conclude, it is interesting to think more widely about the place of morphology in reading. Several chapters in this volume have rightly emphasized that the computation of phonology is a vital part of reading and learning to read (Brysbaert; Castles & Nation; Savage, this volume). Yet, in many cases, what makes the computation of phonology difficult (at least in English) assists the rapid computation of meaning. It might therefore be that the ability to capitalize on morphological information is a critical part of what it means to make the transition from being a novice to a skilled reader.
References
1 Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(232). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232.
2 Andrews, S., & Lo, S. (2013). Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 279–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.001.
3 Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual‐route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 94–117. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2509.
4 Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118(3), 438–481. doi: 10.1037/a0023851.
5 Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low‐frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3), 419–463. doi: 10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa.
6 Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent‐Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single‐syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. doi: 10.1037/0096‐3445.133.2.283.
7 Ben‐Shachar, M., Dougherty, R. F., Deutsch, G. K., & Wandell, B. A. (2011). The development of cortical sensitivity to visual word forms. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2387–2399. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2011.21615.
8 Berg, K., & Aronoff, M. (2017). Self‐organization in the spelling of English suffixes: The emergence of culture out of anarchy. Language, 93(1), 37–64. doi: 10.1353/lan.2017.0000.
9 Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 489–511. doi: 10.1037/0278‐7393.26.2.489.
10 Beyersmann, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(7), 1306–1326. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.656661.
11 Beyersmann, E., Grainger, J., Casalis, S., & Ziegler, J. C. (2015). Effects of reading proficiency on embedded stem priming in primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.001.
12 Boudelaa, S., & Marslen‐Wilson, W. D. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition, 81(1), 65–92. doi: 10.1016/S0010‐0277(01)00119‐6.
13 Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2016). How many words do we know? Practical estimates of vocabulary size dependent on word definition, the degree of language input and the participant’s age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1116. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01116.
14 Burani, C., Dovetto, F. M., Thornton, A. M., & Laudanna, A. (1997). Accessing and naming suffixed pseudo‐words. In G. Booji, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht, Springer.
15 Burani, C., Salmaso, D., & Caramazza, A. (1984). Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Language, 18(4), 342–352.
16 Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297–332. doi: 10.1016/0010‐0277(88)90017‐0.
17 Carreiras, M., Armstrong, B. C., Perea, M., & Frost, R. (2014). The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(2), 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005.
18 Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 151–179). Hove, UK; New York: Psychology Press.
19 Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. doi: 10.1177/1529100618772271.
20 Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1016/0749‐596X(89)90025‐9.
21 Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. doi: I0.1037//0033‐295X.108.1.204.
22 Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L. (2010). “Fell” primes “fall,” but does “bell” prime “ball”? Masked priming with irregularly‐inflected primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 83–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.002.
23 Dawson, N., Rastle, K., & Ricketts, J. (2018). Morphological effects in visual word recognition: Children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(4), 645–654. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000485.
24 Dehaene‐Lambertz, G., Monzalvo, K., & Dehaene, S. (2018). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category‐specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition. PLoS Biology, 16(3), e2004103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004103.
25 Devlin, J. T., Jamison, H. L., Matthews, P. M., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2004). Morphology and the internal structure of words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(41), 14984–14988. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403766101.
26 Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen‐Wilson, W. D. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 117–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.003.
27 Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 680–698. doi: 10.1037/0278‐7393.10.4.680.
28 Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71–99. doi: 10.1037/0033‐2909.123.1.71.
29 Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked‐priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829–856. doi: 10.1037/0278‐7393.23.4.829.
30 Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4‐5), 421–444. doi: 10.1080/01690960050119652.
31 Gold, B. T., & Rastle, K. (2007). Neural correlates of morphological
