LEXICAL RECOGNIZABILITY IN TEXT PROCESSING: A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Abstract
The article examines lexical recognizability as a multidimensional psycholinguistic phenomenon emerging in connected reading rather than in isolated word paradigms. While traditional research on visual word recognition has primarily focused on orthographic, phonological, and morphological processing of single words, less attention has been devoted to how lexical access operates within coherent discourse. The study addresses this gap by analyzing lexical recognizability in literary texts, emphasizing the interaction between bottom-up lexical properties and top-down contextual constraints. The theoretical framework is based on Morris’s four-level model, which includes morphological structure, word familiarity, grammatical class (content versus function words), and lexical ambiguity. Using a qualitative analytical approach, excerpts from Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road are examined to illustrate how these dimensions function dynamically in descriptive and minimalist prose. The analysis demonstrates that lexical recognition in discourse is adaptive and context-sensitive: word frequency and orthographic familiarity alone do not determine processing ease. Instead, recognition depends on the compatibility between lexical input and the developing discourse model. The findings highlight the role of morphological decomposition, phonological activation, contextual prediction, and stylistic cues in shaping word accessibility during reading. Literary context amplifies the interaction between lexical features and narrative expectations, revealing how readers integrate ambiguous, low-frequency, or morphologically complex words into coherent mental representations. The study contributes to psycholinguistics by bridging classic models of lexical access with literary text analysis and by conceptualizing lexical recognizability as a situated, integrative process in natural reading environments
References
2. Andrews S., Miller B., Rayner K. Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2004. Vol. 16, №1-2. P. 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000123
3. Bertram R., Pollatsek A., Hyönä J. Morphological parsing and the use of segmentation cues in reading Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004. Vol. 51, №3. P. 325-345.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.005
4. de la Peña C. Eye tracking contribution on processing of (implicit) reading comprehension.Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 2024. Vol. 13, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44322-024-00013-w
5. Deutsch A., Frost R., Pelleg S., Pollatsek A., Rayner K. Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2003. Vol. 10, №2. P. 415-422 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196500
6. Fitzgerald F. S. The Great Gatsby. Scribner, 2004.
7. Gatti D., Crepaldi D., Lecce S., Rinaldi L., Mascheretti S. On the relationship between reading abilities and word properties involved in word recognition. Journal of Cognition. 2026. Vol. 9, №1. Article 11. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.484
8. Karageorgos P., Richter T., Haffmans M., Schindler J., Naumann J. The role of word recognition accuracy in the development of word recognition speed and reading
comprehension in primary school: A longitudinal examination. Cognitive Development. 2020. Vol. 56. Article 100949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100949
9. McCarthy C. The Road. Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.
10. Massol S., Grainger J. Word superiority and sentence superiority effects in post cued letter in string identification. Attention, Perception, &Psychophysics. 2025. Vol. 87, №4. P. 1342-1352. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-025-03059-w
11. Perfetti C. A. Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2007. Vol. 11, №4. – P. 357-383.
12. Rayner K., Pollatsek A., Ashby J., Clifton C. Visual word recognition in skilled adult readers. The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
13. Simpson G. B., Krueger M. A., Kang H., Elofson A. C. Sentence context and meaning frequency effects in children’s processing of ambiguous words Journal of Research in Reading. 1994. Vol. 17, №1. P. 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1994.tb00052.x
14. Staub A. The function/content word distinction and eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2024. Vol. 50, №6. P. 967-984.https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001301
15. Traxler M. J., Gernsbacher M. A. (Eds.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. 2nd ed. Academic Press, 2006.
16. Wiley R. W., Singh S., Baig Y., Key K., Purcell J. J. The English Sublexical Toolkit: Methods for indexing ound–spelling consistency. Behavior Research
Methods. 2024. Vol. 56. P. 68266861. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02395-3
17. Woolnough O., Donos C., Rollo P. S. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of orthographic and lexical processing in the ventral visual pathway. Nat Hum Behav. 2021. Vol. 5. P. 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00982-w

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
ISSN 
.png)



