Three experiments using a spelling error detection task investigated the extent to which morphemes and pseudomorphemes affect word processing. We compared the processing of transparent compound words (e.g., doorbell), pseudocompound words (e.g., carpet), and matched control words (e.g., tomato). In half of the compound and pseudocompound words, spelling errors were created by transposing adjacent letters and in half of the control words, errors were created by transposing letters at the same location as the matched compound or pseudocompound words. Correctly spelled compound words were more easily processed than matched control words, but this advantage was removed when letter transpositions were introduced at the morpheme boundary. In contrast, misspelled pseudocompound words showed a processing deficit relative to their matched control words when letter transpositions were introduced at the (pseudo)morpheme boundary. The results strongly suggest that morphological processing is attempted obligatorily when the orthography indicates that morphological structure is present. However, the outcomes of the morphological processing attempts are different for compounds and pseudocompounds, as might be expected, given that only the compounds have a morphological structure that matches the structure suggested by the orthography. The findings reflect 2 effects: an orthographic effect that is facilitatory and not sensitive to morphological structure of the whole word, and a morphemic effect that is facilitatory for compounds but inhibitory for pseudocompounds.

Three experiments investigate how people infer properties of compound words from the unmodified head. Concepts license inference of properties true of the concept to instances or sub-types of that concept: Knowing that birds generally fly, one infers that a new type of bird flies. However, different names are also believed to reflect real underlying differences. Hence, a different name creates the expectation that a new bird differs from birds in general, and this might impact property inference. In these experiments, participants were told, Almost all (Some, Almost no) birds have sesamoid bones, and then asked, What percentage of blackbirds (birds) have sesamoid bones? The results indicate both inference and contrast effects. People infer properties as less common of the compound than the head when the property is true of the head, but they infer them as more common of the compound than the head when the property is not true of the head. In addition, inferences about properties true of the head are affected by the semantic similarity between the head and the compound, but properties not true of the head do not show any semantic similarity effect, but only a small, consistent effect of contrast. Finally, the presentation format (Open vs. Closed compounds) affects the pattern of effects only when the spacing suggests the existence of a permanent name.

No abstract