Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T20:24:40.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Everything is Psycholinguistics: Material and Methodological Considerations in the Study of Compound Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Gary Libben
Gary Libben*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Compound words allow us to investigate lexical storage, retrieval, and interpretation. The role of storage and computation in compound processing is reviewed. It is claimed that morphological processing is automatic and obligatory, and that multi-morphemic words require resolution of a conflict between whole-word and constituent activation. This leads to the conclusion that morphological constituents are created through morphological processing so that strawberry comes to be composed of straw- and -berry; these constituents are positionally bound so that berry-, -berry, and berry are distinct processing units. This proliferation of morphological representations resolves long-standing puzzles concerning semantic transparency and challenges traditional psycholinguistic approaches that investigate the effect of some independent variable (such as semantic transparency) on task performance as a dependent variable. It is suggested that psycholinguistic inquiry may be understood as the study of the correlation of dependent variables within the language processing system.

Résumé

Résumé

Les mots composés nous permettent d’examiner l’encaissement lexical, la récupération et l’interprétation. Le rôle d’encaissement et de computation dans le traitement des composés est évalué. Il est proposé que le traitement morphologique est automatique et obligatoire, et que les mots multi-morphémiques nécessitent la résolution d’un conflit entre 1’activation d’un mot complet versus l’activation d’un constituant. Ceci nous mène à conclure que les constituants morphologiques sont créés par l’entremise du traitement morphologique ; ainsi, strawberry est éventuellement analysé comme étant composé de straw- et -berry; ces constituants sont liés de façon positionnelle tel que berry-, -berry et berry sont des unités distinctes de traitement. Cette prolifération de représentations morphologiques résout des énigmes de longue date concernant la transparence sémantique et pose un défi aux approches psycholinguistiques traditionnelles qui examinent l’effet d’une variable indépendante (comme la transparence sémantique) sur une tâche de performance ayant le statut de variable dépendante. Il est suggéré que la recherche psycholinguistique peut être conçue comme étant l’étude de la corrélation de variables dépendantes à l’intérieur du système de traitement de langage.

Type
Part III: Language and the Theory of Mind
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 50 , Issue 1-4: Language know-how: Canadian Perspectives in Contemporary Linguistics/Le savoir-faire langagier: perspectives canadiennes en linguistique contemporaine , December 2005 , pp. 267 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, and van Rijn, Hedderik. 1993. The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 1993. A case of obligatory access to morphological constituents. The Nordic Journal of Linguistics 16:111–121.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 1994. How is morphological decomposition achieved? Language and Cognitive Processes 9:369–391.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 1998. Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language 61:30–44.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 2006. Why study compounds: An overview of the issues. In The representation and processing of compound words, ed. Libben, Gary and Jarema, Gonia, 1–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Buchanan, Lori, and Colangelo, Annette. 2004. Morphology, semantics, and the mental lexicon: The failure of deactivation hypothesis. Logos and Language 4:45–53.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, and de Almeida, Roberto G.. 2001. Is there a morphological parser? In Morphology 2000, ed. Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Dressier, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Voeikova, Maria D., 213–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Derwing, Bruce L., and de Almeida, Roberto G.. 1999. Ambiguous novel compounds and models of morphological parsing. Brain and Language 68:378–386.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Gibson, Martha, Yoon, Yeo Bom, and Sandra, Dominiek. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 84:26–43.Google Scholar
Nault, Karin, and Libben, Gary. 2005. Representation and processing of interfixed German verb-noun compounds. Paper read at the Canadian Linguistic Association annual meeting, London, Canada.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Ullman, Michael T.. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:456–463.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, Alexander, and Hyönä, Jukka. 2005. The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Finnish compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes 20:261–290.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 1990. On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 42:529–567.Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus, and Forster, Kenneth I.. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14:638–647.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Piene, Boelte, Jens, and Dohmes, Petra. 2005. Morphological relatedness blocks semantic competition-for-selection in speaking. Paper read at the Cambridge workshop on morphological processing, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar