Research exploring the processing of morphologically complex words, such as compound words, has found that they are decomposed into their constituent parts during processing. Although much is known about the processing of compound words, very little is known about the processing of lexicalised blend words, which are created from parts of two words, often with phoneme overlap (e.g., brunch). In the current study, blends were matched with non-blend words on a variety of lexical characteristics, and blend processing was examined using two tasks: a naming task and an eye-tracking task that recorded eye movements during reading. Results showed that blend words were processed more slowly than non-blend control words in both tasks. Blend words led to longer reaction times in naming and longer processing times on several eye movement measures compared to non-blend words. This was especially true for blends that were long, rated low in word familiarity, but were easily recognisable as blends.
AndrewsS. (1986). Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or nonlexical effects?Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 726–740.
2.
ArcaraG.SemenzaC.BambiniV. (2014). Word structure and decomposition effects in reading. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31, 184–218. doi:10.1080/02643294.2014.903915
BrooksT. L.GarciaD. D. (2015). Evidence for morphological composition in compound words using MEG. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 215.
5.
DavisC. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65–70.
6.
DriegheD.PollatsekA.JuhaszB. J.RaynerK. (2010). Parafoveal processing during reading is reduced across a morphological boundary. Cognition, 116, 136–142.
7.
DuffyS. A.HendersonJ. H.MorrisR. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 791–801.
8.
DuffyS. A.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.
FiorentinoR.Fund-ReznicekE. (2009). Masked morphological priming of compound constituents. The Mental Lexicon, 4, 159–193.
11.
FiorentinoR.Naito-BillenY.BostJ.Fund-ReznicekE. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence for the morpheme-based combinatoric processing of English compounds. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31, 123–146. doi:10.1080/02643294.2013.855633
12.
FiorentinoR.PoeppelD. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 953–1000.
13.
GriesS. T. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics, 42, 639–667.
14.
HäikiöT.BertramR.HyönäJ. (2010). Development of parafoveal processing within and across words in reading: Evidence from the boundary paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1982–1998. doi:10.1080/17470211003592613
15.
InhoffA. W.BriihlD.SchwartzJ. (1996). Compound word effects differ in reading, on-line naming, and delayed naming tasks. Memory & Cognition, 24, 466–476.
16.
JohnsonR. L. (2009). The quiet clam is quite calm: Transposed-letter neighborhood effects on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 943–969. doi:10.1037/a0015572
17.
JuhaszB. J.JohnsonR. L.BrewerJ. (2017). An investigation into the processing of lexicalized blend words: Evidence from lexical decisions and eye movements during reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 281–294.
18.
JuhaszB. J.StarrM. S.InhoffA. W.PlackeL. (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.
KellyM. H. (1998). To “brunch” or “brench”: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics, 36, 579–590.
21.
KupermanV.SchreuderR.BertramR.BaayenR. H. (2009). Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876–895.
22.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.Bojesen ChristensenR. H. (2015).LmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-33. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
23.
LehrerA. (1996). Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 359–390.
24.
LehrerA. (1998). Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech, 73, 3–28.
25.
LehrerA. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica, 15, 371–384.
26.
LibbenG.GibsonM.YoonY. B.SandraD. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.
MorrisR. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effect on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 92–103.
29.
MorrisR. K.FolkJ. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1313–1322.
30.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.
31.
PollatsekA.HyönäJ. (2005). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Finnish compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 261–290.
32.
PollatsekA.HyönäJ.BertramR. (2000). The role of morphological constituents in reading Finnish compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 820–833.
33.
R Development Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
34.
SchustackM. W.EhrlichS. F.RaynerK. (1987). Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 322–340.
35.
SimoniniR. C. (1966). Word-making in present-day English. The English Journal, 55, 752–757.
36.
SimpsonG. B.PetersonR. R.CasteelM. A.BurgessC. (1989). Lexical and sentence context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 88–97.
37.
SlatteryT. (2009). Word misperception, the neighbor frequency effect, and the role of sentence context: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1969–1975. doi:10.1037/a0016894
38.
TaftM.ForsterK. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.
39.
ThelwallM.PriceL. (2006). Language evolution and the spread of ideas on the web: A procedure for identifying emergent hybrid word family members. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1326–1337.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
