1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Morphology and Meaning
  4. Chapter

Relation diversity and ease of processing for opaque and transparent English compounds

image of Relation diversity and ease of processing for opaque and transparent English compounds

Emerging evidence suggests that integrating the constituents of compound words involves semantic composition and that this meaning construction process draws on relation information linking the constituents. Research with novel compounds (for which semantic composition is obligatory) has found that relation structures compete for selection during semantic composition and that increased competition results in increased processing difficulty. The current project investigates whether relation competition occurs in the processing of established transparent and opaque English compounds. The results indicate that more relation competition is associated with more difficult processing of compound words, even those that are semantically opaque. This indicates that a relation-based semantic composition process is initiated during the processing of established compounds, even for semantically opaque compounds where the final interpretation cannot be relational. Understanding the semantic composition process is critically important in creating a complete theory of compound processing.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Alberta

References

  1. Andrews, Sally , Brett Miller & Keith Rayner
    2004 “Eye Movements and Morphological Segmentation of Compound Words: There is a Mouse in Mousetrap”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16.285–311. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000123 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald
    2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. Harald , Doug Davidson & Douglas Bates
    2008 “Mixed-effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items”. Journal of Memory and Language59.390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. Harald , Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers
    1995 The CELEX lexical database(CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, Douglas & Martin Maechler
    2009 lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–32. (Computer software).
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Butterworth, Brian
    1983 “Lexical Representation”. Language Production, vol. 2ed. by Brian Butterworth , 257–294. San Diego: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan
    1995 “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes10.425–455. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fiorentino, Robert & David Poeppel
    2007 “Compound Words and Structure in the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes22.953–1000. doi: 10.1080/01690960701190215
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701190215 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gagné, Christina L. & Edward J. Shoben
    1997 “Influence of Thematic Relations on the Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Combinations”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition23.71–87. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.23.1.71
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.71 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gagné, Christina L. & Thomas L. Spalding
    2006a “Using Conceptual Combination Research to Better Understand Novel Compound Words”. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics3.9–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2006b “Relation Availability was not Confounded with Familiarity or Plausibility. Gagné and Shoben (1997): Comment on Wisniewski and Murphy (2005)”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition32.1431–1437. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.32.6.1431
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1431 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 “Constituent Integration During the Processing of Compound Words: Does it Involve the Use of Relational Structures?”Journal of Memory and Language60.20–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ji, Hongbo , Christina L. Gagné & Thomas L. Spalding
    2011 “Benefits and Costs of Lexical Decomposition and Semantic Integration During the Processing of Transparent and Opaque English Compounds”. Journal of Memory and Language65.406–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kuperman, Victor , Raymond Bertram & R. Harald Baayen
    2010 “Processing Trade-Offs in the Reading of Dutch Derived Words”. Journal of Memory and Language62.83–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Levi, Judith N
    1978 The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Libben, Gary
    2006 “Why Study Compound Processing: An Overview of the Issues”. The Representation and Processing of Compound Wordsed. by Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema , 1–21. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010 “Compound Words, Semantic Transparency, and Morphological Transcendence”. New Impulses in Word-Formationed. by Susan Olsen , 317–330. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Pinheiro, José C. & Douglas M. Bates
    2000 Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑0318‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Sandra, Dominiek
    1990 “On the Representation and Processing of Compound Words: Automatic Access to Constituent Morphemes does not Occur”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology42A.529–567. doi: 10.1080/14640749008401236
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401236 [Google Scholar]
  20. Spalding, Thomas L. & Christina L. Gagné
    2008 “CARIN Theory Reanalysis Reanalyzed: A Comment on Maguire, Devereux, Costello, and Cater 2007”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34.1573–1578. doi: 10.1037/a0013120
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013120 [Google Scholar]
  21. Spalding, Thomas L & Christina L. Gagné
    2011 “Relation Priming in Established Compounds: Facilitation?”Memory & Cognition39.1472–1486. doi: 10.3758/s13421‑011‑0112‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0112-1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Spalding, Thomas L. , Christina L. Gagné , Allison C. Mullaly & Hongbo Ji
    2010 “Relation-Based Interpretation of Noun-Noun Phrases: A New Theoretical Approach”. New Impulses in Word-Formationed. by Susan Olsen , 283–315. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Zwitserlood, Pienie
    1994 “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing and Representation of Dutch Compounds”. Language and Cognitive Processes9.341–368. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402123 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Andrews, Sally , Brett Miller & Keith Rayner
    2004 “Eye Movements and Morphological Segmentation of Compound Words: There is a Mouse in Mousetrap”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16.285–311. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000123 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald
    2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. Harald , Doug Davidson & Douglas Bates
    2008 “Mixed-effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items”. Journal of Memory and Language59.390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. Harald , Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers
    1995 The CELEX lexical database(CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, Douglas & Martin Maechler
    2009 lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–32. (Computer software).
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Butterworth, Brian
    1983 “Lexical Representation”. Language Production, vol. 2ed. by Brian Butterworth , 257–294. San Diego: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan
    1995 “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes10.425–455. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fiorentino, Robert & David Poeppel
    2007 “Compound Words and Structure in the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes22.953–1000. doi: 10.1080/01690960701190215
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701190215 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gagné, Christina L. & Edward J. Shoben
    1997 “Influence of Thematic Relations on the Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Combinations”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition23.71–87. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.23.1.71
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.71 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gagné, Christina L. & Thomas L. Spalding
    2006a “Using Conceptual Combination Research to Better Understand Novel Compound Words”. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics3.9–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2006b “Relation Availability was not Confounded with Familiarity or Plausibility. Gagné and Shoben (1997): Comment on Wisniewski and Murphy (2005)”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition32.1431–1437. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.32.6.1431
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1431 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 “Constituent Integration During the Processing of Compound Words: Does it Involve the Use of Relational Structures?”Journal of Memory and Language60.20–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ji, Hongbo , Christina L. Gagné & Thomas L. Spalding
    2011 “Benefits and Costs of Lexical Decomposition and Semantic Integration During the Processing of Transparent and Opaque English Compounds”. Journal of Memory and Language65.406–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kuperman, Victor , Raymond Bertram & R. Harald Baayen
    2010 “Processing Trade-Offs in the Reading of Dutch Derived Words”. Journal of Memory and Language62.83–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Levi, Judith N
    1978 The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Libben, Gary
    2006 “Why Study Compound Processing: An Overview of the Issues”. The Representation and Processing of Compound Wordsed. by Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema , 1–21. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010 “Compound Words, Semantic Transparency, and Morphological Transcendence”. New Impulses in Word-Formationed. by Susan Olsen , 317–330. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Pinheiro, José C. & Douglas M. Bates
    2000 Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑0318‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Sandra, Dominiek
    1990 “On the Representation and Processing of Compound Words: Automatic Access to Constituent Morphemes does not Occur”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology42A.529–567. doi: 10.1080/14640749008401236
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401236 [Google Scholar]
  20. Spalding, Thomas L. & Christina L. Gagné
    2008 “CARIN Theory Reanalysis Reanalyzed: A Comment on Maguire, Devereux, Costello, and Cater 2007”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34.1573–1578. doi: 10.1037/a0013120
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013120 [Google Scholar]
  21. Spalding, Thomas L & Christina L. Gagné
    2011 “Relation Priming in Established Compounds: Facilitation?”Memory & Cognition39.1472–1486. doi: 10.3758/s13421‑011‑0112‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0112-1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Spalding, Thomas L. , Christina L. Gagné , Allison C. Mullaly & Hongbo Ji
    2010 “Relation-Based Interpretation of Noun-Noun Phrases: A New Theoretical Approach”. New Impulses in Word-Formationed. by Susan Olsen , 283–315. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Zwitserlood, Pienie
    1994 “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing and Representation of Dutch Compounds”. Language and Cognitive Processes9.341–368. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402123 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270931-cilt.327.10gag
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270931-cilt.327.10gag
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270931
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error