Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 16:1 (2021) ► pp.98–132

Romance N Prep N constructions in visual word recognition

An eye-tracking study of French, Spanish and Portuguese

 | Eberhard Karls University
 | Eberhard Karls University
N Prep N constructions such as Sp. bicicleta de montaña ‘mountain bike’ are very productive and frequent in Romance languages. They commonly have been classified as syntagmatic compounds that show no orthographic union and exhibit an internal structure that resembles free syntactic structures, such as Sp. libro para niños ‘book for children’. There is no consensus on how to best distinguish lexical from syntactic N Prep N constructions. The present paper presents an explorative eye-tracking study on N Prep N constructions, varying both lexical type (lexical vs. syntactic) and preposition across three languages, French, Spanish and Portuguese. The task of the eye-tracking study was a reading aloud paradigm of the constructions in sentence context. Constructions were fixated on less when more frequent, independent of lexical status. There was also modest evidence that a higher construction frequency afforded shorter total fixation durations, but only for lower deciles of the response distribution. The (construction-initial) head noun also received fewer fixations as construction frequency increased, and also when the head noun was more frequent. The second fixation durations on the head noun also revealed an effect of lexical status, with syntactic constructions receiving shorter fixations at the 5th and 7th deciles. The probability of a fixation on the preposition decreased with preposition frequency, but first fixations on the preposition increased with preposition frequency. The prepositions of Portuguese, the language with the richest inventory of prepositions, received more fixations than the prepositions of French and Spanish. The observed pattern of results is consistent with models of lexical processing in which reading is guided by knowledge of both higher-level constructions and knowledge of key constituents such as the head noun and the preposition.
Keywords: Romance, N preposition N construction, syntagmatic compounds, eye-tracking
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • State of the art in the literature
  • Participants
  • Materials
  • Design
  • Procedure
  • Predictor variables
  • Results
    • Fixation counts
    • Analysis of fixation durations
  • General discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20014.hen
References (75)
References
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 621. 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, 31, 73–112.Google 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. [URL]
Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2010). Frequency effects in compound processing. Compounding, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 257–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Hendrix, P., & Ramscar, M. (2013). Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: An explanation on n-gram frequency effects based on naive discriminative learning. Language and Speech 561, 329–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., & Ramscar, M. (2016). Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology, 30(11), 1174–1220. 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
Bisetto, A., & Scalise, S. (2005). The classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio, 4(2), 319–0.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Compound constructions: Schemas or analogy? A construction morphologist perspective. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311), 93–109. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The construction of words: Introduction and Overview. In Gert Booij (ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (Studies in Morphology 4), 3–18. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buenafuentes de la Mata, C. (2009). La formación de palabras compuestas: del latín al español. In Diachronic linguistics (pp. 213–238). Documenta Universitaria.Google Scholar
(2010). La composición sintagmática en español. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1983). Lexical complexity and sentence processing. In Flores d’Arcais & Jarvella (eds). The Process of Language Understanding. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency Effects in Language Processing. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2). 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasiolo, M., Goude, Y., Nedellec, R., & Wood, S. N. (2017). Fast calibrated additive quantile regression. URL: [URL]
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
Fradin, B. (2009). Romance: French. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 417–435. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Forster, K. & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 23(4). 829–856.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 & Cognition 23(1). 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 60(1). 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Conceptual composition: The role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun-noun compounds. In Brian H. Ross (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 591), 97–130. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T.L. (2014). Conceptual composition: The role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun-noun compounds. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 591. 97–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T.L. (2014). Relation diversity and ease of processing for opaque and transparent English compounds. In Rainer, F.; Dressler, W.; Gardini, F. and Luschützky, H. C. (Eds.). Morphology and Meaning: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. In Language 80(4). 748–774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraert, K., Newman, J., and Baayen, R. H. (2017). Idiom variation: Experimental data and a blueprint of a computational model. In Christiansen, M., and Arnon, I. (Eds.) More than Words: The Role of Multiword Sequences in Language Learning and Use. Special issue of Topics in Cognitive Science, 91, 653–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 113(2), 256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giraudo, Hélène S. & Jonathan Grainger. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8(1). 127–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., & Antohe, D. (2005). On the semantics of noun compounds. Computer speech & language, 19(4), 479–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guevara, E. R. (2012). Spanish compounds. Probus. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 24(1). 175–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennecke, I. (2019). Internal constituent variability and semantic transparency in N Prep N constructions in Romance languages. In Sabine Schulte im Walde & Eva Smolka (eds.), The role of constituents in multiword expressions: An interdisciplinary, cross-lingual perspective, 131–156. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hennecke, I. & Baayen, H. (2017). A Quantitative Survey of N Prep N Constructions in Romance Languages and Prepositional Variability. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics 221. 129–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarema, G., Busson, C., Nikolova, R., Tsapkini, K., & Libben, G. (1999). Processing compounds: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 68(1–2), 362–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J., Starr, M. S., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, L. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 223–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfeld, L. M. (2009). IE, romance: Spanish. In The Oxford handbook of compounding.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing, Language and Cognitive Processes, 231:7–8, 1089–1132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 876.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Rozanova, K., Phillips, C. (2007). Syntactic prediction and lexical frequency effects in sentence processing. University of Maryland Working Papers.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G., Goral, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2018). What does constituent priming mean in the investigation of compound processing? The Mental Lexicon, 13(2), 269–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maguire, Phil & Arthur Cater. (2004). Is conceptual combination influenced by word order? 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL] (19 Nov, (2019). DOI logo
Marelli, M., Crepaldi, D. & Luzzatti, C. (2009). Head position and the mental representation of nominal compounds. A constituent priming study in Italian. In: The Mental Lexicon 4(3). 430–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F. (2009). Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word structure, 2(2), 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 451, 137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253(5019), 530–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(11), 456–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., Feintuch, S., Hopkins, E., & Marantz, A. (2004). Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study. Cognition, 91(3), B35–B45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F. (2016). Italian. In: O. Peter Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen und Franz Rainer (Hg.): Word Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Bd. 4. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, S. 2712–2731.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: [URL]
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
Rio-Torto, G., & Ribeiro, S. (2009). Compounds in portuguese. Lingue e linguaggio, 8(2), 271–292.Google Scholar
(2010). Unidades pluriverbais – Processamento e ensino. In: As interfaces da gramática, 151–165, Araraquara, SP: UNESP Editora.Google Scholar
(2012). Portuguese compounds. Probus, 24(1), 119–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rummelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing. MIT Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaoul, C., Westbury, C. F., & Baayen, H. R. (2013). The subjective frequency of word n-grams. Psihologija, 46(4), 497–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke, D., Matsuki, K., & Kuperman, V. (2017). Surviving blind decomposition: A distributional analysis of the time-course of complex word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(11), 1793–1820.Google Scholar
Shoben, E. J. (1991). Predicating and nonpredicating combinations. In P. J. Schwanenflugal (ed.), The psychology of word meanings, 117–135. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snider, N. & Arnon, I. (2012). A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In Dagmar Divjak & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Frequency effects in language representation, 127–164. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomyak, O., & Marantz, A. (2010). Evidence for early morphological decomposition in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(9), 2042–2057. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005). “Onomasiological Approach to Word-formation.” In: Pavel Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spalding, T. L., Gagné, C. L., Mullaly, A., & Ji, H. (2010). Relation-based interpretation of noun-noun phrases: A new theoretical approach. New impulses in word-formation, 283–315.Google Scholar
Spalding, Thomas L. & Christina L. Gagné. (2011). Relation priming in established compounds: Facilitation? Memory & Cognition 39(8). 1472–1486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spalding, T. L. & Gagné, C. L. (2014). Relational diversity affects ease of processing even for opaque English compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 91, 48–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 15(6), 607–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., and Baayen, R. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood, Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 151–173.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language learning, 61(2), 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 30(1), 37–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Val Àlvaro, J. F. (1999). La composición. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa, 757–4841.Google Scholar
Villoing, F. (2012). French compounds. Probus, 24(1), 29–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood S. (2017). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwitserlood, P. (2018). Processing and representation of morphological complexity in native language comprehension and production. In Geert Booij (ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (Studies in Morphology 4), 583–602. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hennecke, Inga, Tatiana Perevozchikova & Evelyn Wiesinger
2023. Multiword units in multilingual speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo
Hennecke, Inga & Evelyn Wiesinger
2023. Language contact phenomena in multiword units: The code-switching–calquing continuum. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.