ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION It does not seem to be a particularly challenging suggestion to claim that an affixed word like unhooked is in some way analyzed in lexical processing as un + hook + ed, nor that a compound word like daydream is analyzed as day +
dream. and there is much evidence to support such a position (e.g .• Andrews. 1986; Stanners. Neiser. Hernon. & Hall. 1979; Stanners. Neiser. & Painton. 1979; Taft. 1979a; Taft & Forster. 1976). What is less appealing. though, is the idea that such morphological analysis occurs even when it generates units which are not words in their own right (i.e., "bound morphemes," as opposed to "free morphemes"). for example, analyzing replenish as re + plenish or henchman as hellch + man. Nonetheless, there is evidence to suggest that morphological analysis does take place when the stem morphemes are bound (e.g., Stanners, Neiser. & Painton, 1979; Taft. 1979a, 1981; Taft & Forster, 1975; Taft, Hambly, & Kinoshita, 1986). Indeed, evidence for morphological processing in languages like Hebrew (e.g., Bentin & Feldman, 1990). Italian (e.g., Burani & Laudanna. 1992), and Serbo-Croatian (e.g., Feldman & Moskovljevic, 1987; Lukatela, Gligorijevic, Kostic, & Turvey, 1980) would seem to necessitate such a view since morphemes in those languages are almost always bound, in the sense that the root morpheme must always combine with an affix to form a word. What then is the best framework in which to think about morphological processing?
