marginally significantp < 0.01
In the native speakers’ error rates, there was a cue effect in the predicted direction for long words that was marginally significant in the item analysis, t 1 (19) = 3.34, p < 0.01; t 2 (20) = 1.73, p = 0.09, whereas it went into the opposite direction for short words, t 1 (19) = –3.21, p < 0.01; t 2 (20) = –2.51, p < 0.05.