Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



While morphemes are theoretically defined as linguistic units linking form and meaning, semantic effects in morphological processing are not reported consistently in the literature on derived and compound words. The lack of consistency in this line of research has often been attributed to methodological differences between studies or contextual effects. In this paper, we advance a different proposal where semantic effects emerge quite consistently if semantics is defined in a dynamic and flexible way, relying on distributional semantics approaches. In this light, we revisit morphological processing, taking a markedly cognitive perspective, as allowed by models that focus on morphology as systematic meaning transformation or that focus on the mapping between the orthographic form of words and their meanings.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amenta, S., Crepaldi, D., & Marelli, M.
    (2020) Consistency measures individuate dissociating semantic modulations in priming paradigms: A new look on semantics in the processing of (complex) words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 10.1177/1747021820927663
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820927663 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amenta, S., Marelli, M., & Crepaldi, D.
    (2015) The fruitless effort of growing a fruitless tree: Early morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic effects in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1587.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Amenta, S., Marelli, M., & Sulpizio, S.
    (2017) From sound to meaning: Phonology-to-Semantics mapping in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin &Rreview, 24(3), 887–893. 10.3758/s13423‑016‑1152‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1152-0 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y. -Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E., & Blevins, J. P.
    (2019) The discriminative lexicon: A unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 4895891. 10.1155/2019/4895891
    https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4895891 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. 10.1037/a0023851
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023851 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergen, B. K.
    (2004) The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–311. 10.1353/lan.2004.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0056 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blevins, J. P.
    (2016) Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloomfield, L.
    (1933) Language. New York, NY: Holt.
  11. Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T.
    (2017) Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 135–146. 10.1162/tacl_a_00051
    https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00051 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowers, J. S., Davis, C. J., & Hanley, D. A.
    (2005) Automatic semantic activation of embedded words: Is there a “hat” in “that”?Journal of Memory and Language, 52(1), 131–143. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chamberlain, J. M., Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Lõo, K.
    (2020) Detecting spelling errors in compound and pseudocompound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 580–602.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Crepaldi, D., Marelli, M., & Amenta, S.
    (2019) For a probabilistic and multidisciplinary approach to the investigation of morphological processing. Cortex, 116, 1–3. 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Jong IV, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Harald Baayen, R.
    (2000) The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 329–365. 10.1080/01690960050119625
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119625 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J.
    (2005) Masked cross-modal morphological priming: Unravelling morpho-orthographic and morpho-semantic influences in early word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 75–114. 10.1080/01690960444000197
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000197 [Google Scholar]
  17. Duñabeitia, J. A., Kinoshita, S., Carreiras, M., & Norris, D.
    (2011) Is morpho-orthographic decomposition purely orthographic? Evidence from masked priming in the same-different task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4–6), 509–529. 10.1080/01690965.2010.499215
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.499215 [Google Scholar]
  18. El-Bialy, R., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2013) Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents – semantic transparency. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 75–95. 10.1075/ml.8.1.04elb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.1.04elb [Google Scholar]
  19. Feldman, L. B.
    (2000) Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1431.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Feldman, L. B., O’Connor, P. A., & del Prado Martín, F. M.
    (2009) Early morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 684–691. 10.3758/PBR.16.4.684
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.684 [Google Scholar]
  21. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I.
    (2000) Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 751–765.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gagné, C. L.
    (2001) Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 236–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J.
    (1997) Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 71–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2009) Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures?Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20–35. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Günther, F., & Marelli, M.
    (2019) Enter sandman: Compound processing and semantic transparency in a compositional perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 1872–1882.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2006) Conceptual combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. InLibben, G., & Jarema, G. (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp.145–168). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Günther, F., & Marelli, M.
    (2020) Trying to make it work: Semantic effects in the processing of compound “nonwords”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1177/1747021820902019
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820902019 [Google Scholar]
  28. Günther, F., Marelli, M., & Bölte, J.
    (2020) Semantic transparency effects in German compounds: A large dataset and multiple-task investigation. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑019‑01311‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01311-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. Günther, F., Petilli, M. A., & Marelli, M.
    (2020) Semantic transparency is not invisibility: A computational model of perceptually-grounded conceptual combination in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104104. 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104104
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104104 [Google Scholar]
  30. Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., & Marelli, M.
    (2019) Vector-space models of semantic representation from a cognitive perspective: A discussion of common misconceptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 1006–1033. 10.1177/1745691619861372
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619861372 [Google Scholar]
  31. Günther, F., Smolka, E., & Marelli, M.
    (2019) ‘Understanding – differs between English and German: Capturing systematic language differences of complex words. Cortex, 116, 168–175. 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  32. Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S.
    (2004) Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662. 10.1037/0033‑295X.111.3.662
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.662 [Google Scholar]
  33. Harris, Z.
    (1954) Distributional Structure. Word, 10, 146–162. 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hendrix, P., & Sun, C. C.
    (2020) A word or two about nonwords: Frequency, semantic neighborhood density, and orthography-to-semantics consistency effects for nonwords in the lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1037/xlm0000819
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000819 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyönä, J., & Pollatsek, A.
    (1998) Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(6), 1612.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones, M. N., Willits, J., & Dennis, S.
    (2015) Models of semantic memory. InJ. Busemeyer, Z. Wang, J. Townsend, & A. Eidels (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Mathematical and Computational Psychology (pp.232–254). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Juhasz, B. J.
    (2007) The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. InEye Movements (pp.373–389). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044980‑7/50018‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50018-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T.
    (1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. 10.1037/0033‑295X.104.2.211
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211 [Google Scholar]
  40. Libben, G.
    (2014) The nature of compounds: A psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31, 8–25. 10.1080/02643294.2013.874994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2013.874994 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2017) The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1(1), 49–55. 10.1007/s41809‑017‑0003‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-017-0003-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D.
    (2003) Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A.
    (2003) Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 313–334. 10.1080/01690960244000036
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000036 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lund, K., & Burgess, C.
    (1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208. 10.3758/BF03204766
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204766 [Google Scholar]
  45. Marelli, M., & Amenta, S.
    (2018) A database of orthography-semantics consistency (OSC) estimates for 15,017 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1482–1495. 10.3758/s13428‑018‑1017‑8
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1017-8 [Google Scholar]
  46. Marelli, M., Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D.
    (2015) Semantic transparency in free stems: The effect of Orthography-Semantics Consistency on word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1571–1583. 10.1080/17470218.2014.959709
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.959709 [Google Scholar]
  47. Marelli, M., & Baroni, M.
    (2015) Affixation in semantic space: Modeling morpheme meanings with compositional distributional semantics. Psychological Review, 122, 485–515. 10.1037/a0039267
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039267 [Google Scholar]
  48. Marelli, M., & Luzzatti, C.
    (2012) Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 644–664. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  49. Marelli, M., Amenta, S., Morone, E. A., & Crepaldi, D.
    (2013) Meaning is in the beholder’s eye: Morpho-semantic effects in masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 534–541. 10.3758/s13423‑012‑0363‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0363-2 [Google Scholar]
  50. Marelli, M., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2017) Compounding as Abstract Operation in Semantic Space: A data-driven, large-scale model for relational effects in the processing of novel compounds. Cognition, 166, 207–224. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.026 [Google Scholar]
  51. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L.
    (1994) Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J.
    (2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781v3.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Milin, P., Feldman, L. B., Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, H.
    (2017) Discrimination in lexical decision. PLoS ONE, 12(2), Article e0171935. 10.1371/journal.pone.0171935
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171935 [Google Scholar]
  54. Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., & del Prado Martín, F. M.
    (2009) The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 50–64. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M.
    (2010) Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34, 1388–1429. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01106.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01106.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M.
    (2000) Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 445–485. 10.1080/01690960050119661
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119661 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H.
    (2008) Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971. 10.1080/01690960802069730
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2008) Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 942–971. 10.1080/01690960802069730
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B.
    (2004) The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098. 10.3758/BF03196742
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196742 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K.
    (2000) Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A timecourse study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537. 10.1080/01690960050119689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119689 [Google Scholar]
  61. Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N.
    (2009) More data trumps smarter algorithms: Comparing pointwise mutual information with latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 647–656. 10.3758/BRM.41.3.647
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.647 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R.
    (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory, 2, 64–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sahel, S., Nottbusch, G., Grimm, A., & Weingarten, R.
    (2008) Written production of German compounds: Effects of lexical frequency and semantic transparency. Written Language & Literacy, 11, 211–227. 10.1075/wll.11.2.06sah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.11.2.06sah [Google Scholar]
  64. Schäfer, M.
    (2018) The semantic transparency of English compound nouns. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Schmidtke, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Kuperman, V.
    (2018) Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 421–439.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Schmidtke, D., Gagné, C. L., Kuperman, V., Spalding, T. L., & Tucker, B. V.
    (2018) Conceptual relations compete during auditory and visual compound word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 923–942. 10.1080/23273798.2018.1437192
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1437192 [Google Scholar]
  67. Smolka, E., Preller, K. H., & Eulitz, C.
    (2014) ‘Verstehen’(‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’(‘stand’): Morphological structure overrides semantic compositionality in the lexical representation of German complex verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 16–36. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  68. Westbury, C., & Hollis, G.
    (2019) Conceptualizing syntactic categories as semantic categories: Unifying part-of-speech identification and semantics using co-occurrence vector averaging. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1371–1398. 10.3758/s13428‑018‑1118‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1118-4 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wurm, L. H.
    (2000) Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 255–271. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2678
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2678 [Google Scholar]
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