Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:34:57.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Picking buttercups and eating butter cups: Spelling alternations, semantic relatedness, and their consequences for compound processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

MARCO MARELLI ,
GEORGIANA DINU ,
ROBERTO ZAMPARELLI  and
MARCO BARONI
MARCO MARELLI*
Affiliation:
University of Trento
GEORGIANA DINU
Affiliation:
University of Trento
ROBERTO ZAMPARELLI
Affiliation:
University of Trento
MARCO BARONI
Affiliation:
University of Trento
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Marco Marelli, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini 31, 38068 Rovereto (TN), Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Semantic transparency (ST) is a measure quantifying the strength of meaning association between a compound word (buttercup) and its constituents (butter, cup). Borrowing ideas from computational semantics, we characterize ST in terms of the degree to which a compound and its constituents tend to share the same contexts in everyday usage, and we collect separate measures for different orthographic realizations (solid vs. open) of the same compound. We can thus compare the effects of semantic association in cases in which direct semantic access is likely to take place (buttercup), vis-á-vis forms that encourage combinatorial procedures (butter cup). ST effects are investigated in an analysis of lexical decision latencies. The results indicate that distributionally based ST variables are most predictive of response times when extracted from contexts presenting the compounds as open forms, suggesting that compound processing involves a conceptual combination procedure focusing on the merger of the constituent meanings.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1421 - 1439
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subject and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. I., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baroni, M., & Zamparelli, R. (2010). Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: Representing adjective–noun constructions in semantic space. Paper presented at the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1998). When is a sequence of noun + noun a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics, 2, 65–86.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 329–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devereux, B., & Costello, F. (2006). Modelling the interpretation and interpretation ease of noun–noun compounds using a relation space approach to compound meaning. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Dohmes, P., Zwitserlood, P., & Bölte, J. (2004). The impact of semantic transparency of morphologically complex words on picture naming. Brain and Language, 90, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). The influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 71–87.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2006). Conceptual combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. In Libben, G. & Jarema, G. (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 145–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. T. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 65, 406–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J., Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (2005). The role of interword spaces in the processing of English compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V. (2009, June). Revisiting semantic transparency in English compound words. Paper presented at the 6th International Morphological Processing Conference, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2013). Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun–noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 939–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading of multimorphemic Dutch compounds: Towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876–895.Google Scholar
Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency and processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61, 30–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, 28, 203–208.Google Scholar
Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in high-dimensional semantic space. In Moore, J. D. & Lehman, J. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lynott, D., & Ramscar, M. J. A. (2001). Can we model conceptual combination using distributional measures? Paper presented at the 12th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, Kildare, Ireland.Google Scholar
Marelli, M., & Luzzatti, C. (2012). Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M., & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34, 1388–1429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nivre, J., Hall, J., & Nilsson, J. (2006). Maltparser: A data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., & Hyönä, J. (2005). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Finnish compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 529–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnoebelen, T., & Kuperman, V. (2010). Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for linguistic research. Psihologija, 43, 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turney, P. D., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H. C., Tien, Y. M., Hsu, L. C., & Pomplun, M. (2012). Estimating semantic transparency of constituents of English compounds and two-character Chinese words using latent semantic analysis. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalized additive models. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar