Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Linearity and Structural Complexity Interact and Affect the Recognition of Italian Derived Words

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The majority of words in most languages consist of derived poly-morphemic words but a cross-linguistic review of the literature (Amenta and Crepaldi in Front Psychol 3:232–243, 2012) shows a contradictory picture with respect to how such words are represented and processed. The current study examined the effects of linearity and structural complexity on the processing of Italian derived words. Participants performed a lexical decision task on three types of prefixed and suffixed words and nonwords differing in the complexity of their internal structure. The processing of these words was indeed found to vary according to the nature of the affixes, the order in which they appear, and the type of information the affix encodes. The results thus indicate that derived words are not a uniform class and the best account of these findings appears to be a constraint-based or probabilistic multi-route processing model (e.g., Kuperman et al. in Lang Cogn Process 23:1089–1132, 2008; J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:876–895, 2009; J Mem Lang 62:83–97, 2010).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An equal number of stimuli in our dataset among the category and non category changing conditions are characterized by orthographic changes, such as consonant doubling.

  2. We did not initially obtain and match the word stimuli on the frequencies of their prefixes and suffixes alone, but collected these values post hoc. They are presented in Table 2 and will be discussed in the results section.

References

  • Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 232–243. doi:10.3389/fpsy.2012.00232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Assink, E., & Vooijs, C. (2000). Prefixes as access units in visual word recognition: A comparison of Italian and Dutch data. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, H. R., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94–117.

    Article  Google 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, 23, 419–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauvillain, C. (1996). The integration of morphological and whole-word form information during eye fixations on prefixed and suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 801–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M. (1990). The visual recognition of word structure: Left-to-right processing of derivational morphology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). K.U. Njimegen [cited in Hudson and Buijs 1995].

  • Bertram, R., Hyona, J., & Laine, M. (2000a). The role of context in morphological processing: Evidence from finnish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, R., Laine, M., Baayen, H. R., Schreuder, R., & Hyona, J. (2000b). Affixal homonymy triggers full-form storage, even with inflected words, even in a morphologically rich language. Cognition, 74, B13–B25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Karvinen, K. (1999). The interplay of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (2000c). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudelaa, S., Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Shtyrov, Y., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2009). Arabic morphology in the neural language system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 998–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozic, M., Marslen-Wilson, W., Stamatakis, E. A., Davis, M. H., & Tyler, L. K. (2007). Differentiating morphology, form and meaning: Neural correlates of morphological complexity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1464–1475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bozic, M., Tyler, L. K., Su, L., Wingfield, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2013). Neurobiological systems for lexical representation and analysis in English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1678–1691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., Dovetto, F., Spuntarelli, A., & Thornton, A. M. (1999). Morpholexical access and naming: The semantic interpretability of new root-suffix combinations. Brain and Language, 68, 333–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 157–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., Thornton, A. M., Iacobini, C., & Laudanna, A. (1997). Investigating morphological nonwords. In W. U. Dressler & C. Burani (Eds.), Cross disciplinary approaches to morphology (pp. 37–53). Wien: Verlag-de Osterreichischen Akad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bylund, E. S. (2009). Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning, 59(3), 687–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., & Davis, C. J. (2010). Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position specific identification of suffixes. Memory & Cognition, 38, 312–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2013). Seeing stems everywhere: Position independent identification of stem morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 510–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G. (1985). The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics, 23, 723–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, T., Sinha, M., & Basu, A. (2015). Computational modeling of morphological effects in Bangla visual word recognition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44, 587–610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H., Meunier, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Neural responses to morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of single words: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 89, 439–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, A. M. (1997). Prefixed-verbs and adjunct identification. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Projections and interface conditions. Essays on Modularity (pp. 52–74). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Yagoubi, R., Chiarelli, V., Mondini, S., Perrone, G., Danieli, M., & Semenza, C. (2008). Neural correlates of Italian nominal compounds and potential impact of headedness effect: An ERP study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 559–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, L. B., & Larabee, J. (2001). Morphological facilitation following prefixed but not suffixed primes: Lexical architecture or modality-specific processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 680–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuro-Report, 15, 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., & Meyer, M. (2004). Brain Research. The brain knows the difference: Two types of grammatical violations, 1000, 72–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219–1248.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax semantic interface. Brain Research, 1146, 50–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fruchter, J., & Marantz, A. (2015). Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the full decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 143, 81–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, B. T., & Rastle, K. (2007). Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1983–1993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gonnerman, L., Andersen, M., & Seidenberg, E. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. J ournal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 323–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurel, A. (1999). Decomposition: To what extent? The case of Turkish. Brain and Language, 68, 218–224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., Wassenaar, M., & Brown, C. M. (2003). Syntax related ERP-effects in Dutch. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 38–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662–720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A., & Cutler, A. (1988). Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 280–317). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, P. T. W. (1990). What’s in a word? Levels of representation and word recognition. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, P., & Buijs, D. (1995). Left to right processing of derivational morphology. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of processing (pp. 383–396). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, L. M. (2008). Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics, 46, 309–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khorsi, A. (2012). On morphological relatedness. Natural Language Engineering, 18, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isel, F., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Prosody-assisted head-driven access to spoken German compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 277–288.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvikivi, J., & Niemi, P. (1999). Linearity and morphological structure on derived words: Evidence from category decision. Brain and Language, 68, 340–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. Y., Wang, M., & Taft, M. (2015). Morphological decomposition in the recognition of prefixed and suffixed words: Evidence from Korean. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraska-Szlenk, I., & Żygis, M. (2012). Phonetic and lexical gradience in Polish prefixed words. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 317–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading of polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876–895.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional property of derivational affixes: Implication for processing. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 250–272). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudanna, A., Burani, C., & Cermele, A. (1994). Prefixes as processing units. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudanna, A., Cermele, A., & Caramazza, A. (1997). Morpho-lexical representations in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leminen, A., Leminen, M., Lehtonen, M., Nevalainen, P., Ylinen, S., Kimppa, L., et al. (2011). Spatiotemporal dynamics of the processing of spoken inflected and derived words: A combined EEG and MEG study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 66. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00066.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Leminen, A., Leminen, M., Kujala, T., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Neural dynamics of inflectional and derivational morphology processing in the human brain. Cortex, 49, 2758–2771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1996). Cryptotype, overgeneralization, and competition: A connectionist model of the learning of English reversive prefixes. Connection Science, 8, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M., & Randall, B. (2008). Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 394–421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 362, 823–836.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., Zhou, X., & Ford, M. (1996). Morphology, modality and lexical architecture. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 117–134). Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, R., Allen, M., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological decomposition involving non-productive morphemes: ERP evidence. NeuroReport, 14, 883–886.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meinzer, M., Lahiri, A., Flaisch, T., Hannemann, R., & Eulitz, C. (2009). Opaque for the reader but transparent for the brain: Neural signatures of morphological complexity. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1964–1971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, F., & Longtin, C. M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, F., & Segui, J. (2002). Cross-modal priming in French. Brain and Language, 81, 89–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, G., Capasso, R., & Caramazza, A. (2004). The relationships between morphological and phonological errors in aphasic speech: Data from a word repetition task. Neuropsychologia, 42, 273–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mirković, J., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). Where does gender come from? Evidence from a complex inflectional system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 139–168.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mirković, J., Seidenberg, M. S., & Joanisse, M. F. (2011). Probabilistic nature of inflectional structure: Insights from a highly inflected language. Cognitive Science, 35, 638–681.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (1985). Repetition and the lexicon. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 147–195). London: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, J., Laine, M., & Tuominen, J. (1994). Cognitive morphology in Finnish: Foundations of a new model. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 423–446.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). The effects of root frequency, word frequency, and length on the processing of prefixed English words during reading. Memory & Cognition, 34, 685–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penke, M., & Westermann, G. (2006). Broca’s area and inflectional morphology: Evidence from Broca’s aphasia and computer modeling. Cortex, 42, 563–576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plag, I., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language, 85, 106–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plunkett, K., & Juola, P. (1999). A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science, 23, 463–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Reading morphologically-complex words: Some thoughts from masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 34–57). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raveh, M. (2002). The contribution of frequency and semantic similarity to morphological processing. Brain and Language, 81, 312–325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, D. L. T., & Plaut, D. C. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing. Cognitive Studies, 10, 10–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueckl, J., Mikolinski, M., Raveh, M., Miner, C., & Mars, F. (1997). Morphological priming, fragment completion and connectionist networks. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 382–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueckl, J. G., & Raveh, M. (1999). The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network. Brain and Language, 68, 110–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rueckl, J. (2010). Connectionism and the role of morphology in visual word recognition. In J. Gonia, G. Libben, & C. Westbury (Eds.), Methodological and analytic frontiers in lexical research (part I) special issue of the mental lexicon (pp. 371–400). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Schmid, M. S. (2013). First language attrition: State of the discipline and future directions. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(1), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, M. S., Kopke, B., & de Bot, K. (2014). Language attrition as a complex, non-linear development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(6), 675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (1994). Prefix stripping re-revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. R. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, K., & Caramazza, A. (2003). The representation of grammatical categories in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 201–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • St. Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Ramscar, M. (2009). Relationships between language structure and language learning: The suffixing preference and grammatical categorization. Cognitive Science, 33, 1317–1329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka-Ishii, K. (2012). Information bias inside English words. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 19, 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7, 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefix word. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M., Hambly, G., & Kinoshita, S. (1986). Visual and auditory recognition of prefixed words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 38, 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsapkini, K., Jarema, G., & Di Sciullo, A. M. (2004). The role of configurational asymmetry in the lexical access of prefixed verbs: Evidence from French. Brain and Language, 90, 143–150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2004). The influence of semantic and syntactic context constraints on lexical selection and integration in spoken-word comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1068–1084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vannest, J., Polk, T. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2005). Dual-route processing of complex words: New fMRI evidence from derivational suffixation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannest, J., Newport, E. L., Newman, A. J., & Bavelier, D. (2011). Interplay between morphology and frequency in lexical access: The case of the base frequency effect. Brain Research, 1373, 144–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winther Balling, L., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1159–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Speech and Theatre Arts, Queensborough Community College, CUNY, Queens, New York, NY, USA

      Franca Ferrari Bridgers

    2. Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College, CUNY, Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA

      Natalie Kacinik

    Authors
    1. Franca Ferrari Bridgers
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Natalie Kacinik
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Franca Ferrari Bridgers.

    Additional information

    This article represents equivalent contributions from both authors. Identifying information withheld for anonymous review.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Bridgers, F.F., Kacinik, N. How Linearity and Structural Complexity Interact and Affect the Recognition of Italian Derived Words. J Psycholinguist Res 46, 175–200 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9427-1

    Download citation

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9427-1

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation