Article published In: The Representation and Processing of Morphologically Complex Words
Edited by Lori Buchanan and Roberto G. de Almeida
[The Mental Lexicon 19:2] 2024
► pp. 285–307
Is there a hip or a pie in hippie?
The influence of phonology on the morphological decomposition of pseudo-compound words
Published online: 8 April 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.24009.par
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.24009.par
Abstract
Pseudo-compound words (e.g., hippie) are words
that look like compound words (e.g., snowman) but, in fact, do
not have the morphemic structure of a compound word. For instance, the
pseudo-compound word hippie has hip and
pie embedded in it, but they do not function as morphemes.
Pseudo-compound words vary in terms of phonological transparency. Some, such as
pumpkin, are phonologically transparent because the
pronunciations of pump and kin are maintained
when these pseudo-constituents become part of pumpkin. In
contrast, the pseudo-compound word carrot is phonologically
opaque because the pronunciations of car and
rot change when they are embedded in
carrot. Previous studies have demonstrated that compound
words go through morphological decomposition and attempts at meaning
construction during written production tasks. For instance, compound words are
not output as single units during typing tasks, but rather are typed in chunks
based on their morphology (e.g., snowball is typed in two
parts: first as snow and then as ball), which
results in an increase in typing latencies at the morpheme boundary (i.e.,
between the last letter of the first constituent and first letter of the second
constituent). The same is true for pseudo-compound words, even though these
words do not have the morphemic structure of a compound word. Given that
previous research has shown that the morphological decomposition of compound
words during typing tasks looks different depending on the semantic transparency
of the compound word’s constituents (i.e., the degree to which the meaning of
each constituent of a compound word contributes to the word’s overall meaning),
we wanted to examine whether the level of phonological transparency of the
pseudo-constituents of a pseudo-compound word influences typing latencies at the
pseudo-morpheme boundary.
Keywords: pseudo-compound words, phonology, semantic transparency, morphology, typing
Article outline
- The morphological decomposition of compound words
- The influence of semantic transparency on the morphological decomposition of compound words
- The relationship between phonology and morphology in compound words, other morphologically complex words and nominal phrases
- Compound words versus pseudo-compound words
- The goals of this study
- Methods
- Participants
- Materials
- Procedure
- Results
- Discussion
- Conflict of interest statement
- Notes
References
References (60)
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment
in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the
mind. De Gruyter Mouton.
Booij, G. E. (2005). Compounding
and derivation: Evidence for Construction
Morphology. In W. U. Dressler, F. Rainer, D. Kastovsky, & O. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Morphology
and its
Demarcations (pp. 109–132). John Benjamins.
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.
Brooks, T. L., & Cid de Garcia, D. (2015). Evidence
for morphological composition in compound words using
MEG. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 91, 215.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving
beyond Kuçera 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.
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.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A
spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence
production. Psychological
Review, 93(3), 283–321.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). The
role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from
Basque and Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin
&
Review, 14(6), 1171–1176.
Fabb, N. (1998). Compounding. In A. Spencer, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), The
handbook of
morphology (pp. 66–83). Wiley-Blackwell.
Ferro, M., Cardillo, F. A., Pirrelli, Gagné C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2016). Written
word production and lexical self-organisation: Evidence from English
(pseudo)compounds. Proceedings of the Third
Italian Conference on Computational
Linguistics, 17491, Article
10.2.
Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007a). Compound
words and structure in the lexicon. Language
and Cognitive
Processes, 22(7), 953–1000.
Gagné, C., & Spalding, T. (2014). Typing
time as an index of morphological and semantic effects during English
compound processing. Lingue e
Linguaggio, 21, 241–262.
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2016a). Effects
of morphology and semantic transparency on typing latencies in English
compound and pseudocompound words. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 42(9), 1489–1495.
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L. (2016b). Written
production of English compounds: effects of morphology and semantic
transparency. Morphology, 261, 133–155.
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Nisbet, K. (2017). Processing
English compounds: Investigating semantic
transparency. SKASE Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics, 13(2), 2–22.
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.
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Schmidtke, D. (2019). LADEC:
The large database of English
compounds. Behavior Research
Methods, 51(5), 2152–2179.
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Taikh, A. (2023). Carport
and carpet: Effects of compound and pseudo-compound word structures on
typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and
Cognition, 49(12), 2003–2033.
Hasenäcker, J., & Schroeder, S. (2019). Compound
reading in German: Effects of constituent frequency and whole-word frequency
in children and adults. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 45(5), 920–933.
Hyönä, J., & Pollatsek, A. (2000). Processing
of Finnish compound words in
reading. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading
as a perceptual
process (pp. 65–87). North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers.
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, 651, 406–430.
Juhasz, B. J. (2007). The
influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound
word
recognition. In R. von Gompel, W. Murray, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Eye
movements: A window on mind and
brain (pp. 373–389). Elsevier.
(2008). The
processing of compound words in English: Effects of word length on eye
movements during reading. Language and
Cognitive
Processes, 23(7–8), 1057–1088.
Juhasz, B. J., & Berkowitz, R. N. (2011). Effects
of morphological families on English compound word recognition: A multitask
investigation. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 26(4–6), 653–682.
Juhasz, B., Lai, Y., & Woodcock, M. L. (2015). A
database of 629 English compound words: ratings of familiarity, lexeme
meaning dominance, semantic transparency, age of acquisition, imageability,
and sensory experience. Behavior Research
Methods, 471, 1004–1019.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A
theory of lexical access in speech
production. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic
transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequence for representation,
processing, and impairment. Brain and
Language, 61(1), 30–44.
(2005). Everything
is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the
study of compound processing. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de
Linguistique, 501, 267–283.
(2010). Compound
words, semantic transparency, and morphological
transcendence. Linguistische Berichte,
Sonderheft, 171, 317–330.
(2014). The
nature of compounds: A psychocentric
perspective. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 31(1–2), 8–25.
Libben, G., Gallant, J., & Dressler, W. U. (2021). Textual
effects in compound processing: A window on words in the
world. Frontiers in
Communication, 61.
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.
Libben, G., & Weber, S. (2014). Semantic
transparency, compounding, and the nature of independent
variables. In F. Rainer, W. Dressler, F. Gardani & H. C. Luschutzky (Eds.), Morphology
and meaning. John Benjamins.
Libben, G., Weber, S., & Miwa, K. (2012). P3:
A technique for the study of perception, production, and participant
properties. The Mental
Lexicon, 7(2), 237–248.
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.
Nikolaev, A., Ashaie, S., Hallikainen, M., Hänninen, T., Higby, E., Hyun, J., Lehtonen, M., & Soininen, H. (2019). Effects
of morphological family on word recognition in normal aging, mild cognitive
impairment, and Alzheimer’s
disease. Cortex, 1161, 91–103.
Park, J., Sana, F., Gagné, C., & Spalding, T. (2020). Is
inhibition involved in the comprehension of opaque compound words? A study
of individual differences. The Mental
Lexicon, 15(2), 256–292.
Plag, I. (2006). The
variability of compound stress in English: structural, semantic, and
analogical factors. English Language and
Linguistics, 10(1), 143–172.
Plag, I., & Kunter, G. (2010). Constituent
family size and compound stress assignment in
English, Linguistische Berichte,
Sonderheft, 171, 349–382.
Plag, I., Kunter, G., & Lappe, S. (2007). Testing
hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based
investigation. Corpus Linguistics and
Linguistic
Theory, 3(2), 199–232.
Plag, I., Kunter, G., Lappe, S., & Braun, M. (2008). The
role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress
assignment in
English. Language, 841, 760–794.
Sahel, S., Nottbusch, G., Grimm, A., & Weingarten, R. (2008). Written
production of German compounds: Effects of lexical frequency and semantic
transparency. Written Language &
Literacy, 11(2), 211–227.
Sandra, D. (1990). On
the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to
constituent morphemes does not occur. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental
Psychology, 42(3-A), 529–567.
Schlechtweg, M. (2018). How
stress reflects meaning. The interplay of prosodic prominence and semantic
(non-)compositionality in non-lexicalized English adjective-noun
combinations. In S. Arndt-Lappe, A. Braun, C. Moulin, & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Expanding
the Lexicon: Linguistic innovation, morphological productivity, and
ludicity (pp. 117–139). De Gruyter.
(2019). Prosodic
prominence variation in English adjective-noun constructions: An overview of
relevant
factors. In J. Szpyra-Kozłowska & M. Radomski (Eds.), Phonetics
and phonology in
action (pp. 265–281). Peter Lang Publisher.
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, 44(3), 421–439.
Taikh, A., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2023). Accessing
the semantic and lexical information of constituents while typing compound
words. The Mental
Lexicon, 18(2), 265–299.
Tang, R., & Witzel, N. (2020). The
role of phonology in processing morphologically complex
words. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 271, 379–384.
Tsapkini, K., Kehayia, E., & Jarema, G. (1999). Does
phonological change play a role in the recognition of derived forms across
modalities? Brain and
Language, 68(1–2), 318–323.
Tse, C.-S., Yap, M. J., Chan, Y.-L., Sze, W. P., Shaoul, C., & Lin, D. (2017). The
Chinese Lexicon Project: A megastudy of lexical decision performance for
25,000+ traditional Chinese two-character compound
words. Behavior Research
Methods, 49(4), 1503–1519.
Will, U., Nottbusch, G., & Weingarten, R. (2006). Linguistic
units in word typing: Effects of word presentation modes and typing
delay. Written Language &
Literacy, 9(1), 153–176.
