Evidence for morphological composition at the form level in speech production

Lüttmann, Heidi; Zwitserlood, Pienie; Böhl, Andrea; Bölte, Jens

doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.575774

Cited by 32 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies, using a variety of methods, languages, and types of participants, support the claim that the production of compounds is influenced by their morphological organization, that is, that they are composed of two distinct morphemes (Ayala & Martin, 2002; Bien et al, 2005; Blanken, 2000; Dohmes et al, 2004; Gumnior et al, 2006; Koester & Schiller, 2008; 2011; Lorenz et al, 2014; Lüttmann et al, 2011; Roelofs, 1996; Roelofs & Baayen, 2002; Schiller et al, 2001, but see Chen & Chen, 2006, for discussion of Mandarin, which may differ in this respect). These results support the inclusion of a morphemic level in production.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Roelofs (1996; see also Roelofs & Baayen, 2002) showed that advance knowledge of the first syllable of a compound, which is a separate morpheme, speeded production more than advance knowledge of the first syllable of a monomorphemic word. Studies of compound production using the picture-word interference paradigm, in which a distractor word can be specifically related to a single morpheme of a target compound, have also demonstrated an influence of the morphological status of the compound’s components (Dohmes, Zwitserlood, & Bölte, 2004; Gumnior, Bölte, & Zwitserlood, 2006; Lüttmann, et al, 2011), as have studies using long-lag priming (e.g. Koester & Schiller, 2008; 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’: the phonological planning of compound words

Jacobs

Dell

2014

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do we say dog when we say hotdog? In five experiments using the implicit priming paradigm, we assessed whether nominal compounds composed of two free morphemes like sawdust or fishbowl are prepared for production at the segmental level in the same way that two-syllable monomorphemic words (e.g. bandit) are, or instead as sequences of separable words (e.g. full bowl or grey dust). The experiments demonstrated that nominal compounds are planned as a single sequence, not as two sequences. Specifically, the onset of the second component of the compound (e.g. /d/ in sawdust) did not act as a primeable starting point, although comparable onsets did when that component was an independent word (grey dust). We conclude that there may be a dog in hotdog at the morpheme level, but not when phonological segments are prepared for production.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’: the phonological planning of compound words

Jacobs

Dell

2014

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, most of them also provide evidence for morpheme based lexical representations (e.g. Bö lte, Dohmes, & Zwitserlood, 2012;Lü ttmann, Zwitserlood, Bö hl, & Bö lte, 2011; but see Janssen, Bi, & Caramazza, 2008). Similarly to the comprehension data, compound noun retrieval in production also seems to be unaffected by semantic transparency (Bö lte et al, 2012;Gumnior, Bö lte, & Zwitserlood, 2006;Lü ttmann et al, 2011;Roelofs & Baayen, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Bö lte, Dohmes, & Zwitserlood, 2012;Lü ttmann, Zwitserlood, Bö hl, & Bö lte, 2011; but see Janssen, Bi, & Caramazza, 2008). Similarly to the comprehension data, compound noun retrieval in production also seems to be unaffected by semantic transparency (Bö lte et al, 2012;Gumnior, Bö lte, & Zwitserlood, 2006;Lü ttmann et al, 2011;Roelofs & Baayen, 2002). Using the pictureÁ wordÁinterference paradigm, Lü ttmann and colleagues (2011; see also Zwitserlood, Bölte, & Dohmes, 2002) found that priming with opaque and transparent compound distractors was equally effective and lowered picture naming latencies when compared to unrelated distractor compounds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Compound naming in aphasia: effects of complexity, part of speech, and semantic transparency

Lorenz

Heide

Burchert

2013

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines spoken naming of German nominal compounds in four individuals with chronic aphasia in order to test current theories about the production of morphologically complex nouns. We investigated the impact of morphological complexity, grammatical class of the modifier, and of the constituents' semantic transparency on spoken naming accuracies, error types, and position of preserved constituents in erroneous responses. The results show that most participants were specifically impaired with compounds compared to long matched simple nouns. Furthermore, the grammatical class of the modifier affected the qualitative error pattern for three participants with agrammatic aphasia who were particularly impaired in retrieving the verbal modifier constituent as compared to the nominal head. In contrast, for nounÁnoun compounds no head superiority effect was obtained. Finally, semantic transparency did not affect overall naming accuracies, but the occurrence of constituent errors, i.e. erroneous responses overlapping with the target in one constituent. More constituent errors were observed for transparent than opaque targets. The results are compatible with decompositional and dual route accounts.

show abstract

“…The majority of studies in this area investigate morphological decomposition during compound comprehension, but see e.g. Lüttmann, Zwitserlood, Böhl, & Bölte (2011) for evidence of morphological composition during compound production.…”

Section: Noun Compoundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association norms for German noun compounds and their constituents

Walde

Borgwaldt

2015

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a collection of association norms to 246 German depictable compound nouns and their constituents, comprising 58,652 association tokens distributed over 26,004 stimulusassociate pair types. Analyses of the data reveal that participants mainly provided noun associations, followed by adjective and verb associations. In corpus analyses, co-occurrence values for compounds and their associations were below those for nouns in general and their associations. The semantic relations between compound stimuli and their associates were more often co-hyponymy and hypernymy and less often hyponymy than for associations to nouns in general. Finally, there was a moderate correlation between the overlap of associations to compounds and their constituents and the degree of semantic transparency. These data represent a collection of associations to German compound nouns and their constituents which constitute a valuable resource concerning the lexical semantic properties of the compound stimuli, and the semantic relations between the stimuli and their associations. More specifically, they can be used for stimulus selection, hypotheses testing and further research on morphologically complex words. The norms are available in text format (utf-8 encoding) as supplemental material.

show abstract

Evidence for morphological composition at the form level in speech production

Cited by 32 publications

References 50 publications

‘hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’: the phonological planning of compound words

‘hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’: the phonological planning of compound words

Compound naming in aphasia: effects of complexity, part of speech, and semantic transparency

Association norms for German noun compounds and their constituents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About