Pseudo-morphemic structure inhibits, but morphemic structure facilitates, processing of a repeated free morpheme

Detecting spelling errors in compound and pseudocompound words.

“…These assumptions about the two processes are consistent with data (Gagné et al, 2018) showing that the processing of a target word in a lexical-decision task benefited from orthographic overlap between the prime and target only when when the target functioned as a morpheme in the prime (e.g., hogwash - hog or heater - heat ) or when the target was a nonword (e.g., giraffe - gira ). However, facilitation due to orthographic overlap between the target and prime was not observed when the prime was a pseudocompound (e.g., sonnet - son ) or had no morphological relationship to the target (e.g., pupil - pup ).…”

“…In general, our results are similar to other recent work investigating compound and pseudocompound word processing in showing that both kinds of words seem to trigger some form of morphological processing, but that the outcomes of that morphological processing attempt are different. For example, Gagné et al (2018) found that using the compound or pseudocompound word as a prime for a constituent or pseudoconstituent led to highly robust priming effects. However, the priming effects were in opposite directions.…”

“…Thus, in addition to an incompatible morphemic structure producing processing issues for a pseudocompound, the resulting incompatible semantic representation could also interfere with processing in a way that has already been demonstrated for the literal meaning of semantically opaque compounds producing processing difficulties (e.g., Ji et al, 2011; Spalding & Gagné, 2014) or, more generally, for relational competition influencing processing times for compound words and novel phrases (e.g., Gagné & Spalding, 2014a). Nonetheless, recent research comparing pseudocompounds and opaque compounds (Gagné et al, 2018) has found processing difficulties due to an incompatible morphemic structure that cannot be reduced to semantic effects. Furthermore, it is possible to have a compatible morphemic structure (e.g., hogwash actually is consistent with hog + wash ) but an incompatible semantic representation if the meaning is actively constructed via conceptual combination (e.g., hogwash is not a wash for pigs , but this meaning could be constructed following the identification of a bimorphemic structure).…”

Trying to make it work: Compositional effects in the processing of compound "nonwords"

“…El-Bialy, Gagné, & Spalding, 2013;Gagné & Spalding, 2009;Libben, 2014;Marelli & Baroni, 2015), which set in very early in processing and are initiated automatically (Amenta, Marelli, & Crepaldi, 2015). Recent studies provide strong evidence for the automaticity of such a meaning-composition process, by demonstrating that it is even applied to pseudo-compounds such as carpet, where it leads to incorrect results and COMPOSITION IN COMPOUND "NONWORDS" 4 associated repair costs (Chamberlain, Gagné, Spalding, & Lõo, 2019;Gagné, Spalding, Nisbet, & Armstrong, 2018). In line with this evidence, Günther and Marelli (2018) observed -in a lexical decision task which does not in principle require semantic accessthat existing compounds (such as airport or ladybird) are processed faster the easier a compositional meaning can be constructed from their constituents, and hence the more the constituent meanings contribute to the meaning of a newly-composed concept (Gagné & Spalding, 2009).…”

Η Πορεία Κατάκτησης Και Εκμάθησης Της Μορφολογικής Διαδικασίας Της Σύνθεσης Στην Ελληνική Γλώσσα Από Μαθητές Πρωτοβάθμιας Και Δευτεροβάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης

“…η63 Συγκεκριμένα, αναφέρεται α) στο επίπεδο των ερεθισμάτων (stimulus level), β) στο λεξικό επίπεδο (lexical level) και γ) στο εννοιολογικό επίπεδο (conceptual level)(Libben, 1994(Libben, : 382 κ.ε.· 1998.64 Βλ Gagné, Spalding, Nisbet, & Armstrong (2018). ειδικά για ψευδοσύνθετα (pseudo-compounds).…”