Imagine I do a priming experiment with the two types of word pairs, as shown in the example below:
In which condition do you think people will respond faster to the target word KICK?
Based on what we have learned so far, you should be able to predict that people respond to KICK faster in the related condition (when the prime is KICKED) than they do in the unrelated condition (when the prime is PURPLE). That's the priming effect.
Now, in what way do you think KICKED and KICK are related?
KICK and KICKED have a special relationship. A pair of words like BUTTERFLY and BEE has related meanings, but they obviously are different words. With KICK and KICKED, however, you might have the feeling that they're the same word, just with some different grammar suffixes attached: KICKED is the past tense of KICK. Another example is KICKS (the verb); there is absolutely no difference between the meaning of KICK and the meaning of KICKS, English just has a stupid grammar role saying that we have to say "I kick" but "He kicks".
So the important point is, KICK and KICKED are related in a special way, such that they feel like they're "the same word" in some way. We need some formal concept, though, to explain what's special about this relationship.
The concept we can use is the morpheme.
A morpheme is the smallest unit in a language that has meaning on its own. This definition has two parts: a morpheme has to have meaning on its own, and it has to be the smallest possible thing.
To have "meaning on its own" (we can also call this an independent meaning), something must have some meaning that you can explain or describe. A word like cat has independent meaning: even without any context, you can explain what cat means (you can find something in the world that is a cat, and you can point it out; or, you can verbally describe what makes something a cat). Run also has independent meaning: you can explain it, you can demonstrate it, etc. 開 has independent meaning, and 車 has independent meaning. But things that are less than a word can also have independent meaning! In the word cats, the -s has independent meaning, because you can explain what it means all by itself ("-s is a suffix that makes a word plural; cat means one cat, but if you put an -s on the end then it means more than one cat"). The -er in runner also has independent meaning (can you think of how you would describe what it means?). And thinking of Chinese, there are things that aren't considered a word but do have independent meaning: for example, 們 (how would you explain what 們 means?). Some things do not have independent meaning. For example, I can't define what the t in cat means; it doesn't mean anything. Nor can I explain what the s in bus means; the word "bus" does not mean "more than one bu" (unlike "cats", which does mean "more than one cat").
The other part of the definition is that a morpheme is the smallest unit that has independent meaning. That means it can't be broken down into parts. So, for example, teacher is not a morpheme, because I could break it down into teach + er. I could define what teacher means, so it does have independent meaning, but it's not a smallest unit of independent meaning because I can break it into smaller meaningful parts. Likewise, the sentence Yesterday I went to the shopping centre is not a morpheme, because I can break it down into many parts.
Can you think of some more examples of morphemes, and examples of things that are not morphemes?
Now let's return to our example of KICKED and KICK. We now have a way we can explain their relationship: these words are related because they share the same morpheme. KICK is one morpheme (we can define what it means, and we can't break it down into smaller pieces). KICKED can be broken down into two morphemes: KICK, plus the past tense morpheme -ED. Therefore, both of these words include the morpheme kick. We say they are morphologically related—i.e., they're related because of a shared morpheme.
In this sense, these words are more closely related than BUTTERFLY and BEE are. Thinking about the word networks we discussed in activity #3, BUTTERFLY and BEE are different words that are linked (or connected) in the network. On the other hand, KICK and KICKED actually include the same word (or, technically, the same morpheme) in them.
We can imagine that the vocabulary in your mind is organized as shown in the image below. In your mind you have a storage of all the morphemes you know. So morphemes like kick, as well as suffixes like -ed, are all stored in your mind. Complex words like kicked or kicking or kicker don't need to be stored in your mind. If you hear the word kicked, you can understand it by breaking it down into its parts (kick and -ed), activating both of those morphemes in your mind, and figuring out what it means when they go together.
In a priming experiment, you first see the prime KICKED, and when you see that prime you activate the morpheme -ed and the morpheme kick. A moment later, you see the target KICK. You had already just activated the morpheme kick when you saw the prime; now that you see KICKED, it should be super easy to activate again. Therefore, morphologically related pairs of words generally cause a huge priming effect (the target with a related prime is generally processed much faster than the target with an unrelated prime).
But wait a minute: do we really need these complicated abstract concepts? Maybe "morpheme" is just some abstract thing linguists made up and talk about in linguistics classes. Normal speakers, using language in a natural way, might not have any idea of this sort of thing. Can we explain this priming effect more simply, without assuming there are abstract concepts like "morphemes"?
There is indeed another proposal to explain why morphological priming happens without assuming that "morphemes" have any special status in our minds. Maybe we don't store abstract "morphemes" in our minds; maybe we just store all the words we know. If that is the case, the storage or words in our mind might look like the image below:
Here, the person's mind includes the words kick, kicked, and kicker; there's no need to store abstract morphemes like -ed.
Then how can we explain why KICKED...KICK gets such a big priming effect (i.e., why KICKED...KICK is responded to so much faster than PURPLE...KICK)? Easy! Word pairs with related meanings (like BUTTERFLY...BEE) are only related in terms of their meaning. Word pairs like KICKED...KICK are related in two ways: they have closely related meaning, but they also have closely related spellings (or closely related pronunciations, if we're speaking/listening). You could also argue that the meanings of KICK and KICKED are more closely related than the meanings of BUTTERFLY and BEE are.
In other words, according to this view, words that appear to be "morphologically" related are not actually morphologically related; they just have a close meaning relationship plus a close spelling relationship. That combination of relationships creates what we call a "morphological relationship", but actually it's nothing special; it's just meaning plus sound. On a strong interpretation of this view, you might even argue that "morphemes" are not a real thing; the whole idea that there is some morpheme like -ed, shared by many words, is actually just an illusion caused by the fact that many words have the spelling -ed in them and also have a meaning related to past tense.
This raises the question, then: are morphemes even real? Can words really be "morphologically related"? We've seen one perspective which believes morphemes are real, and one perspective which believes they are not real. How can we decide?
Here we have a question about linguistics (a question about how our language—in this case, our words—is organized in our minds). But we can use psycholinguistic techniques, such as reaction time measurement, to try to solve it.
There have been a lot of priming experiments attempting to examine whether morphemes are a real thing. In general there are two approaches this research can take.
Which theory—the view that our mind is organized around morphemes, or the view that our mind is organized around whole words and that morphemes don't really exist—do you support? There are arguments for and against each. Before you can decide which theory you support, you need to gather some evidence!
Below I have posted links to several experiments that test this question. Some of them support the morpheme idea and some support the whole-word idea. Browse one of these papers (you can browse more if you want, but you must browse at least one) so you can understand what the researchers did to test this question, what results they found, and which theory their results support. After you havedoneso, explain which theory the results support, and why.
by Stephen Politzer-Ahles. Last modified on 2021-05-14. CC-BY-4.0.