1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Psycholinguists have yet to reach a consensus on what role constituent morphemes play in the processing of compound words, although some recent work suggests that morphemes are activated obligatorily during processing. In the current study, we investigate whether people use morphemes to attempt meaning construction even for pseudo-compounds which are words that appear to have a compound structure, but in fact do not (e.g., is not ). We obtained relational entropies (a measure of potential relational competition) for a set of pseudo-compound words based on responses from a possible relations task. The relational entropy values as well as frequency of the prime (e.g., ) and target (e.g., ) were then used to predict the processing of the pseudo-first constituents after exposure to the pseudo-compound masked primes. We observed a significant three-way interaction between entropy, target frequency, and prime frequency. Our results suggest that meaning construction is attempted for pseudo-compound words.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
2022-10-25
2024-10-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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, 31. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews, S.
    (1986) Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or nonlexical effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 251, 726–740. 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90046‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90046-X [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R.
    (1997) Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory & Language, 37(1), 94–117. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2509
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2509 [Google Scholar]
  4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M.
    (2004) Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. 10.1037/0096‑3445.133.2.283
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burani, C., & Caramazza, A.
    (1987) Representation and processing of derived words. Language & Cognitive Processes, 2(3–4), 217–227. 10.1080/01690968708406932
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406932 [Google Scholar]
  6. Burani, C., Salmaso, D., & Caramazza, A.
    (1984) Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Language, 181, 342–352.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Butterworth, B.
    (1983) Lexical representation. Language production, 21, 257–294.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
    (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chamberlain, J. M., Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Lõo, K.
    (2020) Detecting spelling errors in compound and pseudo compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 580–602. 10.1037/xlm0000748
     https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000748 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90025‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90025-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A.
    (1991) Elements of Information Theory. Wiley Series in Telecommunications. 10.1002/0471200611
     https://doi.org/10.1002/0471200611 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Feldman, L. B., Kostić, A., Gvozdenović, V., O’Connor, P. A., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F.
    (2012) Semantic similarity influences early morphological priming in Serbian: A challenge to form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 668–676. 10.3758/s13423‑012‑0250‑x
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0250-x [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D.
    (2007) Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 953–1000. 10.1080/01690960701190215
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701190215 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frisson, S., Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A.
    (2008) The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 87–107. 10.1348/000712607X181304
     https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X181304 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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, 231, 71–87. 10.1037/0278‑7393.23.1.71
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.71 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2007) Conceptual Combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. InG. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp.145–168). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228911.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228911.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2009) Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures?Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 20–35. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gagné, C., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2014a) Conceptual composition: The role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun–noun compounds. InB. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, (pp.97–130). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑407187‑2.00003‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407187-2.00003-4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L.
    (2014b) Relational diversity and ease of processing for opaque and transparent English compounds. InRainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschutzky, H. C. & Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Morphology and meaning, 153–162. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PI: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.327.10gag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.10gag [Google Scholar]
  23. Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., Figueredo, L., & Mullaly, A. C.
    (2009) Does snow man prime plastic snow? The effect of constituent position in using relational iformation during the interpretation of modifier-noun phrases. The Mental Lexicon, 41, 41–76. 10.1075/ml.4.1.03gag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.4.1.03gag [Google Scholar]
  24. Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., Nisbet, K. A., & Armstrong, C.
    (2018) Pseudo-morphemic structure inhibits, but morphemic structure facilitates, processing of a repeated free morpheme. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 33(10), 1252–1274. 10.1080/23273798.2018.1470250
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1470250 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gernsbacher, M. A.
    (1984) Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1131, 256–281. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.2.256
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256 [Google Scholar]
  26. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J.
    (2000) Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 151, 421–444. 10.1080/01690960050119652
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119652 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2001) Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 81, 127–131. 10.3758/BF03196148
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196148 [Google Scholar]
  28. Günther, F., & Marelli, M.
    (2019) Enter sand-man: Compound processing and semantic transparency in a compositional perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 451, 1872–1882.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (2020) Trying to make it work: Compositional effects in the processing of compound “nonwords”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(7), 1082–1091. 10.1177/1747021820902019
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820902019 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hay, J.
    (2001) Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative?Linguistics, 39(6). 10.1515/ling.2001.041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [Google Scholar]
  31. Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., & Heller, D.
    (2000) Complex compounds in German: Interword spaces facilitate segmentation but hinder assignment meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 421, 23–50. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2666
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2666 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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, 651, 406–430. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Koester, D., Gunter, T. C., & Wagner, S.
    (2007) The morphosyntactic decomposition and semantic composition of German compound words investigated by ERPs. Brain and Language, 1021, 64–79. 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lehtonen, M., Cunillera, T., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Hultén, A., Tuomainen, J., & Laine, M.
    (2007) Recognition of morphologically complex words in Finnish: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1148(1), 123–137. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.026
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.026 [Google Scholar]
  35. Levi, J. N.
    (1978) The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press, 55(2), 396–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Libben, G.
    (1998) Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61(1), 30–44. 10.1006/brln.1997.1876
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1876 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2010) Compounds words, semantic transparency, and morphological transcendence. New Impulses in Word-Formation, 171, 317–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D.
    (2003) Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84(1), 50–64. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Manelis, L., & Tharp, D. A.
    (1977) The processing of affixed words. Memory & Cognition, 5(6), 690–695. 10.3758/BF03197417
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197417 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L.
    (1994) Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S.
    (1977) Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmidtke, D., Gagné, C. L., Kuperman, V., Spalding, T. L., & Tucker, B. V.
    (2018a) Conceptual relations compete during auditory and visual compound word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(7), 923–942. 10.1080/23273798.2018.1437192
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1437192 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schmidtke, D., Gagné, C. L., Kuperman, V., Spalding, T. L.
    (2018b) Language experience shapes relational knowledge of compound words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 251, 1468–1487. 10.3758/s13423‑018‑1478‑x
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1478-x [Google Scholar]
  46. Schmidtke, D., Kuperman, V., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2016) Competition between conceptual relations affects compound recognition: The role of entropy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 556–570. 10.3758/s13423‑015‑0926‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0926-0 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
    (1995) Modelling morphological processing. InL. B. Feldman (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (1997) How complex simple words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 118–139. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2510
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2510 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shannon, C. E.
    (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell Technical Journal, 27(4), 379–423. 10.1002/j.1538‑7305.1948.tb01338.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L.
    (2008) CARIN theory reanalysis reanalyzed: A comment on Maguire, Devereux, Costello, and Cater 2007. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 341, 1573–1578. 10.1037/a0013120
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013120 [Google Scholar]
  51. Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L.
    (2011) Relation priming in established compounds: Facilitation?Memory & Cognition, 391, 1472–1486. 10.3758/s13421‑011‑0112‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0112-1 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2014) Relational diversity affects ease of processing even for opaque English compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 9(1), 48–66. 10.1075/ml.9.1.03spa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.1.03spa [Google Scholar]
  53. Spalding, T. L., Gagné, C. L., Mullaly, A. C., & Ji, H.
    (2010) Relation-based interpretation of noun-noun phrases: A new theoretical approach. New impulses in word-formation, 171, 283–315.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Spalding, T. L., Stedman, J., Hancock, C., & Gagné, C. L.
    (2014) Intentionality and the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of concepts. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 35(4), 245–261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43854372
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Taft, M.
    (1979) Lexical access via an orthographic code: The basic orthographic syllabic structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 21–39. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90544‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90544-9 [Google Scholar]
  56. (1994) Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 91, 271–294. 10.1080/01690969408402120
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402120 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2003) Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. InE. M. H. Assink, D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words. Neuropsychology and cognition, vol 22 (pp.113–137). Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑3720‑2_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3720-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2004) Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 571, 745–765. 10.1080/02724980343000477
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477 [Google Scholar]
  59. Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S.
    (2006) Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. Mental Lexicon, 11, 183–199. 10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.2.02taf [Google Scholar]
  60. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I.
    (1975) Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 638–647. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80051‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X [Google Scholar]
  61. (1976) Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(6), 607–620. 10.1016/0022‑5371(76)90054‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90054-2 [Google Scholar]
  62. Taft, M., & Kougious, P.
    (2004) The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 901, 9–16. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00415‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00415-2 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zwitserlood, P.
    (1994) The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 91, 341–368. 10.1080/01690969408402123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402123 [Google Scholar]
  64. Zwiterslood, P., Bolwiender, A., & Drews, E.
    (2005) Priming morphologically complex vergs by sentence contexts: Effects of semantic transparency and ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 201, 395–415. 10.1080/01690960444000160
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000160 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
Loading
Is meaning construction attempted during the processing of pseudo-compounds?
The Mental Lexicon 17, 277 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): entropy; meaning construction; morphology; pseudo-compounds; semantic relations

Most Cited

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