Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Copyright 2000 by the American PsychologicalAssociation, Inc.

learning, Memory,and Cognition 0278-7393/00/$5.00 I)131:10.1037//0278-7393.26.2.489

2000, Vol. 26, No. 2, 489-511

The Balance of Storage and Computation in Morphological Processing:

The Role of Word Formation Type, Affixal Homonymy, and Productivity
Raymond Bertram Robert Schreuder and R. Harald Baayen
University of Turku Universityof Nijmegen

This article is concerned with the way in which the balance of storage--storing and processing
words through full-form representations--and computation~storing and processing words
through morpheme-based representations--in lexical processing in the visual modality is
affected by the following 3 factors: word formation type (roughly, inflection vs. derivation),
productivity, and affixal homonymy. Experimental results for 5 different Dutch suffixes,
combined with previous results obtained for 4 comparable Finnish suffixes (R. Bertram, M.
Lalne, & K. Karvinen, 1999) and 2 Dutch suffixes (R. H. Baayen, T. Dijkstra, & R. Schreuder,
1997), show that none of these factors in isolation is a reliable cross-linguistic predictor of the
balance of storage and computation. The authors offer a general framework that outlines how
morphological processing is influenced by the interaction of word formation type, productiv-
ity, and affixal homonymy.

Current research on morphological processing in lan-
guage comprehension reveals a growing awareness that
various linguistic properties of complex words profoundly
influence the way that these words are processed. Research-
ers have pointed out that prefixed words are processed
differently than suffixed words Co16, Beanvillain, & Segui,
1989; Cutler, Hawkins, & Gilligan, 1985; Marslen-Wilson,
Tyler, Waksler, & Older, 1994; Taft, 1994). Others have
called attention to the relevance of the distinction between
inflectional and derivational morphology in lexical process-
ing (Niemi, Laine, & Tuominen, 1994; Schriefers, Frie-
derici, & Graetz, 1992; Taft, 1994). Marslen-Wilson et al.
(1994) point to the relevance of semantic transparency. More
recently, the individual properties of the afftxes themselves
have become subject to investigation. Landanna and Burani
(1995) and Burani, DOvetto, Thornton, and Laudanna (1997)
investigated a number of distributional affix-specific proper-
Raymond Bertram, Department of Psychology, University of
Turku, Turlm, Finland; Robert Schreuder and R. Harald Baayen,
Interfaculty Research Unit for Language and Speech, University of
Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
We thank four anonymous reviewers, Matti Laine, and Jukka
Hytn~ for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this
article, and Leonore Biegstraten for her help in conducting the
experiments. This study was financially supported by the Academy
of Finland Grant 27774 to Matti Laine, by the Centre of Interna-
tional Mobility (CIMO, Grant to Raymond Bertram), by the
Finnish Graduate School of Psychology Grant of the Finnish
Ministry of Education to Raymond Bera'am, and by the Dutch
National Research Council (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Weten-
schappelijk Onderzoek, Persoonsgerichte Impuls voor Onder-
zoeksgroepen Met Nieuwe Ide~n voor Excellente Research, Grant
to R. Harald Baayen).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Raymond Bertram, Department of Psychology, University of
Turku, FIN-20520, Turku, Finland. Electronic mail may be sent to
rayber@utu.fi.
ties. Using visual lexical decision, they measured response
latencies to nonwords consisting of a nonexisting base word
and a real affLx. Reaction times to such words increased with
the increasing length of the affix. Also, affixes that occurred
in many different word types gave rise to longer response
latencies. Conversely, nonwords with affixes with a high
confusability (defined as the percentage of word tokens for
which the final orthographic string is homographic with the
affix but does not in fact denote the affix) were responded to
faster than nonwords with low-confusability affixes. These
distributional properties determine--what these authors
call the orthographic salience of the affix. The more
salient an affix is, the more wordlike the nonwords become,
leading to longer rejection latencies.
Bertram, Laine, and Karvinen (1999) show that linguistic
properties of individual alftxes, such as productivity and
homonymy, are important factors in the processing of real
words. Derived Finnish words with an unambiguous, produc-
tive suffix were responded to faster than were monomorphe-
mic control words. However, derived words with either an
unproductive or homonymic suffix (a suffix that is ambigu-
ous in that it serves more than one semantic function) were
responded to equally as fast as monomorphemic controls.
The authors explain this finding in terms of statistical
facilitation (Frauenfelder & Schreuder, 1992; Raab, 1962)
that occurs for words with productive and unambiguous
affixes but that is absent for words with unproductive or
homonymic affixes. Bertram et al. (1999) claim that derived
Finnish words with an unambiguous, productive sttfftx are
processed simultaneously on the basis of full-form represen-
tations and on the basis of their morphological constituents.
Because of overlap in the distributions of the processing
times of the two lexical routes, these complex words can be
responded to faster than can morphologically simplex words.
For simplex words, which by their nature have only
full-form representations, no statistical facilitation can take
place. The fact that derived words with either an unproduc-
tive or homonymic suffix are responded to equally as fast as

489
490 BERTRAM,SCHREUDER,AND BAAYEN
monomorphemic words indicates that both word types are
processed in the same way, through full-form representa-
tions only. The authors concluded that homonymy induces
storage, whereas productivity enhances morphological
parsing.
The Italian and the Finnish studies show that distribu-
fional and linguistic properties of individual affixes affect the
way in which words with these affixes are processed. An
additional complicating factor that may be relevant for the
balance of storage and computation concerns the role of
cross-linguistic differences between morphological systems.
Finnish, for instance, has a rich inflectional morphology,
whereas the inflectional system of Dutch is extremely
simple. In Finnish, a given word can occur in hundreds or
even thousands of different inflectional variants (Karlsson &
Koskenniemi, 1985), whereas in Dutch at most 10 inflec-
tional variants are available. With the combinatorial explo-
sion of possible forms in Finnish, the likelihood of extensive
storage of such forms in the mental lexicon diminishes
considerably. Indeed, until now hardly any empirical evi-
dence has been obtained for storage of inflected words in
Finnish (Bertram et al., 1999; Hy6n~ Laine, & Niemi, 1995;
Niemi et al., 1994). By contrast, Baayen, Dijkstra, and
Schrender (1997) reported evidence for extensive storage of
regular noun plurals in Dutch (see also Serene & Jongman,
1997, for similar findings for English). This suggests that the
balance of storage and computation is co-determined by the
lexical-stafistical properties of a given language. To explore
the possible role of cross-linguistic factors on the balance of
storage and computation, the present study addresses the
potential effects of morphological productivity, affix bom-
onymy, and word formation type (roughly, inflection vs.
derivation) for Dutch, paralleling the study of Bertram et al.
(1999) for Finnish. We have investigated the following five
Dutch suffixes: the productive inflectional suffix -re, which
marks singular past tense on verbs; the unproductive deriva-
fional suffix -te, with which abstract nouns are derived from
adjectives (e.g., warmte, warmth); the productive deriva-
tional suffix -he/d, which like derivational -re creates
abstract nouns from adjectives (e.g., leegheid, emptiness);
the productive inflectional suffix -er, which forms compara-
fives (e.g., warmer, warmer); and the productive deriva-
tional suffix -er, wl'dch forms nouns from verbs (e.g., denker,
thinker).
For each of these suffixes we have investigated the role of
storage by varying the surface frequency of the complex
words while keeping the base frequency constant; and we
have investigated the role of computation by varying the
frequency of the b a s e word while keeping the surface
frequency constant. This method was introduced by Taft
(1979) and has been used by various other researchers as
well (e.g,, Baayen, Dijkstra, & Sc.heuder, 1997; Bradley, 1979;
Burani & CaramaT~,a, 1987; Burani, Salmaso, & Carumu~u:
1984; Col~ et al., 1989; Schreuder & Baayen, 1997).
The logic underlying this kind of method is as follows.
Effects of surface frequency reveal familiarity of the process-
ing system with the complex word as a whole. A common
theoretical assumption is that the information concerning the
frequency of use of a complex word is coded into the resting
activation level of that word as a whole at some level of
representation. Effects of base frequency reveal that the
constituents of a complex word, notably its base word, play a
functional role in lexical processing. When such effects
arise, the common assumption is that the lexical representa-
tion of the base word is activated during lexical processing.
These two frequency effects are not mutually incompatible.
In parallel dual route models of morphological processing
(Baayen, Dijkstra, & Schreuder, 1997; Schreuder & Baayen,
1995), for instance, lexical access may take place both by
decomposition into the constituent morphemes (leading to a
base frequency effect) and by retrieval from memory of the
full form (leading to a surface frequency effect).
The levels of representation on which surface and base
frequency effects are located differ from model to model.
For instance, the base frequency effect is located at the
access level and the surface frequency effect at a more
central leveP in the prefix stripping framework of Taft and
Forster (1976) and Taft (1979) as well as in the model
outlined in Co16 et al. (1989). For the augmented addressed
morphology (AAM) model, Burani and Caramazza (1987)
stated the following:
Briefly, this model assumes that while lexical representations
in the orthographic(input) lexicon are morphologicallydecom-
l~sed--i.e., roots or stems are represented independently of
inflectional affixes and, possibly, derivational affixes--the
access procedure operates with both whole-word and mor-
pheme access units. Previously experienced words activate
whole-word access units while the recognition of novel words
occurs through the activation of morphemic access units.
We concluded that the AAM model locates base fre-
quency effects at a more central level and takes surface
frequency effects for known words to arise at the level of
access representations. In our own theoretical framework,
we interpret both frequency effects as arising at the level of
access representations.
The experiments reported in the present article do not
allow for a decision between these three different theoretical
accounts. They have been designed to address a different
issue, namely, to gain insight into the balance of storage and
computation for regular morphologically complex words.
Traditional approaches to this issue have ranged from no
storage under any circumstances to ubiquitous storage. For
instance, Pinker (1991) and Clahsen, Eisenheiss, and Sonnen-
smhl-Henning (1997) claimed that all regularly inflected
words are always processed on the basis of their base words
and that full-form access representations are absent for such
words. In terms of our frequency diagnostics, this view
implies the presence of an effect of base frequency and the
absence of an effect of surface frequency for regularly
t We use the terms access level and more central level to denote
the early perceptual level of processing and representation on the
one hand, and the later linguistic levels of processing and represen-
tation on the other hand. Similar distinctions are made by, for
instance, Taft (1979), who calls the first level the orthographic file
and the second level the master file, and by Burani and C..arsma~Ta
( 1987; e.g., the augmented addressed ~ o g y model), who call
the first level the access level and the second level the orthographic
input lexicon.
 STORAOE AND COMvtrrAT~ON
inflected words. Conversely, Butterworth (1983) and Seiden-
berg (1987) argued that complex words are extensively
stored and that their base words have little or no role to play.
Thus, this view predicts no effect of base frequency and
ubiquitous effects of surface frequency.
The aim of the present article is to show that both of these
views are too restricted and that the balance of storage and
computation is co-determined by factors such as word
formation type, productivity, and affixal homonymy. We
present a framework for how these factors interact in the
General Discussion section using both the present experimen-
tai results as well as data obtained for a number of
comparable affixes of Finnish reported in Bertram et ai.
(1999).
Experiments 1 and 2 address the role of storage and
computation for words with the homonymic suffix -re,
which is used as an inflectional suffix to express the simple
past tense and as an unproductive, but otherwise fully
regular, derivational suffix to express abstract nouns. Experi-
ment 3 focuses on the processing of words with the
productive derivational suffix -heid, which, like -re, forms
abstract nouns. In Experiments 4 and 5, we investigate the
way in which words with the homonymic suffix - e r are
processed. As in English, the --er suffix forms either
comparatives or agent nouns. The task used in each experi-
ment is the visual lexical-decision task.
E x p e r i m e n t s With the Suffix - t e
In Experiment la, we investigate the role of surface
frequency for the inflectional singular past tense suffix -re
using a factoriai design with base frequency kept constant in
the mean between the high and low surface frequency
conditions. We define the base frequency as the summed
frequencies of the base word itself and its inflectional
variants. In Experiment Ib, we use a similar design to
investigate the role of base frequency for inflectional -re,
this time keeping mean surface frequency constant across
conditions. In Experiment 2, we investigate the role of
surface and base frequency for derivational -re using a
correlational design because there are only 73 formations
with -re in the CELEX lexical database of 42 million word
tokens (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & Gnlikers, 1995), of which
17 are so obscure that they cannot be used for experimenta-
tion. The remaining items are too few to construct orthogo-
nal contrasts between surface and base frequency.
For the inflectional -re, we did not expect an effect of
surface frequency, but only an effect of base frequency, for
the following reasons. First, it is a fully regular and very
productive suffix. Second, it has a much higher frequency of
occurrence than its unproductive derivationai homonym.
Third, the inflectional -re specifies deictic tense and person-
number marking, adding only syntactically relevant informa-
tion without changing the meaning of the base word. We will
refer to this kind of inflection as meaning-invariant morphol-
ogy. For a similar inflectional suffix, -en, in its use as a plural
marker on past tense verbs, Baayen, Dijkstra, and Schreuder
(1997) reported the total absence of a surface frequency
effect. These considerations lead us to expect maximal
491
effects of parsing and no effects of storage for the inflec-
tional -re.
By contrast, we expected the mirror image pattern for the
derivadonal -re. This suffix, although fully regular, is not
productive, and it is much less frequent than its inflectional
homonym. Moreover, instead of adding only syntactically
relevant information without changing the meaning of the
base word, the derivational -re also involves meaning-
changing morphology. (For instance, words such as warmte
[warmth] have a base word denoting a property, but they
themselves embody the notion of measurement.) All of these
factors conspire to favor storage rather than parsing.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants. Eighteen undergraduate students from the Univer-
sity of Nijmegen were paid to participate in Experiment la.
Twenty-seven different undergraduate students from the same
university were paid to perform Experiment lb. All were native
speakers of Dutch and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
Target materials for Experiment l a. Forty inflected verb forms
with the singular past tense suffix -re were selected from the
CELEX lexical database, of which 20 had a relatively high surface
frequency average of 5.3, whereas the other 20 had a low surface
frequency average of 1.4 (all token frequency counts reported are
scaled to one million). The frequency difference between the two
conditions is significant, t(38) = 5.8, p < .00001. The two sets
were matched for base frequency 0aigh surface, 15.8; low surface,
15.4), family size of the bas¢~ (high surface, 15.8; low surface,
15.4), geometric mean bigram frequency (high surface, 13.7; low
surface, 13.9), and word length in letters (high surface, 6.5; low
surface, 6.9). Here, and in all the other experiments reported, items
were matched on an item-by-item basis. In other words, pairs of
items were selected that were comparable on all the variables
mentioned previously except for the manipulated frequency value,
in this case the surface frequency.
Target materials for Experiment lb. Forty inflected verb forms
with the singular past tense suffix -re were selected from the
CELEX database, of which 20 had a high base frequency (23.0)
and the other 20 a low base frequency (5.1). The two sets were
matched for surface frequency (high base, 2.7; low base, 2.3),
family size of the base (high base, 16.5; low base, 16.8), geometric
mean bigram frequency (high base, 13.9; low base, 13.7), and word
length in letters (high base, 6.4; low base, 6.6). The materials for
these (and all of the other experiments reported in this article) are
listed in Table A1 in the Appendix. Figures A1 and A2 in the
Appendix show by means of scatterplots how our experimental
data points in the experiments manipulating surface frequency
(Figure A1) and the experiments manipulating base frequency
(Figure A2) have been selected from the population of available
words meeting the constraint of having an unambiguous Germanic
monomorphemic base word. In both figures, the upper right panel
shows the scatterplots for the inflectional-re.
Filler materials for Experiment 1. The same filler material was
added for Experiments la and lb. The additional 100 filler words
2 The family size of the base is the number of derived and
compound words with a given base word as a constituent.
Schrender and Baayen (1997) show that this is a relevant factor in
lexical processing and that the relevance is type-based rather than
token-based.
492 BF.,RTRAM, SCHREUDER, AND BAAYEN
consisted of 10 monomorphemic nouns; 40 inflected nouns; 30
verbs, of which 10 were in the nominative case, whereas the others
were some kind of inflection (7 participles, 7 third-person singu-
lars, and 6 singular plurals); and 20 derived words, of which 10
were with the feminine suffix -in, and 10 were with the productive
de-adjectival suffix -he/d. For each of the 140 words, a nonword
was obtained by changing one to three letters so that the phonotac-
tics of Dutch were not violated. The nonwords had a similar
structure as the real words in that 40 of them were formed with the
target suffix -re, 20 were without morphological structure, and the
remaining 80 nonwords involved exactly the same suffixes that
were used for the filler words in exactly the same proportions.
Procedure. For the lexical-decision task, 2 participants were
tested at a time in noise-proof experimental booths. They were to
decide as quickly and as accurately as possible whether a letter
string appearing on the computer screen was a real Dutch word or
not. Each stimulus was preceded by a fixation mark in the middle of
the screen for 500 ms. After 50 ms, the stimulus appeared at the
same position. Stimuli were presented on NEC MultiSync ® color
monitors in white lowercase 18-point Helvetica letters on a dark
background, and they remained on the screen for 1,500 ms. The
maximum response time was 2,000 ms from stimulus onset. Fifteen
practice trials, 8 words and 7 nonwords, preceded the actual
experiment. The experiment itself was divided into two blocks of
140 items (each block contained 70 words and 70 nonwords). There
was a short pause between the two blocks. The experiment lasted
approximately 20 rain.
Results and Discussion
Experiment la. The data for all of the participants were
included in the analyses, as all performed with an overall
error rate below 15%. All items elicited error rates below
30%, which is our criterion for inclusion in the analyses. The
observations were used to calculate the mean response
latencies and error scores for the different test conditions
(see Table 1). As expected, neither a paired t test for
participants nor a standard two-sample t test for items
showed a significant difference between the response laten-
cies of two conditions, t~(17) = 1.5,p > .1 and t2(38) = 0.7,
p > .1, two-tailed tests. Also the error scores did not reveal a
significant difference, t2(38) = 1.6, p > .1. In a post hoc
analysis, we further analyzed the dependence of the re-
sponse latencies on the logarithmically transformed surface
Table 1
Mean Response Latencies With Standard Deviations and
Error Percentages for Inflected Verbs With the Singular
Past Tense Su_~x-re, With High Versus Low Surface
Frequency (Experiment l a), and With High Versus Low
Base Frequency (Experiment 1b)
Frequency Reaction Error
(per million) Manipulated time SD (%)
Experiment la
High (5.3) Surface 651 54 1.7
Low (1.4) Surface 665 64 4.2
Experiment lb
High (23.0) Base 630 45 3.9
Low (5.1) Base 685 63 14.1
and base frequencies of the individual inflected verb forms,
using linear models of the form,
Reaction Tune (RT) = a* log (base frequency + 1)
+ b* log (surface frequency + 1) + c. (1)
We use log(frequency + 1) rather than simply log(fre-
quency) because our counts include frequencies equal to
zero, for which the logarithmic transformation is undefined.
In what follows, we will refer to the effect of base frequency
and surface frequency in the linear model with the tacit
assumption that the frequency counts (per 42 million) are
logarithmically transformed as in Equation 1. A stepwise
regression analysis revealed a significant coefficient for base
frequency only (for the RTs: base frequency, a = - 4 4 . 6 7 ,
p < .01; surface frequency, b = - 1 . 5 4 , p > .8; throughout
this paper we present Bonferroni-adjusted p values), Note
that by itseK our frequency contrast (5.3 vs. 1.4) was
powerful enough to yield substantial frequency effects in
visual lexical decision; Baayen, Dijkstra, and Schreuder
(1997) reported a reliable 63-ms effect for regular plural
nouns with the suffix - e n for a similar frequency contrast of
4 vs. 1. Because our post hoc analysis also did not reveal any
dependency of the response latencies on surface frequency,
we concluded that surface frequency does not play a role for
our inflected words with the regular past tense suffix -re. The
next experiment tested whether the effect of base frequency
observed in this post hoc analysis could be replicated with a
factorial design.
Experiment lb. The data for all of the participants were
included in the analyses because they all performed with an
overall error rate below 15%. Two items elicited error rates
higher than 30% and were therefore excluded from the
analyses. Here, and in all of the other experiments in this
article, exclusion of error-prone items did not alter the
matching of the two target groups in a sitmiricant way. The
remaining observations were used to calculate the mean
response latencies and error scores for the two conditions, as
can be seen in Table 1. As expected, the verbs with a high
base frequency were recognized significantly faster than
were the verbs with a low base frequency, fi(26) = 3.8, p <
.001; t2(36) = 2.5, p < .01, one-tailed tests. In addition, the
low-frequency condition elicited significantly more errors
than did the high-frequency condition, tz(36) = 2.88, p <
.01. 3 A post hoc analysis supported the dependence of the
response latencies on only the base frequency of the
3 One might argue that no effect was found in Experiment la and
that a significant effect in Experiment lb was induced by a
difference in power for the two experiments because we used 18
participants in Experiment la and 27 participants in Experiment lb.
To exclude this possibility, we reanalyzed Experiment lb with the
first 18 participants only. The pattern of results was exactly the
same as with 27 participants. Participants responded to high base
frequency words much faster than they did to low frequency words
(634 ms vs. 678 ms), ti(17) = 3.4,p < .005; t2(36) -- 1.9,p < .05)
and elicited less errors as well (3.3% vs. 15.4%), tt(17) = 5.3,
p < .001; t2(36) = 2.9,p < .005).
 SrORAnE AND coMptrrAriON
individual inflected verb forms. Stepwise regression analy-
ses revealed a significant coefficient for base frequency and
a zero coefficient for surface frequency (for the RTs: base
frequency, a = - 2 4 . 4 5 , p < .0001; surface frequency,
b = 0). We interpret these results as indicating that for the
inflectional -re the balance of storage and computation is
strongly in favor of computation. A similar result for another
verbal inflectional suffix was obtained in Baayen, Dijkstra,
and Schreuder (1997) for Dutch. For Finnish, Bertram et al.
(1999) reported evidence for full parsing with locative
inflectional suffixes. For evidence of parsing for inflected
words in English, see Taft (1994). Contrary evidence for
storage of inflected words in English can be found in Sereno
and Jongman (1997). We return to this issue in the General
Discussion section.
In the next experiment, we shift our attention from the
domain of inflection to the domain of derivation using a
suffix with the same orthographic form as in the preceding
experiments. Because the derivational -re is unproductive
and has a very productive inflectional homonym, we ex-
pected to find exactly the opposite to what we found in
Experiment 1, (i.e., no effect of base frequency and a solid
effect of surface frequency).
Experiment 2
Method
Participants. Sixteen undergraduate students from the Univer-
sity of Nijmegen were paid to participate in the lexical-decision
experiment. All were native speakers of Dutch and had normal or
corrected-to-normal vision. None had participated in any of the
previous experiments.
Target materials. As mentioned previously, there are only 73
words with the derivational suffix -te in the CELEX lexical
database. Fifty-six of these words could be used for a correlational
experimental design. These 56 words include a few formations
with nontransparent readings (e.g., groente, green-tit i.e., veg-
etables). The materials are listed in Table A1 in the Appendix. The
upper left panel of Figures A1 and A2 in the Appendix summarize
the frequential properties of our critical words. (Both panels plot
the same data of this correlational design with the variables on the
axes interchanged.)
Filler materials. In this experiment we used 84 filler words, all
of which were also used in Experiment 1. Sixteen filler words (10
nominal inflections and 6 derived words in the suffix -/n) that were
used in Experiment 1 were not included in Experiment 2. The
nonwords in the present experiment were constructed along the
same lines as those of Experiment 1. Of these nonwords, 56 ended
in the suffix -re to match the number of real words in -re.
Procedure. The procedure was identical to that of Experiment 1.
Results a n d Discussion
The data for all of the participants were included in the
analyses, as they all performed with an overall error rate
below 15%. Eighteen items with an error rate exceeding
30% were excluded from the analyses. A stepwise regression
analysis with Equation I as the underlying linear model
revealed a significant coefficient for surface frequency only
(for the RTs: surface frequency, a = - 21.61, p < .001; base
frequency, b = 0). These results show that the balance of
493
storage and computation for words with the derivational -te
has shifted toward storage. This dependency on storage may
be induced by the presence of a very productive and frequent
homonym on the one hand, and by a lack of productivity of
the suffix itself on the other hand. Bertram et al. (1999)
showed that words with the unproductive but unambignous
and regular loeational derivational Finnish suffix -1A (el.
English --cry in bakery) are fully dependent on storage. This
cross-linguistic comparison suggests that a lack of productiv-
ity by itself is already sufficient to induce storage. The next
experiment addresses whether the balance of storage and
computation is similar for the unambiguous and productive
Dutch suffix -heid or whether storage is as ubiquitous as it is
for its near synonym, the derivational -re.
Experiments With the Suffix - h e i d
In Experiment 3a, we investigate the role of surface
frequency for the derivational suffix -heid using a factorial
design with the base frequency kept constant in the mean
between the high- and low-surface-frequency conditions. In
Experiment 3b, we use a similar design to investigate the
role of base frequency but now keeping mean surface
frequency constant across conditions.
Experiment 3
Method J
Participants. Sixteen undergraduate students from the Univer-
sity of Nijmegen were paid to participate in Experiment 3a, and 16
different undergraduate students were paid to perform in Experi-
ment 3b. All were native speakers of Dutch and had normal or
corrected-to-normal vision. None had participated in the previous
experiments.
Target materials for Experiment 3a. Forty nouns with the
de-adjectival suffix -held were selected from the CELEX database,
of which 20 had a high surface frequency (26.4), whereas the other
20 had a low surface frequency (0.9). The two sets were matched
for base frequency (high surface, 291; low surface, 289), family
size of the base (high surface, 53.0; low surface, 48.7), geometric
mean bigram frequency (high surface, 13.4; low surface, 13.5), and
word length in letters (both 8.7). The materials are listed in the
Appendix.
Target materials for Experiment 3b. Fifty nouns with the
de-adjectival suffix -heid were selected from the CELEX database,
of which 25 had a high base frequency (207.2), whereas the other
25 had a low base frequency (24.9). The two sets were matched for
surface frequency (both 1.0), family size of the base word (high
base, 14.2; low base, 14.0), geometric mean bigram frequency
(high base, 13.4; low base, 13.3), and word length in letters (high
base, 8.6; low base, 8.1). The materials are listed in Table A 1 in the
Appendix. The center panels of Figures A1 & A2 in the Appendix
show how we have sampled the words of Experiments 3a and 3b.
Filler materials for Experiment 3. The same set of 100 filler
words were selected both for Experiment 3a and Experiment 3b.
The set of filler words was different from that used for the first two
experiments, but it was similar in design in that it consisted of
words belonging to a variety of word types and word categories.
There were 25 monomorphemic nouns (10 in Experiment 1); 40
inflected nouns (40 in Experiment 1); 20 verbs (30 in Experiment
1), 5 of which were in the nominative case (10 were in the
nominative case in Experiment 1); 5 participles (7 in Experiment
494 BERTRAM, SCHREUDER,AND BAAYEN
1); 5 third person singulars (7 in Experiment 1); 5 plural inflections
(6 in Experiment 1); 5 nominative adjectives (new for this
experiment); and 10 derived words (20 in Experiment 1) with the
de-verbal suffixes --sel(5) and-ing (5). For each of the 140 words,
we constructed nonwords along the same lines as outlined in
Experiments 1 and 2.
Procedure. The procedurewas identicalto that of Experiment1.
Results and Discussion
Experiment 3a. The data for all of the participants were
included in the analyses, as they all performed with an
overall error rate below 15%. One target word elicited an
error rate higher than 30% and was excluded from the
analyses. The remaining observations were used to calculate
the mean response latencies and error scores for the different
test conditions, as can be seen in Table 2. Both a paired t test
for participants and a standard two-sample t test for items
revealed a significant difference between the two conditions;
the derived words with a high surface frequency were
recot,niTed significantly faster than were those with a low
surface frequency, tl(15) = 9.8,p < .001; t2(37) = 4.8,p <
.001. Moreover, significantly more errors were made in the
low-frequency condition than were made in the high-
frequency condition, tz(37) = 3.4, p < .005. A stepwise
regression analysis with Equation 1 as the underlying linear
model suggests that not only surface frequency but also base
frequency determines the response latencies (base fre-
quency, a = -12.38, p < .01; surface frequency,
b = -18.27, p < .001). It is clear that surface frequency is
an important determinant of the response latencies for words
in -he/d. At the same time, we also observed an effect of
base frequency in the response latencies that, given its
smaller coefficient in the linear model, appears to be
somewhat weaker than that of surface frequency. This may
be a direct consequence of our experimental design, in
which we have attempted to keep base frequency constant in
the mean across the two surface frequency conditions.
Hence, it is possible that for words in -heid, in general, base
frequency is a more important factor than surface frequency.
Alternatively, the balance of storage and computation might
in fact be in favor of lexical processing of nouns in -heid on
Table 2
Mean Response Latencies With Standard Deviations and
Error Percentages for Derived Nouns With the
De-Adjectival Sufftx-heid, With High Versus Low Surface
Frequency (Experiment 3a), and With High Versus Low
Base Frequency (Experiment 3b)
Frequency Reaction Error
(per million) Manipulated time SD (%)
Experiment 3a
High (24.4) Surface 554 40 0.6
Low (0.9) Surface 644 72 6.5
Experiment 3b
High (207.2) Base 646 76 8.3
Low (24.9) Base 664 72 4.9
the basis of full-form representations, with a subsidiary role
for parsing only. To tease apart these possibilities, we used a
factorial design in Experiment 3b in which we controlled for
surface frequency while maximizing the contrast in base
frequency.
Experiment 3b. For the lexical-decision task, the data
for all of the participants were included in the analyses, as
they all performed with an overall error rate below 15%.
Three target words elicited error rates higher than 30% and
were excluded from the analyses. The remaining observa-
tions were used to calculate the mean response latencies and
error scores for the two experimental conditions. Response
latencies and errors are listed in Table 2.
Words in -held with a high-frequency base word were
recognized faster than were words with a low-frequency
base word. This effect is significant in the by-participant
analysis but not in the by-item analysis, t~(15) = 2.2, p <
.05; t2(45) = 0.9, p > .1. Also the error analysis showed no
difference between the two conditions, t2(45) = 1.5, p > .1.
However, a stepwise regression analysis for the RT data
using Equation 1 as the basic model revealed significant
coefficients for both independent variables (base frequency,
a = - 1 3 . 1 3 , p < .05; surface frequency, b = - 1 7 . 3 3 ,
p < .001). Note that the coefficient for surface frequency is
larger than that for base frequency, as in Experiment 3a. This
may explain why the effect of base frequency did not emerge
reliably in the by-item factorial analysis; the variance
introduced by surface frequency masked the variance be-
cause of base frequency. As an effect of base frequency also
emerged in the post hoc regression analysis of Experiment
3a, we concluded that base frequency indeed plays a role in
the lexical processing of nouns in -heid, albeit to a lesser
extent than does surface frequency.
Some researchers have argued that morphological decom-
position takes place only for neologisms (Caramazza, Lan-
danna, & Romani, 1988). Because our experimental materi-
als contained 8 words that have a surface frequency of zero
in the CELEX lexical database, and which can be considered
as good approximations of neologisms for our participants, 4
we had the opportunity to investigate this possibility. If
Caramazza et al. (1988) are correct, base frequency should
have disappeared as an independent effect in our linear
model when words with a surface frequency of zero were
excluded from the analysis. Interestingly, the linear model,
Equation 1, applied to the remaining words with frequency
greater than zero, still showed a reliable effect for base
frequency (base frequency, a = -15.32, p < .05; surface
frequency, b = -30.35, p < .01). This suggests that the role
of parsing extends beyond the mere handling of neologisms.
Curiously enough, excluding neologisms from the linear
model leads to a substantial increase in the coefficient of the
surface frequency effect from -17.33 to -30.35. One
would expect that excluding the lowest frequency items,
4 A CELEX frequency of zero means that these words are
registered in comprehensive dictionaries of Dutch but do not
appear in the corpus underlying the CELEX frequency counts with
a probability greater than 1 in 42 million. Hence, these words were
prime candidates to be neologisms for our participants.
 STORAGEAND COMPUTATION
which should elicit the longest response latencies, would
lead to a smaller coefficient and not a higher one. We
therefore inspected the individual item means using a
scatterplot with log(surface frequency + 1) on the horizon-
tal axis, and with RT on the vertical axis, as shown in Figure
1. A non-parametric, robust locally weighted scatterplot
smoother (Cleveland, 1979) for the full frequency range,
plotted as a dotted line, shows an initial positive correlation
followed by a negative correlation. In fact, this initial
positive correlation is supported by a t test comparing the
item means of the neologisms with the item means of the
words with log(surface frequency + 1) in the range of 1 to 2,
t2(22) = 2.3, p < .05. Possibly, we are dealing with two
distinct subsets, as shown by the solid lines in Figure 1. This
initial positive correlation explains why the linear coefficient
of surface frequency was larger when the neologisms were
excluded.
At the same time, this finding raises the question of why it
seems to be more difficult to process words in -heid with
very low surface frequencies than to process neologisms.
Our tentative explanation is that we are observing the effects
of early lexical competition between the access representa-
tions of the higher frequency base words on the one hand
and the weak representations of the very low-frequency full
forms on the other hand. When such pairs of access
representations are in competition with each other, lexical
processing is slowed down. Conversely, when there is no
fuU-form representation at all, as is the case for our
neologisms, no such competition takes place, leading to
slightly faster response latencies. Clearly, further experimen-
tal research is required here.
Summing up, Experiment 3 shows that there is a solid
effect of surface frequency for the suflZx -heicL This strong
effect of surface frequency, observed for one of the most
productive derivationai suffixes of Dutch, is probably best
understood in terms of the word formation type involved.
Derivation involves meaning-changing morphology, which
often goes hand in hand with the accretion of idiosyncratic
aspects of meaning (Sandra, 1994). The functionality of
9O0
• QO 0
"~ 700 .......
6OO
5OO
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Method
Log(SurfaceFrequency+l)
Figure 1. Reaction time (RT) as a function of log(surface
frequency + 1) for the derivational suffix -heid. The dotted line is
a non-parametric locally weighted scatterplot smoother for the full
frequency range. The solid line represents the same smoother for
the nonzero surface frequencies. The horizontal line segment for
the words with zero frequency represents the mean RT for these
words.
495
full-form access representations for words with such idiosyn-
cratic meanings is that they provide an efficient means for
accessing these meanings. However, -he/d is a productive
and unambiguous suffix that leads one also to expect the
effects of parsing, especially for the many fully composi-
tional formations (see Baayen & Neijt, 1997, for a detailed
corpus-based study of this suffLx and its semantic properties)
for which parsing can provide all required semantics. From
this point of view, it is not surprising that base frequency
appears as a significant second factor in our experiments.
Similarly, Bertram et ai. (1999) observed effects of both
surface and base frequency for the Finnish suffix -stO,
which is--as is the Dutch suffix -he/dmalso productive and
unambiguous.
The next experiments investigated if affixal homonymy
shifts the balance of storage and computation further in the
direction of storage when two productive affixes are in-
volved, as observed by Bertram et ai. (1999) for the
homonymic Finnish suffix -jA.
Experiments With the Suffix - e r
As in English, the Dutch suffix - e r has two functions.
Attached to adjectives it denotes the comparative (e.g.,
warmer, warmer), and attached to verbs it denotes subject
nouns (as with main semantic classes or agents, e.g., meier,
rower; and instruments, e.g., opener, opener; for details see
Booij, 1986). Both homonyms are productive, but the
inflectional - e r accounts for a majority of the 64% of all
string tokens in the CELEX lexicai database with the suffix
-er. Experiment 4a investigated the role of surface fre-
quency, and Experiment 4b investigated the role of base
frequency for the derivationai -er. Experiments 5a and 5b do
the same for the inflectional -er.
There are two reasons why we expected to find more
evidence for parsing for the inflection --er than for the
derivationai -er. First, inflected words are prime candidates
for parsing, given their full compositionality and their
simple semantics, whereas subject-noun formation leads to
several related but distinguishable meanings such as agent
and instrument. Second, comparatives are encountered more
often than are derived words in --er. This may also be a
relevant factor given the results of Baayen, Dijkstra, and
Schreuder (1997) who showed for the Dutch plural suffix
-en that the numerically stronger homonym is parsed by
default, whereas its rival is extensively stored.
Experiment 4
Participants. Sixteen undergraduate students from the Univer-
sity of Nijmegen were paid to participate in Experiment 4a, and 16
different undergraduate students from the same university were
paid to perform Experiment 4b. All were native speakers of Dutch
and had normal or corrected-to-normai vision. None had partici-
pated in any of the previous experiments.
Target materialsfor Experiment4a. Forty derived nouns with
the de-verbal suffix--er were selected from the CELEX database, of
which 20 had a relatively high surface frequency (2.8), whereas the
496 BERTRAM, SCHREUDER,AND BAAYEN
other 20 had a very low surface frequency (0.1). The two sets were
matched for base frequency (high surface, 75.7; low surface, 76.9),
family size of the base word (high surface, 29.4; low surface, 27.1),
geometric mean bigram frequency (high surface, 14.1; low surface,
14.0), and word length in letters (high surface, 6.3; low surface,
6.4). The materials are listed in the Appendix.
Target materialsfor Experiment 4b. Forty derived nouns with
the de-verbal suffix -er were selected from the CELEX database, of
which 20 had a high base frequency (456.8), whereas the other 20
had a low base frequency (39.0). The two sets were matched for
surface frequency (high base, 0.7; low base, 0.9), family size of the
base (high base, 33.8; low base, 30.2), geometric mean bigram
frequency (high base, 14.2; low base, 14.0), and word length in
letters (high base, 6.4; low base, 6.6). The materials are listed in
Table A 1 in the Appendix. The bottom left panels of Figures A 1 and
A2 in the Appendix show how we have sampled our target words
for Experiments 4a and 4b.
Filler materialsfor Erperiment 4. The same 100 filler words
that were used in Experiment 3 were used for Experiments 4a and
4b. The 140 nonwords were constructed in a similar way as in the
previous experiments.
Procedure. The ~ was idcnticai to that of Experinaent 1.
Results and Discussion
Experiment 4a. The data for all of the participants were
included in the analyses, as they all performed with an
overall error rate below 15%. Four items elicited an error
rate higher than 30% and were excluded from the analyses.
The remaining observations were used to calculate the mean
response latencies and error scores for the two test condi-
tions. Response latencies and errors are listed in Table 3. As
expected for a derivational suffix with a wide range of
meanings, both a paired t test for participants and a standard
two-sample t test for items showed that words with a high
surface frequency were responded to significantly faster than
were words with a low surface frequency, tl(15) = 3.9, p <
.01; t2(34) = 2.6, p < .05.5 Post hoe linear regression models
using Equation 1 revealed an effect of surface frequency
only (RT: a = 0; b = - 14.93, p < .02). Note that this result
contrasts with that obtained for -heid in Experiment 3, in
which we observed an effect of base frequency in the
regression analysis. The error rates of both conditions did
not differ significantly, t2(34) = 0.2, p > .1. The next
Table 3
Mean Response Latencies With Standard Deviations and
Error Percentages for Derived Nouns With the De-Verbal
Sufftx-er, With High Versus Low Surface Frequency
(Experiment 4a), and With High Versus Low Base
Frequency (Experiment 4b)
Frequency Reaction Error
(per million) Manipulated time SD (%)
Experiment 4a
High (2.8) Surface 603 62 2.3
Low (0.1) Surface 659 66 2.6
Experiment 4b
High (505.5) Base 685 59 9.4
Low (48.3) Base 676 87 8.2
experiment maximizes the contrast in base frequency for the
derivational --er, with the usual factorial design.
Experiment 4b. The data for all of the participants were
included in the analyses, as they all performed with an
overall error rate below 15%. Six items elicited an error rate
higher than 30% and were excluded from the analyses. The
remaining observations were used to calculate the mean
response latencies and error scores for the two test condi-
tions. Response latencies and errors are listed in Table 3.
Both a paired t test for participants and a standard two-
sample t test for items failed to reveal any significant
difference in response latencies between words with a high
base frequency and words with a low base frequency,
h(15) = 1.2,p > .1; t2(32) = 0.3,p > .1. Post hoe stepwise
multiple regression analyses using Equation 1 as the under-
lying model revealed a n effect of surface frequency only
(RT: a = 0, b = - 15.23, p < .03). Similarly, the error rates
of the high- and low-frequency conditions did not differ,
h(32) = 0.4, p > .1. We concluded that the presence of a
numerically stronger homonymic inflectional rival in combi-
nation with the semantic diversity of the derivational - e r had
shifted the balance of storage and computation completely in
favor of storage. This result parallels the findings of Bertram
et al. (1999) who found evidence for storage for the Finnish
equivalent of the derivational --er:. the suffix -jA. Tiffs suffix
also has a productive inflectional homonym, which is the
partitive plural case marker. Our hypothesis was that the
presence of a productive inflectional rival induced storage to
avoid on-line resolution of the ambiguity of a given suffix.
The next experiment studies the role of surface and base
frequency for the comparative -er, in which we expected to
find a solid effect of base frequency and no effect of surface
frequency, just as with the inflectional -re.
Experiment 5
Method
Participants. Seventeen undergraduate students from the Uni-
versity of Nijmegen were paid to participate in Experiment 5a,
whereas 16 different undergraduate students from the same univer-
sity were paid to perform Experiment 5b. All were native speakers
of Dutch and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. None had
participated in any of the previous experiments.
Target materialsfor Experiment 5a. Forty comparatives were
selected from the CELEX database, of which 20 had a high surface
frequency (18.9), whereas the other 20 had a low surface frequency
(1.1). The two sets were matched for base freqneney (high surface,
147.6; low surface, 147.5), family size of the base (high surface,
17.8; low surface, 18.4), geometric mean bigram frequency (for
both, 14.0), and word length in letters (for both, 6.7). The materials
are listed in the Appendix.
Target materialsfor Experiment 5b. Forty comparatives were
selected from the CELEX database, of which 20 had a high base
frequency (146.0), whereas the other 20 had a low base frequency
5 Again, the significant effect was not dependent on the words
with zero-frequencies in the low-frequency condition. Excluding
these items did not change the pattern of results: response latencies,
615 ms vs. 655 ms; tl(15) = 2.7,p < .02; t2(28) = 2.2,p < .04.
 S ~ R A G B A N D COMPUTATION
(21.0). The two sets were matched for surface frequency (both 1.3),
family size of the base (high base, 14.9; low base, 15.0), geometric
mean bigram frequency (both 14.0), and word length in letters
(high base, 7.1; low base, 6.3), The materials are listed in Table A1
in the Appendix. The bottom right panels of Figures A1 and A2 in
the Appendix show how we have sampled the target words of
Experiment 5.
Filler materials for Experiment 5. The 100 filler words were
the same as the ones used in the previous two experiments, except
for the 40 inflected nouns, of which 30 were replaced with
adjectives (20 nominatives and 10 superlatives) to ensure that the
target words were not the only adjectives in the experiment. The
nonwords were constructed along the same lines as in the previous
experiments.
Procedure. The procedurewas identicalto that of Experiment1.
Results and Discussion
Experiment 5a. The data for all of the participants were
included in the analyses, as they all performed with an
overall error rate below 15%. One item elicited an error rate
higher than 30% and was excluded from the analyses. The
remaining observations were used to calculate the mean
response latencies and error scores for the different test
conditions, as can be seen in Table 4.
Surprisingly, both a paired t test for participants and a
standard two-sample t test for items showed that compara-
fives with a high surface frequency were recognized signifi-
cantly faster than were comparatives with a low surface
frequency, h(16) = 3.0, p < .01; t2(37) = 2.2, p < .05.
Moreover, the error analysis indicated that the low-
frequency condition elicited more errors than did the high-
frequency condition, t2(37) = 2.0, p = .06. In addition, post
hoc linear regression analyses on the response latencies
using Equation 1 as the model resulted in a significant effect
for surface frequency only (RT: a = 0, b = - 1 6 . 3 4 ,
p < .001). These results suggest extensive storage and no
discernable effect of parsing for comparatives, a pattern that
is completely opposite to that for the inflectional -re.
Experiment 5b. The data for all of the participants were
included in further analyses, as they all performed with an
overall error rate below 15%. Five items elicited error rates
higher than 30% and were therefore excluded from further
Table 4
Mean Response Latencies With Standard Deviations and
Error Percentages for Inflected Words With the
Comparative Sufftx -er, With High Versus Low Surface
Frequency (Experiment 5a), and With High Versus Low
Base Frequency (Experiment 5b )
Frequency Reaction Error
(per million) Manipulated time SD (%)
Experiment 5a
High (18.9) Surface 577 38 2.4
Low (1.1) Surface 612 60 6.2
Experiment 5b
High (146.1) Base 624 61 3.1
Low (21.3) Base 626 58 5.5
497
analysis. The remaining observations were used to calculate
the mean response latencies and error scores for the two
conditions, as can be seen in Table 4. Both a paired t test for
participants and a standard two-sample t test for items did
not reveal any significant difference between words with a
high base frequency and words with a low base frequency,
neither in the response latencies, tl(15) = 0.2, p > 0.1;
t2(33) = 0.1,p > 0.1, nor in the error rates, t2(33) = 1.2,p >
0.1. Post hoe linear regression analyses using Equation 1 as
the underlying model confirmed that the RTs depend on
surface frequency only (a = 0, b = -26.19, p < .001). The
presence of solid effects of storage and the absence of any
effects of parsing in the reaction time data for the inflectional
suffix - e r was probably due to affixal homonymy. Unlike in
the case of the inflectional -re, for which the derivational
rival is completely unproductive, the rival derivational suffix
of the inflectional --er is fully productive. For productive
rival suffixes, Baayen, Dijkstra, and Schreuder (1997)
argued that a mere subcategorization conflict can already
induce storage. Within the framework of parallel dual-route
modelling, our hypothesis was that the resolution of affixal
homonymy between two productive affixes is so time costly
that the direct route is almost always first to complete, not
only for the derivational --er, but also for the comparative
-er. With response latencies depending on the processing
times of the first route to win the race---for -er, always the
direct route---no effect of parsing was visible. Our general
conclusion with respect to the results for the comparative
- e r is that the disambiguation problem caused by affixal
homonymy was so severe that massive storage was induced
even for this completely regular and compositional suffix.
What we do not yet know is if affixal homonymy might
likewise induce storage for the Finnish inflectional suffix
-jA, the partitive plural, and the homonymic with the
derivational subject noun marker -jA. We are currently
investigating whether there is no storage for this inflectional
suffi× just as we observed no storage for the past tense suffix
-re, or whether homonymy induces massive storage just as
for the comparative suffi× -er. Our hypothesis was that the
lexical statistics of Finnish would not allow such massive
storage.
Methodological Issues
Before proceeding to the General Discussion section,
three methodological issues require discussion. First, the
absence of a surface frequency effect for inflected words in
-re (Experiment 1) does not allow us to conclude that
storage does not occur at all for such words. Although our
experimental words cover a substantial range of surface
frequencies, as shown in the upper right panel of Figure A1,
a small number of very high-frequency-inflected words were
not included in the experiment. Although the conclusion that
storage does not seem to play a role for inflected words in-re
holds for the bulk of such words, the high-frequency outliers
might still be stored with their own access representations,
which would then be an exceptional property given the
morphological category of all inflected words in -re as a
whole.
498 BV_J~'~, scI-meuD~P., AND BAAY~

Table 5 target words without any fillers or nonwords. The results of

Mean Log Frequencies (With Standard Deviation and this separate series of factorial subjective frequency experi-
Range) and Pearson Correlation Coe~icients of Base ments, summarized in Table 6, exactly mirrors the pattern of
F~:equencyand Reaction Tone (rBase) and of Surface the ~factorial RT data. The congruence between this off-line
Frequency and Reaction ~ne (rSurface) for All of the task and the lexical-decision task shows that list composition
Suffzxes Used Within the Surface Frequency Range [2:6] in is an unlikely source of our pattern of results. Furthermore,
the Surface Frequency F_~eriments and Within the Base the congruence of the two tasks shows that this pattern is
Frequency Range [4:8] in Base Frequency Experiments quite robust.
Mean A final objection against our methodology raised by one
Suffix frequency SD Range rBase rSurface of the reviewers is that two samples of words that differ
markedly in surface frequency might in fact differ in base
surm. r u ~ m ~ ma~ [2:6] ~at ~ ~ rm~mey eximinmus
frequency when remeasured and vice versa. In other words,
Vte (V) 4.46 0.98 2.48-5.96 -0.51 [-0.29] the phenomenon of regression toward the mean might affect
Ate (N) 4.01 1.31 2.20--5.97 [-0.11] -0.67 the matching for base frequency of sets of words with
A-he/d(N) 4.51 10.3 2.48--5.94 [-0.18] -0.51
V--er(N) 3.98 1.23 2.08--5.91 [-0.01] -0.47 different surface frequencies and vice versa. In response to
A--er(A) 4.16 1.29 2.08-5.97 [-0.16] -0.42 this potential problem, we have to distinguish between
measurement error on the one hand and the phenomenon of
B~ ~ n u ~ [4:8]in me t~sc fiequcncyc,~oaim~ts
regression toward the mean on the other hand.
V--ce(V) 6.06 1.06 4.25-7.83 -0.38 [-0.22] First consider measurement error. The question that we
Ate (N) 7.05 0.83 5.08-8.00 [-0.48] -052 should ask ourselves here is how our surface frequencies and
A-heM(N) 6.69 0.79 5.20-7.98 [-0.34] -0.51
V--er(N) 6.62 1.09 4.03-7.89 [-0.54] -0.61' our base frequencies might change ff we counted these
A--er(A) 6.31 1.11 4.51-7.90 -0.52 -0.60 frequencies for exactly the same experimental words in
Note. V -- verb; N ffi noun; A = adjective. another corpus of 42 million words. Fortunately, lexical
'One outlier was t~-movedfrom the analysis. statistics estimates for the expected frequency of a word in a
new corpus with the same size are available (Baayen, 1996;
Church & Gale, 1991; Good, 1953). For a word that occurs
Second, we have studied 5 affixes with different frequen- m times in a corpus of N tokens, the expected frequency in
tial properties. Our experimental materials reflect these another corpus of N tokens, m*, is estimated by
differences, leading to differences in the range of surface and
base frequencies used in the individual experiments. This m* = (m + 1)*E[V(m + 1, N)]/E[V(m, N)],
raises the question of to what extent it remains possible to
compare results across experiments. To make sure that our in which E[.] is the expectation operator and V(tm N)
results are not a consequence of these differences in denotes the number of types in a corpus of N tokens that
frequency ranges, we re-analyzed all of the experiments occur with frequency n~ Various techniques are ava)iAhle for
using multiple regression for fixed frequency ranges, chosen estimating the expectations E[V(m + 1, N)] and E[V(m, N)]
such that a maximum number of words from all experiments (see Chitashvili & Baayen, 1993; Church & Gale, 1991;
could be included. For the experiments manipulating surface Gale & Sampson, 1995). For word frequency data, m* is
frequency, we selected the log frequency range 2:6 (see smaller than m. This is because corpora are samples that do
Figure AI); for the experiments manipulating base fre- not exhaustively sample all possible word types. These
quency, we selected the log frequency range 4:8 (see Figure unseen word types have a joint probability P of being
A2). Table 5 summarizes mean, standard deviation, and sampled equal to P -- E[V( 1,N)]/N, the total number of types
range for each suffix in both kinds of experiments together occurring once only divided by the size in tokens of the
with the Pearson correlation coefficients of base frequency
and RT (rBase) and of surface frequency and RT (rSurface).
6 In the past, subjective frequency (or familiarity) ratings have
Correlations listed between square brackets were removed in been used to check whether corpus-based frequency counts were
a stepwise analysis. The basic pattern of results that emerged reliable. However, recent experiments have revealed that subjec-
from this limited data set is identical to that observed on the tiv~efrequency ratings are not only sensitive to surface frequency,
basis of the factorial studies. The inflectional -re revealed an but also to the morphological family size (see Footnote 1) both in
effect of base frequency and no effect of surface frequency. Dutch (Schreuder & Baayen, 1997) and in English(Baayan, Lieher,
Nominal --re and the - e r suffixes revealed only surface & Schreuder, 1997). Although it is an off-line task, the subjective
frequency effects, and --he/d revealed the effects of both. We frequency rating task apparently taps into various aspects of lexical
concluded that the differences in the frequency ranges representation and processing. The experiments summarized in
between our experiments were unlikely to have caused the Table 6 show that, just as lexical decisions, subjective frequency
ratings are also occasionally sensitive to differences in base
specific pattern of results that we have observed. frequency when surface frequency and morphological family size
Third, differences in list composition (selection of filler are controlled for. We assume that if access happens through the
materials and nonwords) might in some way have influenced base, the frequency of the base is felt in the rating. If access takes
our results. However, each factorial RT experiment was place through the whole-word form, the frequency of the base does
paralleled by a subjective frequency ratine (on a 7-point not matter, and the rating should be a function of the surface
scale) with other participants using only the experimental frequency only.
 STORAOEAND coMvtrrAr~oN 499

Table 6
Mean Frequency Ratings (With Standard Deviation and Range) for All of the Sufftxes
Used in the Surface Frequency and Base Frequency Experiments
Mean rating for Mean rating for
high-frequency low-frequency
Suffix condition SD condition SD Test statistic
Surface frequency experiments
V-re (V) 4.8 1.2 4.2 1.1 t2(38)= 1.6,p > .1
A t e (N) stepwise: a = .60, p < .001
A-he/d (N) 5.9 0.9 3.1 1.0 t2(37)*= 8.9, p < .001
V--er(N) 5.1 1.3 3.5 0.8 t2(37)*= 4.7, p < .001
A-er (A) 5.4 0.9 3.7 1.2 t2(38)= 5.3, p < .001
Base frequency experiments
V-re (V) 4.2 1.0 3.1 1.4 t2(38)= 2.9, p < .005
A t e (N) stepwise: b = 0.00,p > .1
A-heM(N) 3.3 1.3 3.2 1.2 t2(47)*= 0.3,p > .1
V-er (N) 3.6 1.4 3.8 1.4 t2(37)*= 0.4, p > . 1
A--er (A) 4.7 1.0 4.0 1.7 t2(38)= 1.6, p > .05
Note. *Because of a programming error, one item that was used in the corresponding reaction time
(RT) experiment was dropped in the subjective frequency rating experiment. V = verb; N = noun;
A = adjective.

corpus (Good, 1953). When we estimate word probabilities
on the basis of their sample relative frequencies, we leave no
probability space for these unseen types. Therefore, all
relative sample frequencies slightly overestimate the popula-
tion probabilities. Given that the probability of a word W
with frequency m is less than m/N, its frequency in another
corpus of size N will be less than m as well. For instance, for
our corpus of 42 million tokens, a word appearing with a
frequency of 4 is estimated to have an expected frequency of
3.851 in other corpora of 42 million words. For a higher
frequency such as 600, the Good-Turing estimate equals
598.978. For the large corpus that underlies our counts, the
measurement error is very small indeed; it minimally affects
our frequency counts, and it does not at all affect between-
set contrasts under pairwise matching. It will be clear that
measurement error does not invalidate our methodology.
Next consider the potential problem of regression toward
the mean. Imagine two words, A and B, with the same base
frequency, but with A having a higher surface frequency than
B. Might it not be the case that the probability that the base
frequency of A has been underestimated will be higher than
the probability that it has been overestimated? If we look at
the very same words A and B and their expected frequencies
of occurrence in other corpora, the answer to this question is
clearly no. As we have seen previously, the base frequencies
of A and B (which are matched in this example) are both
slightly overestimated, as are, in fact, their surface frequen-
cies. It is only when we randomly select other words, say C
and D, with the same surface frequency contrasts as A and B,
that it is likely that one will find a higher base frequency for
Word C compared with Word D. But this is a completely
different question that concerns the ecological validity of our
data sets and not the reliability of our methodology and the
way it uses contrasts in one frequency measure and match-
ing for another frequency count to gain insight in the role of
storage and computation in lexical processing. (With respect
to the question of ecological validity, significant by-item
analyses allowed us to assume that similar results would be
observed for words with similar frequential properties. We
make no claims with respect to the lexicon as a whole, as our
aim was to examine very specific parts of the lexicon,
exactly those parts that allowed us to test our hypotheses
concerning lexical processing.)
General Discussion
The question that we have addressed in this paper is how
the three factors, affixal homonymy, productivity, and word
formation type, affect the balance of storage and computa-
tion in visual lexical processing. Experiments 1 and 2
showed that the productive inflectional past tense suffax -re
is processed exclusively by means of the parsing mute,
whereas its unproductive derivational homonym is pro-
cessed exclusively by the direct mute. Experiment 3 showed
that for the productive derivational suffix -he/d, both routes
operated in parallel. Experiments 4 and 5 revealed extensive
storage and no effect of parsing for the productive deriva-
tional suffix - e r and its productive inflectional homonym,
the comparative - e r
Table 7 summarizes the present results that we obtained
for Dutch, as well as the results of Baayen, Dijkstr~ and
Schreuder (1997) for the Dutch plural suffax-en and those of
Bertram et al. (1999) for Finnish. Our present results are
remarkably similar to those for Finnish, and as of yet do not
support the hypothesis that the balance of storage and
computation is a priori biased toward computation for
Finnish, the language with the more complex morphological
system. Table 5 tabulates word formation type, productivity,
and affixal homonymy, and whether the experiments show
evidence for storage, parsing, or both. In what follows we
will trace the effect of each of these factors on the balance of
storage and computation.
500 BERTRAM, $CHREUDER, AND BAAYEN

Table 7
Summary of Affixal Properties and the Role of Storage and Computation for the Dutch
and Finnish Languages
Word formation
Suffix type Productive Homonymic Storage Computation
Dutch
V-re Invariant yes yes no yes
A-re Changing no yes yes no
A--~/d Changing yes no yes yes
V-er Changing yes yes yes no
A-er Adding yes yes yes no
N-en Adding yes yes yes yes
V-en Invariant yes yes no yes
Finnish
N-ssA Invariant yes no no yes
V-jA Changing yes yes yes no
N-stO Changing yes no yes yes
N-/A Changing no no yes no
Note. This table summarizes data from the present article and from Baayen, Dijkstra, and
Schreuder (1997), which both focus on Dutch, and it summarizes data from Bertram et al. (1999),
which focuses on Finnish. V = verb; N = noun; A = adjective.

Word Formation Type AffixalHomonymy

It has been argued that inflected words are always parsed
and that derived words are always stored (Niemi et al., 1994;
Taft, 1994). Our data show that inflection is not a necessary
nor a sufficient condition for parsing. As can be seen in Table
5, parsing can take place for derivational suffixes (-he/d,
-stO), whereas at the same time massive storage can be
present for inflectional suffixes (inflectional -er). Instead of
strictly distinguishing between inflection and derivation, it
seems more useful to consider word formation type as a
scalar dimension with meaning-invariant morphology at the
oneextreme (e.g,, person and number marking on verbs) and
meaning-changing morphology (e.g., subject-noun forma-
tion) at the other extreme, with meaning-adding morphology
(e.g., diminutive and comparative formation, noun pluraliza-
tion) at an intermediate position (see Baayen, Lieber, &
Schreuder, 1997, for extensive discussion of noun pluraliza-
tion as meaning-adding morphology). With this more fine-
grained analysis of the dimension, wordformation type, we
can formulate the hypothesis that parsing is more likely to
take place for words with productive meaning-invariant
affixes without productive semantic homonyms.
Productivity
It has similarly been argued that words with productive
affixes are always parsed and never stored, whereas words
with unproductive suffixes are always stored and never
parsed (Anshen & Aronoff, 1988, 1997). Table 7 indeed
shows no evidence for parsing for unproductive suffixes (the
derivafional -te, the derivationa1-1A), but storage can take
place for productive suffixes. It is rampant for the hom-
onymic suffixes --er and -jA, and it also plays an extensive
role alongside parsing for the suffixes --hem and -stO.
Bertram et al. (1999) claimed that affixal h o m o n y m y
triggers storage. Table 7 shows that this statement is
somewhat too strong in the sense that an unproductive
homonymic rival suffix (the derivational -te) does not
induce storage for words with its productive homonymic
counterpart (the inflectional-te).
It is clear that the balance of storage and computation
cannot be captured in terms of broad single-factor generaliza-
tions. From this perspective, full-parsing models (e.g., Taft
and Forster, 1975) and full-storage models (Butterworth,
1983, Caramazza et al., 1988) describe logical possibilities
that are indeed realized in Dutch and Finnish, but in certain
circumstances only. As theories of morphological processing
in general, they are too restrictive.
Figure 2 presents the decision tree that depicts how the
three factors interact to determine the balance between
storage and computation. First, note that productivity is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for parsing. Second,
the existence of a productive rival homonym induces storage
irrespective of word formation type. Only for productive
affixes without a productive rival homonym does the distinc-
tion between meaning-invariant morphology on the one
hand and meaning-adding or meaning-changing morphol-
ogy on the other hand seem to become relevant. Under these
circumstances, complex words with meaning-invariant mor-
phology revealed effects of parsing only, whereas complex
words with meaning-adding or meaning-changing morphol-
ogy showed effects of both storage and parsing.
We have been able to come to these conclusions by
combining the data from research involving Dutch and
Finnish, which typologically are very different and unrelated
languages, and it is encouraging to find that these cross-
linguistic data converge in a consistent manner. It is clear,
 STORAGEAND COMPUTATION
productive~?
[storage I (homonym?~
storage I
V-er, A-er
I parsing V-jA
-heid, -stO V-re, -ssA
N-en V-en
Figure 2. Decision tree for parsing and storage. Productive: Is the
affix productive (+) or unproductive (-); Homonym: Does the
have a productive rival affix with a different semantic function
(+) or not (-); Invariant: Is the Word Formation Type meaning-
invariant (+) or not (-).
however, that our conclusions are only based on 11 suffixes,
and that the theory embedded in the decision tree of Figure 2
requires further empirical justification. More affixes from a
wider range of languages need to be investigated experimen-
tally. Moreover, there are other factors that need to be taken
into account, such as the prefix-suffix distinction, the
specific semantic properties of individual affixes, the distri-
butional properties of affixes, and the computational complex-
ity of different morphological systems. For instance, Figure
2 predicts extensive storage for the Finnish inflectional
suffix -jA, which realizes the partitive plural, whereas the
extreme productivity of the Finnish morphological system
suggests that massive storage of so many different inflected
words would be highly surprising. We are currently investi-
gating if storage is indeed absent for Finnish partitive
plurals, which would falsify our theory. The theory that we
have offered here is only a first approximation that, in its
simplicity, is probably wrong. Subsequent research will
undoubtedly reveal other factors that co-determine the
balance of storage and computation as well. At the same
time, the present results suggest that in spite of the complex-
ity of the various factors and their interrelations, the
beginnings of a coherent cross-linguistictheory
logical processing are emerging.
of morpho-
References
Anshen, E, & Aronoff, M. (1988). Producing morphologically
complex words. Linguistics, 26, 641-655.
Anshen, E, & Aronoff, M. (1997). Morphology in real time. In
G.E. Booij & J. van Marie (Eds.), Yearbookof Morphology 1996
(pp. 9-13). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Baayen, R. H. (1996). The effect of lexical specialization on the
501
growth curve of the vocabulary. Computational Linguistics, 22,
455-480.
Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and
plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual mute model.
Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 94-117.
Baayen, R. H., Lieber, R., & Schreuder, R. (1997). The morphologi-
cal complexity of simplex nouns, Linguistics, 35, 861--877.
Baayen, R. H., & Neijt, A. (1997). lh'oductivity in context: A case
study of a Dutch suffix. Linguistics, 35, 565-587.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The
CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. University of Pennsylva-
nia, Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
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 lan-
guage. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 213-226.
Booij, G. E. (1986). Form and meaning in morphology: The case of
Dutch 'agent nouns.' Linguistics, 24, 503-517.
Bradley, D. C. (1979). Lexical representation of derivational
relations. In M. Aronoff & M. L. Kean (Eds.), Jlmcture (pp.
37-55). Cambridge, MA: Mrr Press.
Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and process-
ing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2,
217-227.
Burani, C., Dovetto, M., Thornton, A. M., & Laudanna, A. (1997).
Accessing and naming suffixed pseudo-words. In G. E. Booij &
J. van Made (Eds.), Yearbook of Morpholosy 1996 (pp. 55-73).
Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Burani, C., Salmaso, D., & Caramazza, A. (1984). Morphological
structure and lexical access. ~sible Language XVIII, 4, 342-
352.
Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth
(Ed.), Language production: Vol. II. Development, writing and
other language processes (pp. 257-294). London: Academic
Press.
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access
and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297-332.
Chitashvili, R. J., & Baayen, R. H. (1993). Word frequency
distributions. In G. Altmann & L. Hl'ebf~ek(Eds.), Quantitative
text analysis (pp. 54-135). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag Trier.
Church, K., & Gale, W. (1991). A comparison of the enhanced
Good-Turing and deleted estimation methods for estimating
probabilities of English bigrams. Computer Speech and Lan-
guage, 5, 19-54.
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Sounenstuhl-Henning, L (1997).
Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words.
Theoretical Linguistics, 23, 201-249.
Cleveland, W. S. (1979). Robust locally weighted regression and
smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 74, 829--836.
Colt, 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.
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G. (1985). The suffixing
preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics, 23, 723-758.
Frauenfelder, U. H., & Schreoder, R. (1992). Constraining psycho-
linguistic models of morphological processing and representa-
tion: The role of productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Made
(Eds.), Yearbookof Morphology 1991 (pp. 165-183). Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Gale, W. A., & Sampson, G. (1995). Good-Taring frequency
estimation without tears. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2,
217-237.
502 BERTRAM,SCHREUDmt,AND BAAYEN
Good, L J. (1953). The population frequencies of species and the
estimation of population parameters. Biometrika, 40, 237-264.
Hy6nli, J., I.afine, M., & Niemi, J. (1995). Effects of a word's
morphological complexity on readers' eye fixation pattern. In J.
Findlay, R. Kentridge, & R. Walker (Eds.), Eye movement
research: Mechanisms, processes and applications (pp. 445-
452)./umterdam: Elsevier.
Kerlsson, E, & Koskeuniemi, K. (1985). A process model of
morphology and lexicon. Folia Linguistica, 29, 207-231.
Landanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). DisUibutional properties of
derivational affixes: Implications for processing. In L. B. Feld-
man (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.
345--364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marslen,grtlson, W., Tyler, L. IC, Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994).
M ~ l o g y and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psycho-
logical Review, 101, 3-33.
Niemi, J., Laine, M.,& Tuominen, J. (1994). Cognitive morphol-
" ogy in Finnish: Foundations of a new model. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 9, 423--446.
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of languase. Science, 253, 530--535.
R a ~ ~ H. (1962). Statistical facilitation of simple reaction time.
~tions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 24, 574-
590.
Sandra, D, (1994). The morphology of the mental lexicon: Internal
word ~ viewed from a psycholinsuistic perspective.
Language and Cognith,e Processes, 9, 227-269.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modelling morphological
processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of
language processing (pp. 131-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simple
words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 118--139.
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Graetz, R (1992). Inflectional and
derivational morphology in the mental lexicon: Symmetries and
asymmetries in repetition priming. QuarterlyJournal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 44A,
373-390.
Seidenberg, M. S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word
recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? In M.
Coltbeart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: Reading (pp.
245-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English
inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition, 25, 425-437.
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word
frequency effect. Memory and Cogni'tion, 7, 263-272.
Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for under-
standing morphological processing. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 9, 271-294.
Taft, M., & Forster, ILI. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of
prefixed words. Journal of VerbalLearning and VerbalBehavior,
14, 638--647.
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of
polymorpbemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal
Learning and VerbalBehavior, 15, 607-620.
 STORAGE AND COMPUTATION 503

Appendix
-re (derivation) -re (inflection)
12

j :
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 I 8 10
Surface Frequency SuN~ Frequency

-held
14

,ot- .,~** . * * . . - ~ * . . - ~

0 2 4 6 IB
Surface Fr~luency

-er (derivation) -er (inflection)

!il, .....,.. == ,o" •

== . ..,,- .... ..

~ r! .i - -

I11 "
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 (I 8 10
Surface Frequency Surface Frequency

Figure A1. Scatterplots of log(surface fiequency + 1) by log(base frequency + 1) for the

derivafional -re (upper left), the inflectional -re (upper fight), the derivational suffix -he/d (center),
and the derivational --er (bottom left) and the inflectional --er (bottom right). The small dots represent
all of the available bi-morphemic words in the CELEX lexical dAtAbase.The superimposed large dots
represent the words selected for the experiments manipulating surface frequency. The solid lines are
non-paramelric robust locally weighted scatterplot smoothers (Cleveland, 1979) highlighting the
dependencies between the two frequency counts.
504 BERTRAM, SCHREUDER, AND BAAYEN

-te (derivation) -te (inflection)

14. • t V~l . / ~ e
| • 4

== -'IP .am- • ~ 0
m o 2 i 6 8 10 12 14 ff~ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
~, Base Frequency Base Frequency

-held
c•"10
|. 6

..:. .-"
I=: 2
~o
o = 4 e e lo n 1:~
Base Frequency

-er (derivation) -er (inflection)

8 .." ~ 8
e .o e
U.

o
'
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Base Frequency Base Frequency

Figure A2. Scatterplots of log(surface frequency + 1) by log(base frequency + 1) for the

derivational --re (upper left), the inflectional -te (upper fight), the derivational suff~ -he/=/(center),
and the derivational - e r (bottom left) and the inflectional - e r (bottom right). The small dots represent
all of the available hi-morphemic words in the CELEX lexical database. The superimposed large dots
represent the words selected for the experiments manipulating base fiequency. The solid lines are
non-parametric robust locally weighted scatterplot smoothers (Cleveland, 1979) highlighting the
dependencies between the two frequency counts.
 SrORAO~ Am) COMPtrrA_~OS 505

Table A 1

Materials Used in the Experiments

Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Verbs with a high surface frequency
la blafte (barked) 622 0 696 218
glipte (slipped) 567 0 415 184
groette (greeted) 602 5.6 1128 386
hakte (chopped) 654 0 875 119
klikte (told tales) 635 5.6 279 114
knoopte (knotted) 674 0 916 307
kuchte (coughed) 612 0 306 192
plofte (plopped) 674 0 252 97
propte (crammed) 716 0 230 85
raapte (picked) 636 0 594 272
rookte (smoked) 556 0 2198 456
schopte (kicked) 662 0 983 332
schraapte (scraped) 671 0 556 305
smakte (smacked) 738 5.6 296 120
spitste (pricked up) 685 5.6 318 119
stampte (stamped) 626 5.6 572 154
startte (started) 603 0 888 302
stokte (broke down) 773 0 332 219
stroopte (poached) 691 0 219 72
tastte (touched) 631 5.6 1187 413
Verbs with a low surface frequency
la dampte (steamed) 609 16.7 407 36
dempte (dimmed) 690 16.7 477 49
kweekte (cultivated) 573 0 1016 47
kwetste (wounded) 586 0 606 33
lustte (liked) 724 0 287 55
poetste (polished) 630 0 677 92
prikte (stung) 576 0 683 201
raspte (grated) 770 0 203 13
schetste (sketched) 712 5.6 1066 81
schikte (arranged) 615 5.6 2024 180
schorste (suspended) 663 5.6 182 11
sloopte (demolished) 706 0 329 17
splitste (spli0 694 5.6 427 37
spotte (mocked) 648 0 1249 122
staakte (went on strike) 640 0 958 58
strookte (was in accordance) 751 0 267 38
testte (tested) 747 0 544 22
toetste (tried out) 580 0 982 13
twistte (quarreled) 644 5.6 148 3
wreekte (avenged) 739 22.2 431 30
Verbs with a high base frequency
lb blufte (boasted) 625 3.7 100 17
dankte (thanked) 620 0 2222 154
jatte (nabbed) 602 0 121 14
knarste (crunched) 715 3.7 335 66
kookte (cooked) 589 0 2436 177
kraakte (cracked) 606 3.7 1296 262
kweekte (cultivated) 598 0 1016 47
kwetste (hutted) 622 0 606 33
lapte (shimmied) 609 0 183 16
lootte (drew lots for) 731 18.5 47 2
mikte (aimed) 608 0 323 104
piepte (peeped) 576 0 635 125
rustte (rested) 607 0 2518 372
schetste (sketched) 693 11.1 1066 81
schikte (arranged) 611 3.7 2024 180
sloopte (demolished) 611 3.7 329 17
stookte (burned) 613 7.4 302 23
twistte (quarreled) 622 3.7 148 3

(table continues)
 BF.RTRAM, SCHREUDER,AND BAAYEN

Table A 1(confinue~
Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Verbs with a high base frequency (continued)
wekte (woke up) 633 3.7 3171 538
wreekte (avenged) 713 14.8 431 30
Verbs with a low base frequency
Ib pookte (poked)* 811 40.7 38 26
ventte (hawked)* 754 33.3 29 7
balkte (brayed) 718 14.8 38 7
blikte (glanced) 639 18.5 279 119
dweepte (idolized) 704 25.9 93 32
flapte (flapped) 619 0 149 86
floepte (Impped) 716 29.6 51 22
ka~e (teased) 718 14.8 15 13
klakte (clacked) 753 25.9 95 52
klapte (clapped) 620 0 923 402
mestte (manured) 675 0 32 5
pare (blazed) 766 11.1 28 11
propte (crammed) 637 7.4 230 85
schepte (created) 559 0 353 184
schraapte (scraped) 617 14.8 556 305
spurtte (spurted) 759 18.5 55 26
startte (started) 630 0 888 302
stokte Caroke down) 622 3.7 332 219
strecpte (striped) 618 0 70 30
trompette (trumpeted) 756 22.2 3 3
Nouns in --re
zoelte (mildness)* 621 93.8 53 4
dwarste (crossness)* 757 75.0 1899 0
dunte (thinness)* 778 75.0 1990 0
8anwte (quickness)* 1075 62.5 5132 16
scheefte (crookedness)* 858 56.2 867 2
klaarte (clarity)* 854 50.0 5270 63
puurte (pureness)* 700 50.0 1521 0
grofte (rudeness)* 784 43.8 1214 0
ruigte (roughness)* 909 43.8 368 8
scheelte (cross-eyedness)* 624 43.8 142 0
schuinte (obliqueness)* 909 43.8 1367 5
sfljfte (stiffness)* 696 43.8 1658 6
fijnte (fineness)* 681 37.5 3890 0
friste (freshness)* 813 37.5 1584 4
graagte (eagerness)* 807 37.5 11221 61
kleinte (sinai Iness)* 574 37.5 21535 0
kromte (crookedness)* 749 31.2 394 0
loomte (languor)* 782 31.2 350 2
donkerte (darkness) 746 25.0 8982 109
kaalte (baldness) 617 25.0 1594 0
lauwte (tepidness) 838 25.0 582 5
ruwte (roughness) 751 25.0 1623 0
vuilte (dirtyness) 613 25.0 1996 0
engte (strait) 692 18.8 856 16
schraalte (leanness) 801 18.8 325 0
smalte (narrowness) 628 18.8 3044 0
krapte (tighmess) 668 12.5 205 8
nanwte (defile) 671 12.5 2628 0
slapte (slackness) 758 12.5 1156 24
sombette (somberness) 824 12.5 1696 9
steilte (steepness) 717 12.5 982 8
droogte (dryness) 586 6.2 2716 167
koelte (coolness) 626 6.2 2344 227
luwte (shelter) 688 6.2 10 67
magerte (meagerness) 748 6.2 2032 8
schaarste (scarcity) 684 6.2 831 194
breedte (breadth) 578 0 5558 445
dikte (thickness) 591 0 6689 180
flauwte (faint) 618 0 1001 30
gekte (foolishness) 650 0 5820 28
 STORAGE A N D COMPUTATION 507

Table A1 (continued)
Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Nouns in -re (continued)
2 gewoonte (custom) 550 0 13509 2459
(cont'~ groente (vegetables) 532 0 2978 977
grootte (size) 564 0 51667 1314
hoogte (height) 553 0 17053 5164
kalmte (calmness) 577 0 2047 391
kilte (chilliness) 616 0 907 142
leegte (emptiness) 556 0 5290 679
mimte (space) 549 0 4678 6355
sterkte (strength) 608 0 16548 482
stilte (silence) 613 0 6995 4283
verte (distance) 637 0 23125 2362
warmte (warmth) 529 0 6680 1995
wijdte (width) 721 0 2205 13
ziekte (sickness) 499 0 3783 5174
zwaarte (weight) 633 0 9812 193
zwoelte (sultriness) 794 0 160 3
Nouns in --hekt with a high surface frequency
3a bitterheid (bitterness) 546 0 1807 228
dichtheid (density) 529 0 9137 205
droefheid (sadness) 558 0 269 263
dwaasheid (absurdity) 507 0 1129 308
grootheid (greatness) 528 0 51667 426
hardheid (hardness) 526 6.2 9923 231
hoogheid (highness) 544 0 17067 378
ijdelheid (vanity) 567 0 310 310
kuisheid (chastity) 643 6.2 230 90
lafheid (cowardice) 542 0 430 181
oudheid (antiquity) 593 0 20545 537
schoonheid (beauty) 547 0 2884 1856
snelheid (speed) 532 0 16716 1694
tederheid (tenderness) 627 0 773 513
veiligheid (safety) 552 0 3340 1395
vrijheid (freedom) 521 0 11678 5298
vroomheid (piety) 632 0 406 148
waarheid (troth) 515 0 69252 4752
wreedheid (cruelty) 552 0 842 324
zekerheid (certainty) 521 0 24640 3049
Nouns in -he/d with a low surface frequency
3a halfheid 0udfness)* 833 50.0 10588 11
bitsheid (tartness) 728 19.0 337 3
broosheid (fragility) 641 19.0 395 18
bruutheid (brutality) 770 6.2 273 6
eigenheid (ownness) 605 0 31731 82
forsheid (robustness) 682 25.0 8O5 2
goedheid (kindness) 553 0 83272 473
goorheid (dinginess) 700 13.0 254 2
groenheid (greenness) 717 6.2 2996 3
koelheid (coolness) 575 0 2701 37
kortheid (shortness) 543 0 14846 11
lichtheid (lightness) 562 6.2 18700 20
losheid (looseness) 667 13 8935 13
netheid (decency) 543 0 19595 60
nieuwheid (newness) 598 6.2 32846 15
puurheid (purity) 692 6.2 1547 5
rechtheid (straightness) 584 0 11726 0
scheefheid (crookedness) 733 0 867 3
serieusheid (seriousness) 631 0 1853 2
troebelheid (turbidity) 703 6.2 316 5
Nouns in -he/d with a high base frequency
3b linksheid (leftness)* 610 31.2 3873 6
dikheid (fatness) 668 18.8 6724 3
felheid (fierceness) 599 0 2585 111
(table continues)
508 BeS~, SCHI~UDEa, AND BAAY~

Table A 1 (continued)
Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Nouns in --he/d with a high base frequency (continued)
3 • fraaiheid (beauty) 659 0 1660 6
(c~mt'd) heelheid (wholeness) 748 18.8 55138 19
heetheid (hotness) 787 18.8 9873 4
jongheid (youngness) 610 6.2 15000 13
juistheid (correctness) 605 6.2 16928 385
koudheid (coldness) 577 0 5789 0
leegheid (emptiness) 575 0 5451 36
lenkheid (niceness) 709 18.8 4026 3
magerheid (thinness) 576 0 2032 7
moeheid (fatigue) 550 6.2 2546 212
mooiheid (beauty) 653 25.0 15065 7
nieuwheid (newness) 568 6.2 32846 15
puurheid (purity) 655 6.2 1547 5
scheetheid (crookedness) 729 6.2 867 3
schuinheid (obliqueness) 747 25.0 1371 0
serieusheid (seriousness) 793 18,8 1853 2
steilheid (steepness) 716 12.5 982 0
strengheid (strictness) 560 0 2508 78
traagheid (slowness) 547 0 1993 144
trotsheid (pride) 649 0 3103 0
witheid (whiteness) 611 6.2 14016 38
zwaarheid (heaviness) 616 0 9812 0
Nouns in --hem with a low base frequency
3b zatheid (satiety)* 667 31.2 37 8
ziltheid (saltishness)* 837 31.2 94 3
brosheid (fragility) 829 18.8 95 5
bruutheid (brutishness) 699 6.2 273 6
dartelheid (friskiness) 742 12.5 131 2
droefheid (sadness) 623 0 269 263
droogheid (dryness) 580 0 4185 11
dufheid (mustiness) 817 6.2 90 3
edelheid (nobleness) 650 0 534 0
effertheid (smoothness) 708 0 287 4
gaarheid (cookedness) 680 6.2 252 0
geilheid (lubricionsness) 685 0 341 64
ijdelheid (vanity) 604 0 310 310
kleflleid (clamminess) 685 0 91 0
koelheid (coolness) 602 0 2701 37
lafheid (cowardliness) 562 0 430 181
losheid (looseness) 583 25.0 8935 13
makheid (tameness) 650 0 101 0
matheid (weariness) 580 0 632 18
plompheid (rudeness) 710 18.8 186 0
rotheid (rottenness) 610 0 900 3
schuwheid (shyness) 654 0 569 39
soberheid (soberness) 684 6.2 329 96
vaalheid (fadedness) 727 6.2 292 6
vlugheid (quickness) 607 6.2 4059 8
Nouns in -er with a high surface frequency
4a dweper (idolater)* 851 50.0 93 16
turner (gymnast) 641 18.8 47 68
drijver (cattle driver) 641 6.2 3360 13
schenker (pourer) 624 6.2 3745 38
ruiker (bouquet) 637 6.2 1702 41
breker (breaker) 586 0 4762 55
gieter (wateringcan) 580 0 980 39
heerser (ruler) 582 0 2511 221
jager (hunter) 548 0 • 2168 363
kenuer (connoisseur) 630 0 21514 148
lijder (sufferer) 739 0 7188 45
redder (saver) 586 0 3076 99
meier (rower) 530 0 537 8
stoker (stoker) 719 0 302 143
robber (worrier) 679 6.2 213 15
wekker (alarm clock) 536 0 3171 249
 STORAGE AND COMPUTATION 509

Table A1 (continued)
Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Nouns in - e r with a high surface frequency (continued)
4a zanger (singer) 542 0 4234 138
(cont'd) zender (sender) 543 0 1752 369
zwemmer (swimmer) 544 0 1567 52
zwerver (wanderer) 571 0 692 138
Nouns in - e r with a low surface frequency
4a smeder (forger)* 833 43.8 295 0
looier (tanner)* 752 37.5 55 0
schelder (slanger)* 807 31.2 659 0
buiger (bower) 678 12.5 3234 0
bieder (bidder) 696 6.2 7689 18
blusser (extinguisher) 707 6.2 148 3
kaatser (fives-player) 759 6.2 128 0
vreter (glutton) 691 6.2 555 0
wasser (washer) 671 6.2 2337 7
bidder (prayer) 645 0 1782 6
binder (binder) 724 0 1979 10
glijder (slider) 713 0 3193 0
grijper (grasper) 641 0 4155 8
hijger (gasper) 606 0 1489 0
hurler (crier) 660 0 4580 3
kmiper (creeper) 741 0 2836 6
sluiper (sneaker) 599 0 925 5
vanger (catcher) 546 0 3435 0
volger (follower) 598 0 21720 4
winner (winner) 527 0 3383 3
Nouns in - e r with a high basefrequency
4b :ronker (snorer)* 982 81.2 231 0
duider (suggestor)* 798 50.0 1310 77
brenger (bearer) 738 25.0 36536 15
janker (yelper) 732 18.8 495 0
smelter (melter) 766 18.8 816 0
dwinger (forcer) 731 12.5 3451 0
glijder (slider) 653 12.5 3193 0
hurler (crier) 613 12.5 4580 3
smijter (dasher) 650 12.5 947 0
stijger (riser) 602 12.5 3335 0
vinder (finder) 730 12.5 51631 24
bieder (bidder) 713 6.2 7689 18
blijver (stayer) 611 6.2 52837 0
ligger (liar) 688 6.2 40957 0
wasser (washer) 650 6.2 2337 7
zieuer (seer) 706 6.2 98375 82
heerser (ruler) 642 0 2511 221
kelmer (connoisseur) 586 0 21514 148
voeler (feeler) 771 0 29234 4
volger (follower) 743 0 21720 4
Nouns in - e r with a low base frequency
4b zifter (sifter)* 1383 81.2 14 0
schranzer (gormandizer)* 852 75 2O 0
kleumer (slaiverer)* 930 62.5 29 0
schender (violator)* 1087 37.5 226 2
binder (binder) 666 6.2 1979 10
gieter (watering can) 633 0 980 39
grijper (grasper) 697 0 4155 8
looier (tanner) 911 2.5 55 0
ordener (arranger) 787 25.0 637 0
rijder (rider) 669 0 8591 11
sluiper (sneaker) 630 0 925 5
snijder (cutter) 615 0 2682 10
strooier (strewer) 625 0 470 0
temmer (tamer) 731 25.0 192 3
robber (worrier) 705 18.8 213 15
(tablecon6nues)
510 BERTRAM, SCHREUDER,AND BAAYEN

Table A1 (continued)
Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Nouns in -er with a low base frequency (continued)
4b turner (gymnast) 695 0 47 68
(cont'd) vuller (filler) 711 18.8 3245 2
wekker (alarm clock) 556 0 3171 249
winner (winner) 618 12.5 3383 3
zender (sender) 571 0 1752 369
Comparatives with a high surfacefrequency
5a dieper (deeper) 553 0 11667 1957
dikker (fatter) 593 0 6689 357
dunner (thinner) 603 0 1801 189
enger (creepier) 589 0 856 153
feller (fiercer) 585 5.9 2585 338
fijuer (finer) 552 0 3890 182
geringer (smaller) 631 5.9 3539 489
kalmer (calmer) 542 5.9 2047 167
kouder (colder) 576 0 5789 170
langer (taller) 527 0 42525 7438
milder (milder) 621 5.9 909 196
rijper (riper) 569 5.9 1089 115
scherper (sharper) 590 5.9 4875 503
slechter (worse) 551 0 7977 542
slimmer (smarter) 539 0 1095 121
sueller (faster) 528 0 16312 1921
soepler (suppler) 679 11.8 849 92
strenger (stricter) 595 0 2423 168
vlugger (quicker) 573 0 4059 390
zwakker (weaker) 546 0 3006 383
Comparatives with a low surface frequency
5a zeldener (rarer)* 749 52.9 3719 4
banger (more afraid) 496 0 7921 98
blanker (whiter) 614 5.9 967 7
blauwer (bluer) 599 0 5281 30
blijer (happier) 599 5.9 4391 20
doller (wilder) 669 5.9 1059 3
ttinker (firmer) 674 11.8 2908 36
ganwer (sooner) 727 29.4 5132 25
juister (more right) 590 0 16298 173
linkser (more left) 716 17.6 3873 9
naakter (hurler) 637 0 2181 17
hatter (wetter) 574 5.9 2572 24
nieuwer (newer) 551 0 32729 137
rauwer (rawer) 624 11.8 882 8
schuiner (more oblique) 672 0 1367 7
lrotser (prouder) 576 0 2079 15
valser (falser) 533 11.8 1566 8
vreemder (suanger) 589 0 6646 99
witter (whiter) 614 11.8 12989 76
zwarter (blacker) 569 0 6846 56
Comparatives with a high base frequency
5b zelduer (rarer)* 861 43.8 3719 4
blonder (blonder)* 609 37.5 1291 7
banger (more afraid) 577 0 7921 98
flinker (firmer) 689 6.2 2908 36
gauwer (sooner) 698 18.8 5132 25
jaloerser (more jealous) 597 6.2 1097 4
juister (more right) 679 6.2 16928 173
linkser (more left) 670 0 3873 9
naakter (nuder) 614 0 2181 17
nieuwer (newer) 542 0 32729 137
schuiner (more oblique) 648 6.2 1367 7
smaller (narrower) 531 0 3044 155
stommer (more stupid) 619 0 1362 26
strikter (stricter) 755 6.2 1101 16
triester (drearier) 652 0 674 19
 STORAGEAND COMPUTATION 511

Table A1 (continued)
Mean reaction Mean error score Base Surface
Experiment Word (in English) time (%) frequency frequency
Comparatives with a high base frequency (continued)
5b trotser (prouder) 605 6.2 2079 15
(cont'd) valser (falser) 609 0 1566 8
vreemder (stranger) 546 0 6646 99
witter (whiter) 640 0 12989 76
zwarter (blacker) 562 0 6846 56
Comparatives with a low base frequency
5b driester (more reckless)* 741 62.5 80 22
ranker (crankier)* 739 31.3 189 2
penibeler (more awkward)* 920 31.3 49 3
bonter (more variegated) 662 12.5 673 22
dommer (dumber) 596 0 2096 72
edeler (nobler) 584 6.2 534 28
enger (creepier) 546 6.2 856 153
koeler (cooler) 555 0 2344 164
krommer (more crooked) 672 6.2 394 13
lakser (slacker) 637 0 43 3
leuker (nicer) 553 0 4026 172
luxer (more luxurious) 644 6.2 180 2
matter (paler) 712 25.0 327 51
nobeler (nobler) 638 6.2 268 16
reiner (purer) 687 6.2 356 15
rijper (riper) 596 0 1089 115
soepeler (suppler) 570 0 849 92
spitser (sharper) 694 0 294 5
taaler (more tenacious) 582 6.2 506 36
wankeler (shakier) 716 12.5 352 2
Note. Words marked with an * were not included in the analyses because of their high error rates.

Received December 12, 1997

Revision received May 4, 1999
Accepted August 12, 1999 •

Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates

K e e p i n g y o u u ~ t o - c l a t e . All APA Fellows, Members, Associates, and Student Affiliates
rex~ive---as part of their annual dues---subscriptions to the American Psychologist and
APA Monitor. High School Teacher and International Affiliates receive subscriptions to
the APA Monitor, and they may subscribe to the American Psychologist at a significantly
reduced rate. In addition, all Members and Student Affiliates are eligible for savings of up
to 60% (plus a journal credit) on all other APA journals, as well as significant discounts on
subscriptions from cooperating societies and publishers (e.g., the American Association for
Counseling and Development, Academic Press, and Human Sciences Press).

Essential r e s o u r c e s . APA members and affiliates receive special rates for purchases of
APA books, including the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,
and on dozens of new topical books each year.

Other benefits of membership. Membership in APA also provides eligibility for

competitive insurance plans, continuing education programs, reduced APA convention fees,
and specialty divisions.

More i n f o r m a t i o n . Write to American Psychological Association, Membership Services,

750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.