---
title: "MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words — Sánchez-Gutiérrez 2018"
description: "The paper presents MorphoLex, a database of derivational morphology for the English Lexicon Project. 63 references, cited by 17 papers here."
authors: ["Claudia H. Sánchez-Gutiérrez", "Hugo Mailhot", "S. Hélène Deacon", "Maximiliano A. Wilson"]
year: 2018
venue: "Behavior Research Methods 50: 1568–1580 (2018)"
source: "https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8"
doi: "10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8"
licence: "All rights reserved — free to read at the source"
licence_url: "https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/gutierrez-2018-sanchezgutierrez-morpholex/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/gutierrez-2018-sanchezgutierrez-morpholex/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2018](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2018/page/3/) / MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words

# MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words

**Authors:** Claudia H. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Hugo Mailhot, S. Hélène Deacon and Maximiliano A. Wilson · **Year:** 2018 · **Venue:** Behavior Research Methods **Link:** [doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8) · **Licence:** Springer open access; the licence is not stated in the PDF — summary only

[**98** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2767253414) OpenAlex, 2026-10-14 · [**17** citations in our library](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/gutierrez-2018-sanchezgutierrez-morpholex/cited-by/) of the 140,884 papers whose bibliographies we read · [Behavior Research Methods 50: 1568–1580 (2018)](https://openalex.org/S137478622) · [licence](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8)
- [PDF](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8.pdf)
- [DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2767253414)

**Authors (4)**

1. Claudia H. Sánchez-Gutiérrez
2. [Hugo Mailhot](https://openalex.org/A5069605801) [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/2085213399) · h 3 · 121 citations · 8 works
3. [S. Hélène Deacon](https://openalex.org/A5045812174) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-5137) · [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/39095869) · h 44 · 7,578 citations · 185 works
4. [Maximiliano A. Wilson](https://openalex.org/A5039462396) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9861-442X) · [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/2460014) · h 20 · 1,358 citations · 123 works

Citations and author metrics: OpenAlex, 2026-10-14; authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The paper presents MorphoLex, a database of derivational morphology for the English Lexicon Project. It segments 68,624 of the 79,672 entries into prefixes, suffixes and bases, and gives six variables for affixes (frequency, family size, percentage of more frequent family words, two productivity values and length) and three for roots. The authors then fit regression models of lexical decision latencies on 4,724 suffixed nouns, each with one root and one suffix. Root frequency and suffix length speed decisions up, while the share of more frequent words in the suffix family slows them down. Root and suffix family size also have facilitatory effects once collinearity is controlled.

## Ideas

- I3. Test only: use the paper's latency pattern (suffix length, root frequency) as an external check on the morphology module's segmentation choices. The database is not in the build, so only the comparison runs.

## For Mova

- I1. `en/src/morph.rs` and `en/src/lexgen.rs`: add a derivational segmentation table (affix, base, affix family size) next to the lemma and form tables, and check that every suffixed form in `data/forms.tsv` gets a base. Measure the coverage of the 4,724 nouns in the paper's set.
- I2. Productivity as a rule feature: compute the paper's percentage-of-more-frequent-family value for each suffix from the `en` lexicon counts, and test whether it separates the suffix rules that `en morph-eval` gets wrong. Measure lemma accuracy on EWT with and without the feature.

The chapter is [languages/en/17-derivation-suffixes.md](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/17-derivation-suffixes/), with `16-derivation-prefixes.md` for the prefix side. The code is `en/src/morph.rs` and the `en morph-eval` command. The paper's data is a psycholinguistic set, not a treebank; use it for tests and comparisons only, never in what is built. Measure first: lemma accuracy on EWT test for suffixed forms, before and after the segmentation table.

## Institutions

[🎓**University of California, Davis** Davis · United States 10 works · 41,553 citations](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-california-davis/) · [🎓**Dalhousie University** Halifax · Canada 5 works · 356 citations](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/dalhousie-university/)

Also on the byline: [Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale](https://ror.org/00pamm417).

Topics[Morphology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/morphology/)

## Cite

Cite as Claudia H. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Hugo Mailhot, S. Hélène Deacon and Maximiliano A. Wilson. 2018. MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 50: 1568–1580 (2018).

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8)

```bibtex
@inproceedings{sanchezgutierrez2018morpholex,
  title = {{MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words}},
  author = {Claudia H. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, Hugo Mailhot, S. Hélène Deacon and Maximiliano A. Wilson},
  booktitle = {Behavior Research Methods 50: 1568–1580 (2018)},
  year = {2018},
  doi = {10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0981-8}
}
```

- [← previous Denoising Neural Machine Translation Training with Trusted Data and Online Data Selection](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/wang-2018-denoising-neural-machine-translation-training/)
- [next → TwoWingOS: A Two-Wing Optimization Strategy for Evidential Claim Verification](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/yin-2018-twowingos-two-wing-optimization-strategy/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2018](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2018/page/3/)

## References

63 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 41-61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2607 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2607)
2. 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(Article 232), 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232)
3. Andrews, S., Miller, B., & Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2), 285-311. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000123 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000123)
4. Angelelli, P., Marinelli, C. V., & Burani, C. (2014). The effect of morphology on spelling and reading accuracy: A study on Italian children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(Article 1373), 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01373 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01373)
5. Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 900-919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baayen%2C+R%2E+H%2E+%282009%29%2E+Corpus+linguistics+in+morphology%3A+Morphological+productivity%2E+In+A%2E+L%C3%BCdeling+%26+M%2E+Kyto+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Corpus+Linguistics%2E+An+international+handbook+%28pp%2E+900%2D919%29%2E+Berlin%3A+Mouton+De+Gruy)
6. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 94-117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2509 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2509)
7. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290-313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008)
8. Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: a corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801-844. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801)
9. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gullikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baayen%2C+R%2E+H%2E%2C+Piepenbrock%2C+R%2E%2C+%26+Gullikers%2C+L%2E+%281995%29%2E+The+CELEX+lexical+database+%5BCD%2DROM%5D%2E+Philadelphia%3A+Linguistic+Data+Consortium%2C+University+of+Pennsylvania%2E)
10. Baayen, R. H., & Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72, 69-96. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/416794 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/416794)
11. Baayen, R. H., Tweedie, F. J., & Schreuder, R. (2002). The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy: Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1), 55-65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2506 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2506)
12. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words. A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3), 419–463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa)
13. Balling, L., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7-8), 1159-1190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802201010 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802201010)
14. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283-316. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283)
15. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193014)
16. Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4), 253-279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/6.4.253 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/6.4.253)
17. 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(6), 801-820. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0041 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0041)
18. Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 390-405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2681 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2681)
19. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). 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(2), 489-511. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.489 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.489)
20. Boukadi, M., Zouaidi, C., & Wilson, M. A. (2016). Norms for name agreement, familiarity, subjective frequency, and imageability for 348 object names in Tunisian Arabic. Behavior Research Methods, 48(2), 585-599. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0602-3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0602-3)
21. Bradley, D. C. (1979). Lexical representation of derivational relations. In M. Aronoff & M. L. Kean (Eds.), Juncture (pp. 37-55). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bradley%2C+D%2E+C%2E+%281979%29%2E+Lexical+representation+of+derivational+relations%2E+In+M%2E+Aronoff+%26+M%2E+L%2E+Kean+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Juncture+%28pp%2E+37%2D55%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
22. Brysbaert, M., and New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.977)
23. Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Thornton, A. M., & Laudanna, A. (1997). Accessing and naming suffixed pseudo-words. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996 (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Burani%2C+C%2E%2C+Dovetto%2C+F%2E+M%2E%2C+Thornton%2C+A%2E+M%2E%2C+%26+Laudanna%2C+A%2E+%281997%29%2E+Accessing+and+naming+suffixed+pseudo%2Dwords%2E+In+G%2E+E%2E+Booij+%26+J%2E+van+Marle+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Yearbook+of+Morphology+1996+%28pp%2E+55%E2%80%9372%29%2E+Dordrecht)
24. Burani, C., & Laudanna, A. (1992). Units of representation for derived words in the lexicon. Advances in Psychology, 94, 361-376. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62803-4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62803-4)
25. 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-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Burani%2C+C%2E%2C+%26+Thornton%2C+A%2E+M%2E+%282003%29%2E+The+interplay+of+root%2C+suffix+and+whole%2Dword+frequency+in+processing+derived+words%2E+In+R%2E+H%2E+Baayen+%26+R%2E+Schreuder+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Morphological+Structure+in+Language+Pro)
26. Burgess, C., & Livesay, K. (1998). The effect of corpus size in predicting reaction time in a basic word recognition task: Moving on from Kučera and Francis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(2), 272–277. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200655 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200655)
27. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297-332. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0)
28. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cohen%2C+J%2E%2C+Cohen%2C+P%2E%2C+West%2C+S%2E+G%2E%2C+%26+Aiken%2C+L%2E+S%2E+%282003%29%2E+Applied+multiple+regression%2Fcorrelation+analysis+for+the+behavioral+sciences+%283rd+ed%2E%29%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Routledge%2E)
29. Colé, 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), 1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90025-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(89)90025-9)
30. Cortese, M. J., & Schock, J. (2012). Imageability and age of acquisition effects in disyllabic word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 946-972. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.722660 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.722660)
31. Davies, S. K., Izura, C., Socas, R., & Dominguez, A. (2016). Age of acquisition and imageability norms for base and morphologically complex words in English and in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 349-365. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0579-y [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0579-y)
32. De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4-5), 329-365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119625 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119625)
33. Durda, K., & Buchanan, L. (2006). WordMine2. Retrieved from [http://web2.uwindsor.ca/wordmine](http://web2.uwindsor.ca/wordmine) [↗](http://web2.uwindsor.ca/wordmine)
34. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fellbaum%2C+C%2E+%281998%29%2E+WordNet%3A+An+electronic+database%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
35. Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117-130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.003)
36. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gravetter%2C+F%2E+J%2E%2C+%26+Wallnau%2C+L%2E+B%2E+%282014%29%2E+Essentials+of+statistics+for+the+behavioral+sciences+%288th+ed%2E%29%2E+Belmont%2C+CA%3A+Wadsworth%2E)
37. Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6), 1041-1070. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041)
38. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, H. (2010). Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 83-97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001)
39. Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional properties of derivational affixes: Implications for processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 345-364). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Laudanna%2C+A%2E%2C+%26+Burani%2C+C%2E+%281995%29%2E+Distributional+properties+of+derivational+affixes%3A+Implications+for+processing%2E+In+L%2E+B%2E+Feldman+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Morphological+aspects+of+language+processing%3A+Cross%2Dlinguisti)
40. Lehtonen, M., Niska, H., Wande, E., Niemi, J., & Laine, M. (2006). Recognition of inflected words in a morphologically limited language: Frequency effects in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(2), 121-146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9008-1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9008-1)
41. Longtin, C. M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 26-41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.008)
42. Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. (2011). Stem and whole-word frequency effects in the processing of inflected verbs in and out of a sentence context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 1173-1192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.510359 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.510359)
43. Marcolini, S., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2011). Word frequency modulates morpheme-based reading in poor and skilled Italian readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 513-532. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000191 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716411000191)
44. McCormick, S. F., Brysbaert, M., & Rastle, K. (2009). Is morphological decomposition limited to low-frequency words? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(9), 1706-1715. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902849991 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902849991)
45. McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2009). Adore-able not adorable? Orthographic underspecification studied with masked repetition priming. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 813-836. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802366919 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802366919)
46. Meunier, F., & Segui, J. (1999). Frequency effects in auditory word recognition: The case of suffixed words. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 327-344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2642 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2642)
47. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Bertram, R., Häikiö, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30(6), 1271-1278. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1271 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1271)
48. New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 568-585. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.010 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.010)
49. 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(3), 685-702. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193588 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193588)
50. Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(4), 273-281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216508416445)
51. Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 121-128). Oxford: Elsevier. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Plag%2C+I%2E+%282006%29%2E+Productivity%2E+In+K%2E+Brown+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Encyclopedia+of+language+%26+linguistics+%282nd+ed%2E%2C+pp%2E+121%2D128%29%2E+Oxford%3A+Elsevier%2E)
52. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7-8), 942-971. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730)
53. 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(6), 1090-1098. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196742 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196742)
54. Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(1), 1-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.1.1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.1.1)
55. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How simplex complex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118-139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2510 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2510)
56. Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 425-437. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201119 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03201119)
57. Stemberger, J. P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition, 14(1), 17-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209225 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03209225)
58. Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition, 7(4), 263-272. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197599 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197599)
59. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638-647. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80051-x)
60. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(6), 607–620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90054-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90054-2)
61. 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(1), 67-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.5.1.67 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/cabn.5.1.67)
62. Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word-nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(2), 143-154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90110-X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90110-x)
63. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 502–529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.001)