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
Published online: 27 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.10gag
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.10gag
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.
References (23)
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.
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
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.
Bybee, Joan. 1995. “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes 10.425–455.
Fiorentino, Robert & David Poeppel. 2007. “Compound Words and Structure in the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes 22.953–1000.
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.
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.
. 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.
. 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.
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.
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.
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.
. 2010. “Compound Words, Semantic Transparency, and Morphological Transcendence”. New Impulses in Word-Formation ed. by Susan Olsen, 317–330. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Pinheiro, José C. & Douglas M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer.
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.
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.
Spalding, Thomas L & Christina L. Gagné. 2011. “Relation Priming in Established Compounds: Facilitation?” Memory & Cognition 39.1472–1486.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Cheng, Gong & Hai Xu
Cheng, Gong, Hai Xu & Xian Zhang
Cruz, Karen Pérez, Chelsa Patel, Jazlynn Steinbach, Mohamed Barre, Holly Kibbins, Dixie Wong, Alexander Taikh, Christina L. Gagné & Thomas L. Spalding
2022. Is meaning construction attempted during the processing of pseudo-compounds?. The Mental Lexicon 17:2 ► pp. 277 ff.
Hennecke, Inga & Harald Baayen
2021. Romance N Prep N constructions in visual word recognition. The Mental Lexicon 16:1 ► pp. 98 ff.
Schmidtke, Daniel, Christina L. Gagné, Victor Kuperman, Thomas L. Spalding & Benjamin V. Tucker
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2025. 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.