Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 17:2 (2022) ► pp.277–299

Is meaning construction attempted during the processing of pseudo-compounds?

| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
| University of Alberta
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., carpet is not car + pet). 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., carpet) and target (e.g., car) 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.
Keywords: morphology, entropy, pseudo-compounds, semantic relations, meaning construction
Article outline
  • Is meaning construction attempted during the processing of pseudo-compounds?
    • Current investigation
  • Experiment: Possible relations task
  • Methods
    • Materials
    • Participants
    • Procedure
  • Results
  • Using relational entropy to predict lexical decision time
    • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.21010.cru
References (64)
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, 3 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or nonlexical effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 251, 726–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language & Cognitive Processes, 2(3–4), 217–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., Salmaso, D., & Caramazza, A. (1984). Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Language, 181, 342–352.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. Language production, 2 1, 257–294.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of Information Theory. Wiley Series in Telecommunications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 1, 953–1000. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 23 1, 71–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2007). Conceptual Combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp. 145–168). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Gagné, C., & Spalding, T. L. (2014a). Conceptual composition: The role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun–noun compounds. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, (pp. 97–130). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2014b). Relational diversity and ease of processing for opaque and transparent English compounds. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschutzky, H. C. & Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Morphology and meaning, 153–162. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PI: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 4 1, 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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, 1131, 256–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15 1, 421–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 1, 127–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 45 1, 1872–1882.Google Scholar
(2020). Trying to make it work: Compositional effects in the processing of compound “nonwords”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73 (7), 1082–1091. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative? Linguistics, 39 (6). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 42 1, 23–50. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 406–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koester, D., Gunter, T. C., & Wagner, S. (2007). The morphosyntactic decomposition and semantic composition of German compound words investigated by ERPs. Brain and Language, 102 1, 64–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press, 55 (2), 396–407.Google Scholar
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61 (1), 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Compounds words, semantic transparency, and morphological transcendence. New Impulses in Word-Formation, 17 1, 317–329.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
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
Manelis, L., & Tharp, D. A. (1977). The processing of affixed words. Memory & Cognition, 5 (6), 690–695. 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke, D., Gagné, C. L., Kuperman, V., Spalding, T. L. (2018b). Language experience shapes relational knowledge of compound words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25 1, 1468–1487. 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
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modelling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1997). How complex simple words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 1, 118–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell Technical Journal, 27 (4), 379–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 34 1, 1573–1578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L. (2011). Relation priming in established compounds: Facilitation? Memory & Cognition, 39 1, 1472–1486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Relational diversity affects ease of processing even for opaque English compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 9 (1), 48–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 17 1, 283–315.Google Scholar
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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9 1, 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In E. M. H. Assink, D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words. Neuropsychology and cognition, vol 22 (pp. 113–137). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57 1, 745–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words . Mental Lexicon, 1 1, 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14 1, 638–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15 (6), 607–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Kougious, P. (2004). The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 90 1, 9–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwitserlood, P. (1994). The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9 1, 341–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwiterslood, P., Bolwiender, A., & Drews, E. (2005). Priming morphologically complex vergs by sentence contexts: Effects of semantic transparency and ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20 1, 395–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar