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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

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
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00014.ame
Abstract
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.
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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 4895891. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional Structure. Word, 101, 146–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Libben, G. (2014). The nature of compounds: A psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 311, 8–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1(1), 49–55. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 841, 50–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 313–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marelli, M., & Baroni, M. (2015). Affixation in semantic space: Modeling morpheme meanings with compositional distributional semantics. Psychological Review, 1221, 485–515. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781v3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milin, P., Feldman, L. B., Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, H. (2017). Discrimination in lexical decision. PLoS ONE, 12(2), Article e0171935. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 341, 1388–1429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 231, 942–971. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 942–971. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2018). The semantic transparency of English compound nouns. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurm, L. H. (2000). Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 421, 255–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (19)

Cited by 19 other publications

Amenta, Simona, Francesca Foppolo & Linda Badan
2025. The Role of Morphological Information in Processing Pseudo-words in Italian L2 Learners: It’s a Matter of Experience. Journal of Cognition 8:1 DOI logo
Ciapparelli, Marco, Marco Marelli, William Graves & Carlo Reverberi
2025. Compositionality in the semantic network: a model-driven representational similarity analysis. Cerebral Cortex 35:8 DOI logo
Günther, Fritz & Laura Raveling
2025. Interpretability Norms for Novel Words and Nonwords. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Hsieh, Cheng-Yu, Marco Marelli & Kathleen Rastle
2025. Compositional processing in the recognition of Chinese compounds: Behavioural and computational studies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 32:4 ► pp. 1878 ff. DOI logo
Amenta, Simona
2024. Measuring Form-Meaning Systematicity: The Orthography-Semantics Consistency (OSC) Measures. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Carlson, Matthew T. & Amy C. Crosson
2024. The synchronic status of historical bound roots in the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon 19:2 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
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 39:10 ► pp. 1291 ff. DOI logo
dos Reis Pereira, Humberto & Francis Ricardo dos Reis Justi
2024. Morpho-orthographic segmentation on visual word recognition in Brazilian Portuguese speakers. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica 37:1 DOI logo
Gagné, Christina L. & Thomas L. Spalding
2024. Semantic Transparency Norms. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Isumarni
2024. Cognitive Approaches to Morphology: Insights into Mental Lexicon Processing. Lingua : Journal of Linguistics and Language 2:3 ► pp. 191 ff. 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 27 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue