Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:25:56.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of whole-word representations in compound word processing: Evidence from eye fixation patterns of elementary school children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2011

TUOMO HÄIKIÖ ,
RAYMOND BERTRAM  and
JUKKA HYÖNÄ
TUOMO HÄIKIÖ*
Affiliation:
University of Turku
RAYMOND BERTRAM
Affiliation:
University of Turku
JUKKA HYÖNÄ
Affiliation:
University of Turku
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Tuomo Häikiö, Department of Psychology, University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of morphology in reading development was examined by measuring participants’ eye movements while they read sentences containing either a hyphenated (e.g., ulko-ovi “front door”) or concatenated (e.g., autopeli “racing game”) compound. The participants were Finnish second, fourth, and sixth graders (aged 8, 10, and 12 years, respectively). Fast second graders and all four and sixth graders read concatenated compounds faster than hyphenated compounds. This suggests that they resort to slower morpheme-based processing for hyphenated compounds but prefer to process concatenated compounds via whole-word representations. In contrast, slow second graders’ fixation durations were shorter for hyphenated than concatenated compounds. This implies that they process all compounds via constituent morphemes and that hyphenation comes to aid in this process.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 533 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

REFERENCES

Andrews, S., Miller, B., & Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10, Serial No. 238), 1–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (1999). War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a non-interactive activation parallel dual route model. Brain and Language, 68, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 390–405.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2003). The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphological structure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 615–634.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2011). How blind is the morphological parser? Evidence from processing of hyphenated compound words. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. M. (2000). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: Get by with a little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287–296.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 489–511.Google ScholarPubMed
Burani, C., Marcolini, S., De Luca, M., & Zoccolotti, P. (2008). Morpheme-based reading aloud: Evidence from dyslexic and skilled Italian readers. Cognition, 108, 243–262.Google Scholar
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190.Google Scholar
Colé, P., Royer, C., Hilton, H., Marec, N., & Gombert, J.-E. (2005). Morphology in reading acquisition and in dyslexia. In Jaffré, J.-P., Pellat, J.-C., & Fayol, M. (Eds.), The semiography of writing: Tome 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Rueckl, J., DiLiberto, K., Pastizzo, M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2002). Morphological analysis by child readers as revealed by the fragment completion task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 529–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 751–765.Google Scholar
Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2001). Priming complex words: Evidence for supralexical representation of morphology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 127–131.Google Scholar
Häikiö, T., Bertram, R., Hyönä, J., & Niemi, P. (2009). Development of the letter identity span in reading: Evidence from the eye movement moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 167–181.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A., & O'Mara, D. A. (2006). Hyphenation can improve reading in acquired phonological dyslexia. Aphasiology, 20, 744–761.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1612–1627.Google ScholarPubMed
Juhasz, B. J., Starr, M. S., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, l. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlsson, F., & Koskenniemi, K. (1985). A process model of morphology and lexicon. Folia Linguistica, 29, 207–231.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (in press). Reading of polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.Google Scholar
Laine, M., & Virtanen, P. (1999). WordMill lexical search program. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.Google Scholar
Lindeman, J. (1998). ALLU: Ala-asteen Lukutesti [ALLU: Reading test for elementary school]. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, Center for Learning Research.Google Scholar
Longtin, C.-M., & Meunier, F. (2005). Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunieur, F., & Longtin, C.-M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Bertram, R., Häikiö, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Morphologically family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1271–1278.Google Scholar
Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). The effects of root frequency, word frequency, and length on the processing of prefixed English words during reading. Memory & Cognition, 34, 685–702.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2000). The role of morphological constituents in reading Finnish compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 820–833.Google Scholar
Rabin, J., & Deacon, H. (2008). The representation of morphologically complex words in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 35, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1090–1098.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211–236.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7, 263–272.Google Scholar
Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. Mental Lexicon, 1, 183–189.Google Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 607–620.Google Scholar
Vannest, J., Bertram, R., Järvikivi, J., & Niemi, J. (2002). Counterintuitive cross-linguistic differences: More morphological computation in English than in Finnish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 83–106.Google Scholar
Vannest, J., & Boland, J. E. (1999). Lexical morphology and lexical access. Brain and Language, 68, 324–332.Google Scholar