英语论文网

ompatible with the grammatical context, while the derivational morphology andcompounding are mainly used to create new words.
The psycholinguistic research on the processing of CWs can be dated to the 1970s,when the affix-stripping hypothesis was proposed (Taft & Forster, 1975; Taft, 1979).Using a lexical decision task (LDT), Taft and Forster (1975) found that participants wereslower to reject the pseudo-affixed nonwords containing real morphological stems (e.g.,dejuvenate) than the pseudo-affixed nonwords without real morphological stems (e.g.,depertoire). They interpreted the findings as evidence for a processing strategy that stripsaffixes from the CWs, hence proposed the affix-stripping hypothesis. After this seminalwork, there has been a growing interest in the exploration of how MS influences theprocessing of CWs. Despite its attractiveness, the purely decompositional pattern can notaccount for the processing of all CWs. The main reason lies in the unpredictability ofCWs, both formally and semantically (e.g., Sandra, 1994). On the one hand, we can not produce new words with the existing derivational rules all the time. Such words as*respeak1seem possible derivational words, but they don’t exist at all. On the other hand,the meaning of the existing complex forms cannot always be predicted from themeanings of their constituent morphemes either (e.g., a cooker is not someone who cooks,and a corner is certainly not someone who corns). It seems as if the morphologicaldecomposition (MD) is not always a good strategy for the processing of CWs. In contrast,there exists another model with a totally different framework, the Full-listing Model(Butterworth, 1983; Lukatela et al., 1980). In this model, all words, simple or complex,are hypothesized to be explicitly listed in the ML, and their processing is accomplishedby direct look-up, that is, matching the input letter string to one from a list of letterstrings stored in the brain. In this view, the influence of the MS in LP is the mutualactivation of words from the same morphological family.

Chapter 2Morphology and Lexical Processing: Theoretical Background

This chapter is intended to provide the theoretical background for the present study.At first, morphology is introduced in Section 2.1, whereby the basic terms are elucidated.Then, in Section 2.2, the theoretical debates on the role of the MS in lexicalrepresentation and processing are reviewed. Specifically, three types of models, theDecomposition Model, the Full-listing Model and the Dual-route Models are discussed.Section 2.3 is devoted to the theoretical accounts on the nature of the morphologicalprocessing. In this section, two conflicting viewpoints, the Sublexical Model and theSupralexical Model, are introduced and compared at first. Then, a hybrid modelcombining both the sublexical and supralexical view is presented. The ConnectionistView, from a totally different frame is illustrated as well. Finally, a brief summary of thepresent chapter is provided in Section 2.4.

2.1 Morphology

2.1.1 A Brief Introduction
In linguistics, morphology is defined as the study of the “internal structure ofwords” (Matthews, 2000: 9). It is mainly concerned about how words are formed bymorphemes, the smallest units that bear some meaning or have a grammatical function.Generally, morphemes can be divided into two classes: free morphemes and boundmorpheme本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。