Article published in:
Morphology and Meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012
Edited by Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327] 2014
► pp. 153–162

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

| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
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.
Published online: 27 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.10gag
References
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 Psychology 16.285–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Doug Davidson & Douglas Bates
2008 “Mixed-effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items”. Journal of Memory and Language 59.390–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers
1995 The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas & Martin Maechler
2009 lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–32. (Computer software).
Butterworth, Brian
1983 “Lexical Representation”. Language Production, vol. 2 ed. by Brian Butterworth, 257–294. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1995 “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes 10.425–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiorentino, Robert & David Poeppel
2007 “Compound Words and Structure in the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes 22.953–1000. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Cognition 23.71–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, Christina L. & Thomas L. Spalding
2006a “Using Conceptual Combination Research to Better Understand Novel Compound Words”. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3.9–16.Google Scholar
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 Cognition 32.1431–1437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Language 65.406–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, Victor, Raymond Bertram & R. Harald Baayen
2010 “Processing Trade-Offs in the Reading of Dutch Derived Words”. Journal of Memory and Language 62.83–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Judith N
1978 The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary
2006 “Why Study Compound Processing: An Overview of the Issues”. The Representation and Processing of Compound Words ed. by Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema, 1–21. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Compound Words, Semantic Transparency, and Morphological Transcendence”. New Impulses in Word-Formation ed. by Susan Olsen, 317–330. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, José C. & Douglas M. Bates
2000 Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek
1990 “On the Representation and Processing of Compound Words: Automatic Access to Constituent Morphemes does not Occur”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 42A.529–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Cognition 34.1573–1578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spalding, Thomas L & Christina L. Gagné
2011 “Relation Priming in Established Compounds: Facilitation?” Memory & Cognition 39.1472–1486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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-Formation ed. by Susan Olsen, 283–315. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Pienie
1994 “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing and Representation of Dutch Compounds”. Language and Cognitive Processes 9.341–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Hennecke, Inga & Harald Baayen
2021. Romance N Prep N constructions in visual word recognition. The Mental Lexicon 16:1 ► pp. 98 ff. Crossref logo
Schmidtke, Daniel, Christina L. Gagné, Victor Kuperman, Thomas L. Spalding & Benjamin V. Tucker
2018. Conceptual relations compete during auditory and visual compound word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33:7 ► pp. 923 ff. Crossref logo
Schmidtke, Daniel, Victor Kuperman, Christina L. Gagné & Thomas L. Spalding
2016. Competition between conceptual relations affects compound recognition: the role of entropy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23:2 ► pp. 556 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.