the
sameabstractphonemicrepresentaii* ru.r, though
*av
ste*
common
their
of
actual phonetic iealizations
be quite different. For.**ple,the words TELEGRAPH
but the
and TELEGRA'H' are morphr-iruuy related,
pronunciationsof the tu'o conrnrLrnrtiorphemesTELE
and
and GRAPH are quite diffe.rent(u in [rilagrrf]
however'
ie'ei'
itaidgrefc:]). At tht *o'phophoner:ti;
it. *ord,'"re ,.p'esenttd with the sat.e underlying
structure #tele grnf#.' There are ruiesthat convertthis
the;orre''t pronunciation'
underlyingrepresentationinto
upon *'hetherornot
depending
tte paiticulairealtzation
is derived
pronunciation
'Y
Thus.
present.
is
the sufflr-r
from the morphophonemicrepresentationb1 rule appli'
cation'
orthography'canarsobe den'ed irom rhe underlying
r e p r e s e n t a t i obnu. t i n a m o r e d i r e c tu ' a r . b e c a r ' r st hee
morphophonemicrepresentationoften is reflectedin the
orthographyof u* otd(c' chomskl ' I973:\' choms ky
the spelling of rELE& Haue, iloa;. rgt.rSTple,
GRAPH and TELEGRAPHY reflectsthe morphemicrephonelationship-betweenthesewords rather than their
with
is
spelled
SIGN
word
similarly,,the
tic dissimilarity.
a G becaut. ihttt is a lgl in the underlying representain
lion,-reflecting the word;s relationshipto SIGNIFY'
corword
a
spell
to
order
In
wtriitr the G iI pronounced'
rectly, however, one often needsmore information than
examsimniv the morphophonemic representation'For
ple,nothingin tileunderlyingrepresentationforISLAND
no
would lead-one to spell it with an s' since there are
realized
is
S
the
which
in
words
related
morphologically
ptroneticaily. similarly, tlt underlying representation
ior KNEE'provides no information indicating that lnl
(rather than
should be spelled as KN and /r:/ as EE
to be acneeds
there
cases'
of
number
a
in
Thus,
EA).
as
cessto specificorthographicinformation.
If th; morphophonemicdescriptionof lexical repre'
sentationiscorrect,thenwordsthatarepronouncedin
Re- :fgll",T;"11*;,IXt*r'r':rtiil: lil:"T:t;:lJ#ll'#
theAustrarian
rrom
byagrant
supported
was
rhiswork
underrving
rhe
andFINED'
FIND
i';;;ii:nic words
I wales' nensurBturr"
in
i:T""l"i:'#:',i";x;ffii3;L:T{'Jlf,^ei*it:T,ll;*f$S
differ
words
two
these
for
tepresentations
that the
southwales zo33,Austraria.
264
Copyright lgs4PsychonomicSociety'Inc'
LEXICAL REPRESENTATIONS
former is #find#, whereasthe latter is #fin#d. Similarly, the homophones LAX and LACKS arc represented as #rks# and #lek*h, respectively.Most
homophonic pairs, however, have identical morphoFor example,both HEELED
phonemicrepresentations.
and HEALED are representedas #hcl#d, and both
NEED and KNEAD are represented
as #ndd#.
In Experiment1, a task in which subjectswere asked
to say whether or not a visuallypresentedword was a
homophonewas employed.The subjectswereaskednol
to say the words aloud. It was thought that such a task
might possiblybe performedby using the lexical representationsof the words, rather than their surfacepronunciations.If this were so, and if the lexicalrepresentation were morphophonemic,then it should have been
difficult for the subjectsto detectthat FIND washomophonic with FINED and that LACKS was homophonic
with LAX, whereasit should have been relatively easy
to detectthat HEALED washomophonicwith HEELED
and NEED with KNEAD. This was tested in Experiment1.
EXPERIMENT I
Method
Subjects. Ten undergraduate and graduate students partici.
pated in the experiment. They were tested individually.
Materials. Four different conditions were examined, with 16
words in each condition. All of these words were homophonic
with another, higher frequency English word (frequency was
determined from the norms of Carroll, Davies, & Richman,
r97r).
In Conditions 1 and 2, each word had a morphophonemic
structure different from that of the word with which it was
homophonic. The words presented in Condition 1 were all inflected, for example, FINED (homophonic with FIND), COWERED (homophonic with COWARD), and BREWS (homophonic
with BRUISE); those presented in Condition 2 were all uninflected, for example, LAX (homophonic with LACKS), MIST
(homophonic with MISSED), and HIRE (homophonic with
HIGHER).
In Conditions 3 and 4, each word had the same morpho'
phonemic sfiucture as that of the word with which it was homo
phonic. The words presented in Condition 3 were all inflected,
for example, HEELED (homophonic with HEALED), MANORS
(homophonic with MANNERS), and REIGNED (homophonic
with RAINED); those presented in Condition 4 were all uninflected, for example, KNEAD (homophonic with NEED),
SLEIGH (homophonic with SLAY), and CARAT (homophonic
with CARROT).
These 64 homophonic items (listed in the Appendix) were
presented in uppercase, randomly mixed with 32 nonhomophonic
words that were either inflected (e.g., GNAWED) or uninflected
(e.g., ACHE).
Procedure. Words appeared in list form. They were presented
visually in one of tfuee different orders to the subjects. The zubjects were instructed that they could repeat the words to themselvesbut should not say them aloud. For each word, they were
to respond "yes" or "no," depending upon whether or not
there was another English word that could be pronounced in exactly the same way but that was spelled differently. The example of SALE and SAIL was used. The subjects were not put under time pressureto respond.
265
Results
The percentageof occasionsthat a "yes" response
was correctlymadeis givenin Table l.
An analysisof these data revealedthat Condition I
differed significantly from the other three conditions
= 6.92,
[Condition1 vs. Condition2, min F' (1,36)
p I .02; C ondi ti on1 vs. C ondi ti on3, mi n F' (1,38) =
32.05, p ( .001; Condition1 vs. Condition4, min F'
(1,37) = 40.64,p ( .001]. In addition,Condition2 was
associatedwith significantlymore errorsthan were both
Condition3 [min F' (1,38) = 6.82, p <.02] and Condition4 [min F' (1,37) = 14.31, p < .001]. The differencebetween Conditions 3 and 4 was not significant
[min F' (1,37) = 1.441,althoughthe analysisof the subj ect meansdi d reachsi gni fi cance
[Fr(1,9) = 11.29,p1
. 0 1; F r ( 1 , 3 0 )= 1 . 6 5 ,p > . 0 5 1.
The false-alarmrate for the nonhomophonicitems
was very low, being 1.88%(i.e., 3 errors,of a possible
160) for both the inflected items (e.9.,GNAWED) and
the uninflecteditems(e.g.,ACHE).
Discussion
The data revealthat homophoneswith different morphologicalstructures,such as FINED/FIND and LAX/
LACKS, are more difficult to recognizeas homophones
than are those with the same morphological structure,
such as HEELED/HEALED and KNEAD/NEED. This
implies,first, that inflectedwords havestructuredlexical
representationsdifferent from thoseof uninflectedwords
(ur previously has been supported by Gibson & Guinet,
197| , Jarvella& Meijers,1983,Stanners,Neiser,Hemon,
& Hall, 1979, and Taft, 1979), and, second,that these
different morphological structures are reflected in the
difficulty subjects have in making a decisionabout the
pronunciationof a word. Sucha resultis consistentwith
the view that lexical representationsare morphophonemic in nature.
One finding that was not predicted by the morphophonemic account, however, was the Condition I words
would produce more enors than Condition 2 words.
That is, when the presentedword wasmorphophonemically different from its homophonic pair, the ability to
recognizeits homophony was weakerwhen it was an inflected word (e.9., FINED) than when it was an uninflected word (e.g., LAX). By the morphophonemicac-
Table I
Percentage Correct Responses for the Four Conditions
in Experiment I (Silent Reading)
Condition
I
2
3
4
Example
of Item
Correct
Responseto
Example
Percent
Correct
Fined
Lax
Heeled
Knead
Find
Lacks
Healed
Need
28
54
78
88
266
TAFT
count, difficulty in recognizinghomophony should re- ln additiofl, ffiy criticismsconcerningsuch factors asthe
sult from a mismatch of lexical representations;the di- frequenciesof the homophonic words (which were not
well matched acrossconditions) would also be circumrectionality of that mismatchshould not be relevant.
Condivented,
in that the only differencebetweenExperiments
between
difference
the
An explanation for
tions I and 2 might lie with the actual items used.Con- I and 2 was whether or not the subjectssaid the word
dition 1 included a number of words whosehomophony aloud. The words used in Experiment 2 remained the
with another word dependedon a syllable containingthe sameasthosein Experimentl.
letter R being pronouncedlel. For example,PATTED
is homophonic with PATTERED in the Australian diaEXPERIMENT 2
lect becausethe ER of the latter word is reducedto lel.
Other examples are STRETCHES/STRETCHERS,
Method
COWARD/COWERED,and HUMOURED/HUMID. No
The materials and procedure were exactly the same as those
such items appearedin Condition 2. It was noticeable in Experiment 1, except that subjects were instucted to read the
words aloud and to ty to base their decisions on their selfthat theseitems in Condition 1 were especiallydifficultgenerated utterances. Ten students who had not participated in
(there
were
only
14%
of
rate
they had a mean detection
Experiment L were used as subjects.
sevensuch items). It is possiblethat it wasthe presence
of theseitems in Condition 1 that led to more errorsin
Rezults
this condition than in Condition2. In fact, a compariTable 2 provides the percentageof times that the
son of the nine remainingitems in Condition I with the
decisionwascorrectlymade.
homophone
=
items in Condition 2 revealsno difference[t(23) 1.53,
only one comparIn a seriesof plannedcomparisons,
p> . 1 1 .
namely,Condition 1
significant,
to
being
ison
close
came
Why should thesesevenitems have been particularly
v s . C o n d i t i o n4 [ m i n F ' ( 1 . 3 6 ) = 3 . 5 7 ,p > . 0 5 ] , w i t h
difficult? One possibleanswer lies in the fact that the
both the subjectanalysis[Ft (1,9) = 10.29,p ( .02] and
difference between the morphophonemic representaitem analysis[F, ( 1,30) = 5 .46, p < .05] reachingsignifitions of the two membersof thesehomophonic pairs is
cance.
more marked than that betweenthe other types. The
The false-alarmrate was again extremely low, being
of homophonic pairs
morphophonemicrepresentations
0.625%(i.e., I error, of a possible160) for the inflected
such as FINED and FIND are lessstructurallydifferent
items and0% for the uninflecteditems.
(i.e., #fin#d vs. #frnd#) than are thoselike PATTERED
Comparisonof Experiment I (silent reading)with Exand PATTED (i.e., #petar#d2 and #pnt#d). The mem- periment (overt pronunciation) revealedthat there was
2
bersof the latter pair differ in the actualnumber of mora significant improvement in both Condition 1 and Con'
phophonemes
in their representations.
dition 2 when the wordswerespokenaloud [min F'(1,30)
At this stage,however,rather than offering alterna- =
28.53,p ( .001,andmi n F' (1.26)= 9.63,p ( .01,r etive theoretical explanationsfor the findin$, orl obvious spectively]. On the otherhand.therewasno improvement
and trivial explanation must first be discounted.This is in performancein Conditions 3 and 4 (min F' < I in
the question of whether pairs like PATTERED and both cases).In other words.it appearedthat perfolrnance
PATTED (and even LAX and LACKS) are in fact genin Conditions 3 and 4 was already about as good as it
uinely homophonic. Certainly, American and British
could be in the silent task. whereasperformancein
readersmight be skepticalabout the homophonyin AusConditions 1 and 2 was deficientin the silent task relatralian dialectof suchpairsasPATTED and PATTERED.
task.
tive to that in the overt-pronunciation
glven that theseare clearlynot homophonicin their own
dialects.Experiment2 was set up with this criticism in Dbcussion
mind, although the experimenthad theoreticalsignifi'
The fact that Condition I did not differ from Condicanceaswell.
tions 2 and 3 (and posibly from Condition 4) indicates
In Experiment1, it was thought that the homophone that the words used in Condition I were consideredto
decisionmight be performedat an abstractlevel,in that
be just as homophonicas those usedin the other condisubjectswere not receivingany overt phonetic input, in
particular, overt phonetic input generatedby the subjects themselves.If, on the other hand, subjectsdid reTable2
Percentage Correct Responses for the Four Conditions
ceive self-generatedphonetic input, it is likely that the
in Experiment 2 (Overt Pronunciation)
homophone decision would then be performed at the
Correct
phonetic level, with only minimal morphophonemic
Percent
Responseto
Example
influences coming into play from the abstract level. If
Correct
Example
of
Item
Condition
their
to
make
able
this were so, then subjectsshould be
76
Find
Fined
homophone decisionsequally well acrossall four condiI
79
Lacks
Lax
2
tions when they are instructed to read the presented
81
Healed
Heeled
J
words aloud. If this were the case,then any questionsre91
Need
Knead
4
resolved.
would
be
items
gardingthe homophony of the
LEXICAL REPRESENTATIONS
267
tions. The fact that the percentageof correct responses word boundaries(symbolized by #), then there will be a
to the sevenparticularly dubiousitems whosehomophony rule that converts llnl to lnl , but no rule that converts
dependedon the reductionto lel of a syllablecontaining ledl to /d/ (as in #frn# d and *lfind#), since/ed/and
an R improved from 14% correct in Experiment I to
ldl are never pronouncedin the sameway within the
69% in Experiment 2 indicates that at least the majority sameword boundary. Similarly, there would be no rule
of the subjectsdefinitely consideredthesewords to be convertinglerl to I I as in #peter#ed and #prt#ed,
for the samereason.
homophones.
2
beThis orthogaphicallyinfluencedmorphophonemicacI
and
for
Conditions
marked
difference
The
tween the silent-readingand the overt-pronunciation count (which I will term the morphographemicaccount)
tasks is interesting.It implies that subvocalfeedbackis is not quite the sameas a purely orthographic account.
different from vocal feedback and, in particular, that A purely orthographic account is one that saysthat prosubvocalizationis performed at a more abstract level nunciation is developedby spelling-to-soundrules from
than is overt vocalization.So far, I have describedthis an orthographiclexical representationand not from any
asenvisaged direct lexical representationof the phonology.The crucial
abstractlevel in terms of morphophonemes
by N. Chomskyand Halle(1968). However,this is not difference between a morphographemicrepresentation
and an orthographic representationis that the former
the only possibility.
phonologicalrep- representsmorphemic structure, whereasthe latter does
One alternativeis a spelling-based
resentation that is an amalgamationof orthography not. If one modifies the orthographic representationto
and phonology.Ehri (1980) and Ehri and Wilce(1980) includemorphemicstructure,for example,PATTER#ED,
supported such a view. For example,the orthograph- then the representationbecomesessentiallymorphoasA, and ltlas TT.
icaily. based representationof the pronunciation of graphemic:lnl is simplyrepresented
PITCH includes a lIl, whereasthe representationof The morphogaphemicexplanationof the homophoneRICH doesnot (Ehri & Mlce, 1980).One formalization decision results entails the use of grapheme-grapheme
of what Ehri suggestsmight be somethinglike the mor- conversionrules that havebeenmodified by morphemic
phophonemic representationof N. Chomsky and Halle considerations.The purely orthogaphic account runs
(1968), but with an added orthographicinfluence. By into problems here. Why should grapheme-grapheme
this account, the abstract representationfor ISLAND rules be modified by morphemic structure if the lexwould include an lsl even thouglr S is never manifestin ical representationdoes not include morphemic strucany words morphologicallyrelatedto ISLAND. The no- ture?
Another argument that casts doubt on the purely
tion that orthography can influence the abstractunderlying phonemic representationhas been also advocated orthographic account is that it assumesthat once a perin the linguistic literature (..g., Kerek, 1976). The diffi- son leams to read, then the phonologicallyoriented
alreadyexistingfor the purposes
culty observedwith Condition 1 and2 words can be ex- lexical representations
plainedin the sameway that the pure morphophonemic of production are totally supplanted by orthographic
and production must take placevia rule
accountexplainsit. However,a problemariseswith Con- representations
for
representation,
from
the orthography.It seemspreferableto
abstract
conversion
The
dition 3 and 4 words.
example, of KNEAD would be different from that of say that, instead of replacingthe phonologicallexical
How do sub- representations,knowledge of orthography only modNEED, sincethe K would be represented.
jectsdecideso easilythat thesearehomophonic?
ifies theserepresentations(as suggested
by Ehri, 1980).
Whatever the explanation for the results of the two
One possibleanswer to this might be that subjects
have accessto information about what letters can be experiments (and there are undoubtedly explanations
pronouncedin the sameway. That is, perhapsthey use other than those given here), one thing that seemsclear
conversion is that pronunciationis not directly representedin the
something like the grapheme-to-grapheme
rules proposedby Taft (1982). Taft found that subjects lexical entries,to be "read out" when required.lnstead,
often thought that a nonword like MUSKLE was hom- it seemsthat overt pronunciations,or instructionsto the
ophonic with MUSCLE but that RUSKLE wasnot hom- articulators that lead to overt pronunciations, are dethat are morophonic with RUSTLE. This suggestedthat subjects rived from more abstractrepresentations
have accessto information which says that C and K can phemicallystructured.
The view put forward here-that there is a single abbe pronounced in the same way and, further, that this
information is employed when making a decisionabout stract lexical representationthat underliesboth spelling
homophony. Although the notion of grapheme-grapheme and pronunciation has been opposed by Allport and
subjects.
rules was originally postulated as an alternative to Funnell( I 98 I ) on evidencefrom brain-damaged
prelexical grapheme-phonemerules and not as an al- They discussedthe disabilitiesof severalpatientswho apternative to any lexical generationof phonology, it is pearedto show a dissociationbetweenorthographicand
Most of the patients
possibleto adapt it for this latter purpose.That is, there phonologicallexicalrepresentations.
conversion discussed,however, had such a dissociationin their incould be morphophoneme-morphophoneme
rules (M-M rules).If one restrictsthe rangeof M-M con- put mechanisms,implying that the visualinput deviceand
version to morphophonemesthat fall within the same the auditory input devicehave separatepathwaysto the
-
268
TAFT
cognitive or semantic center of the lexicon. More relevant here is evidencefor a dissociationin the production mechanisms,in which the spoken and written output devicesare shown to emanateindependently from
the cognitive center. Allport and Funnell did refer to
such evidence,in particular, to a patient describedby
Beauvoisand Ddrouesnd(1981) who had impairedwritten production but intact oral production(as well as the
ability to convert phonemesto graphemes,and to read
correctly). This, however,doesnot necessarilypreclude
the existenceof an abstractrepresentationfrom which
spellingand pronunciationare derived.It is possiblethat
the patient had a dysfunction of the mechanismsderiving the spelling from the abstract representation,
whereasthe mechanismderivingpronunciation from the
remainedintact.
abstractrepresentation
Of course,much of the interpretationof the experiments reported here is highly speculative,and further
empirical researchis neededto sharpenthe ideas.How'
ever. what is clearis that modelsthat are constructedto
system will need to account
describethe ledcal-access
for the difficulty that subjectsexperiencein recognizing
the homophony of pairs of words whose morphemic
structuresdiffer, and alsothey will needto explainwhy
this difficulty markedly diminisheswhen the words are
spokenaloud.
REFERENCES
of themenAr-leont, D. A., & Funxnll, E. (1981).Components
of the Royol societyof
tal lexicon.Philosophical Transactions
London, 8,295,397410.
BnAuvors. M. F., & Dfnounsxf, J. (1981).Lexical and orthographicagraphia.B rain, lO4, 2149.
Cnnnorr,,J. B., Devtns, P., & Rrcuuet, B. (1971).TheAmeri'
can Heritage word frequency book, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin'
CnonsrY, C. (tgZf). Reading,writing and phonology.In F. Smith
ond reoding.N.Y: Holt, Rhinehart&
(Ed.), Psycholinguistics
Winston.
Cnousrv, N., & Hrr,r,n, M. (1968).fhe soundpottern of English.
N.Y: Harper& Row.
Ennr, L. C. (19E0).Readingand spellingin beginners:The developmentof orthographicimagesasword symbolsin lexicalmemin spelling.London:
ory. In V. Frith (Ed.), Cognitiveprocesses
Academicpress.
Esnt, L. C., & Wtlcn, L. S. (1980).The influenceof orthography
on reader's conceptualizationof the phonemic structure of
2, 371-385.
words.Applied Psycholinguistics,
Grnsox, E: J., & Gurxnr, L. (19?l). Perccptionof inflectionsin
brief visual presentationof words. Journol of Yerbol Learning
and YerbalBehovior,10' lt2'1E9.
Hnxnnnson, L. (1982). Orthographyand word recognition in
reading, London: AcademicPress.
Jrnvnr,l,r, R. J., & MnupnE, G. (19E3).Recognizingmorphemes
in spoken words: some evidencefor a stem organizedmental
lexiion. In G. B Flores d'Arcais & R. J. Jarvella@ds')' Ifte
processof languageunderstanding.N.Y: Wiley'
Knnnr, A. (1976).The phonologicalrelevanceof spellingpronunciation. YisibleLanguage,10, 323-338.
Monrox, J. (19E0).The logogenmodel and orthographicstrucin spelling' London:
ture. In U. irrith @d,), Cognitive processes
AcademicPress.
An overview'In T' A'
RusnNsrErx, H. (1974).Psycholinguistics:
Sebeok(Ed.), Currenttrendsin lingubtics(Vol. l2). The Hague:
Mouton.
SrronNsnnc,M. S., & TexBxsnus, M. K. (1979).Orthographic
effectson rhymemonitoring.Journal of ExperimentalPsychology:Human Learningand Memory, 5, 546-554.
SrlnxERs, R. F., NrtsER, J. J., Hpnxox, W. P., & Hltl, R.
(1979). Memory representationfor morphologically related
words. Journal of Verbal Leorning ond Verbal Behavior, llt,
399412.
Trrr, M. (1979).Recognitionof affixed words and the word frequencyeffect. Memory &.Cognition, T, 263-272.
conversion
Tlrt, M. (19E2).An alternativeto grapheme-phoneme
rules?Memory & Cognition,10, 46.5474.
Tlrr, M., & Fonsrnn, K. I. (1975).Lexicalstorageand retrieval
of prefixed words. Journal of Yerbal Leorning and Verbal Behavior,14,638-U7.
NOTES
1. The symbol # is adoptedhere,followingN. Chomskyand
Halle(1968),to representa rvordboundary.
2. Even though /r/ is not pronouncedin the word PATTER
in Australian dialect, it is included in the underlyingrepresentait comesto the zurfacein PATTEzuNG.
tion because
APPENDIX
The Items Usedin ExperimentsI and 2, the WordsWith Which
of Subjects
the ltems are Homophonic,and the Percentage
Who Detectedthe Homophony of the Words
in Both Experiments
Item
Homophonic
Pair
ExPeriment L
ExPeriment 2
Condition 1
(different morphologicalstructure; inflected item)
70
20
Build
Billed
70
10
Gold
Goaled
90
50
Find
Fined
80
10
Patted
Pattered
'l0
10
Blazes
Blazers
90
50
Bruise
Brews
80
30
Cou'ard
Cowered
100
80
Freeze
Frees
40
0
Humid
Humoured
80
20
Mattered
Matted
60
20
Paste
Paced
70
50
Size
Sighs
80
0
Stretches
Stietchers
50
30
Torches
Tortures
100
20
World
Whirled
90
50
Wax
Whacks
Condition 2
(different morphologicalstructure; uninflecteditem)
50
20
Owed
Ode
90
70
Stayed
Staid
60
30
Swayed
Suede
100
90
Links
Lynx
70
60
Lacks
Lax
80
50
Guys
Guise
100
90
Missed
Mist
'l0
70
Sees
Seize
90
70
Claws
Clause
90
50
Higher
Hire
100
50
Tied
Tide
LEXICAL REPRESENTATIONS
APPENDIX(continued)
APPENDIX (continued)
Homophonic
Pair
Duct
Pact
Bard
Wade
Baste
Ducked
Packed
Barred
Weighed
Based
Experiment I
Experiment 2
40
80
20
50
20
90
90
60
80
50
Condition 3
(same morphological structure; inflected item)
Cited
Waived
Buries
Dyed
Flees
Heeled
Guerrillas
Floured
Lutes
Peddled
Reiened
Sighted
Waved
Berries
Died
Fleas
Healed
Gorillas
Flowered
Loots
Pedalled
Rained
Peaked
Whines
Yokes
Rapped
Manors
Peeked
Wines
Yolks
Wrapped
Manners
100
100
70
90
90
60
80
70
90
40
90
s0
100
60
60
100
269
80
90
90
100
90
80
70
80
60
30
100
60
100
70
90
r00
Item
Homophonic
Pair
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Condition 4
(samemorphologicalstructure; uninflecteditem)
Carat
Carrot
100
100
Feat
Feet
100
100
Meddle
Medal
20
60
Flair
Flare
60
50
Sleigh
Slay
100
100
Story
Storey
100
100
Clime
Climb
100
100
Maize
Maze
100
100
Blew
Blue
r00
100
Raze
Raise
80
100
Flaw
Floor
80
100
Gambol
Gamble
100
80
Stake
Steak
100
100
Wring
Ring
100
100
Earn
Urn
70
80
Knead
Need
100
100
(Manuscript received June 1, 1983 ;
revision accepted for publication October 28, 1983.)