Cover not available
Article published In:
Semantics and Psychology of Complex Words
Edited by Christina L. Gagné and Thomas L. Spalding
[The Mental Lexicon 15:1] 2020
► pp. 62–78

A (distributional) semantic perspective on the processing of morphologically complex words

| University of Trento, Italy | Ghent University, Belgium
| University of Tübingen, Germany
| University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy | Milan Center for Neuroscience (NeuroMi), Italy
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.
Keywords: derivation, compounding, morphological processing, semantic transparency, distributional semantic models, form-meaning mapping
Article outline
  • Semantic transparency in morphological processing of derived and compound words
    • Distributional semantics
    • Morphology as a systematic meaning transformation
    • Morphology as form-meaning mapping
  • Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00014.ame
References (69)
References
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, 232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2017). Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 51, 135–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Crepaldi, D., Marelli, M., & Amenta, S. (2019). For a probabilistic and multidisciplinary approach to the investigation of morphological processing. Cortex, 1161, 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El-Bialy, R., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2013). Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents – semantic transparency. The Mental Lexicon, 81, 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 271, 236–254.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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, 601, 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günther, F., & Marelli, M. (2019). Enter sandman: Compound processing and semantic transparency in a compositional perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 451, 1872–1882.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2006). Conceptual combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. In Libben, G., & Jarema, G. (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 145–168). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1121, 104104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 141, 1006–1033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günther, F., Smolka, E., & Marelli, M. (2019). ‘Understanding – differs between English and German: Capturing systematic language differences of complex words. Cortex, 1161, 168–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional Structure. Word, 101, 146–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. N., Willits, J., & Dennis, S. (2015). Models of semantic memory. In J. 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
Juhasz, B. J. (2007). The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. In Eye Movements (pp. 373–389). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1041, 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. (2014). The nature of compounds: A psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 311, 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1(1), 49–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 841, 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 313–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, M., & Amenta, S. (2018). A database of orthography-semantics consistency (OSC) estimates for 15,017 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 501, 1482–1495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, M., & Baroni, M. (2015). Affixation in semantic space: Modeling morpheme meanings with compositional distributional semantics. Psychological Review, 1221, 485–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1661, 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781v3.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Feldman, L. B., Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, H. (2017). Discrimination in lexical decision. PLoS ONE, 12(2), Article e0171935. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 341, 1388–1429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 231, 942–971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 942–971. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 151, 507–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 21, 64–99.Google Scholar
Sahel, S., Nottbusch, G., Grimm, A., & Weingarten, R. (2008). Written production of German compounds: Effects of lexical frequency and semantic transparency. Written Language & Literacy, 111, 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2018). The semantic transparency of English compound nouns. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
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, 441, 421–439.Google Scholar
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, 331, 923–942. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 721, 16–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 511, 1371–1398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L. H. (2000). Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 421, 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Cho, Jeonghwa, Acrisio Pires & Jonathan R. Brennan
2024. How large are root and affix priming effects in visual word recognition? Estimation from original data and a Bayesian meta-analysis. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gagné, Christina L. & Thomas L. Spalding
2024. Semantic Transparency Norms. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Kahraman, Hasibe, Bianca de Wit & Elisabeth Beyersmann
2024. Cross-language morphological transfer in similar-script bilinguals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 31:3 ► pp. 1155 ff. DOI logo
Bonandrini, Rolando, Simona Amenta, Simone Sulpizio, Marco Tettamanti, Alessia Mazzucchelli & Marco Marelli
2023. Form to meaning mapping and the impact of explicit morpheme combination in novel word processing. Cognitive Psychology 145 ► pp. 101594 ff. DOI logo
Naranjo, Matías Guzmán & Olivier Bonami
2023. A distributional assessment of rivalry in word formation. Word Structure 16:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Chee, Qian Wen & Melvin J Yap
2022. Are there task-specific effects in morphological processing? Examining semantic transparency effects in semantic categorisation and lexical decision. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 75:11 ► pp. 2073 ff. DOI logo
De Rosa, Mara & Davide Crepaldi
2022. Letter chunk frequency does not explain morphological masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:2 ► pp. 589 ff. DOI logo
Günther, Fritz & Marco Marelli
2022. Patterns in CAOSS: Distributed representations predict variation in relational interpretations for familiar and novel compound words. Cognitive Psychology 134 ► pp. 101471 ff. DOI logo
Günther, Fritz & Marco Marelli
2023. CAOSS and transcendence: Modeling role-dependent constituent meanings in compounds. Morphology 33:4 ► pp. 409 ff. DOI logo
Stevens, Patience & David C. Plaut
2022. From decomposition to distributed theories of morphological processing in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29:5 ► pp. 1673 ff. DOI logo
Yi, Wei
2022. Processing of novel L2 compounds across repeated exposures during reading: A growth curve analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics 43:3 ► pp. 551 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. 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.