หน้าหลัก

Their structure (cf., Krott et al., 2006). English compounds, like Italian compounds Their structure (cf., Krott et al., 2006). English compounds, like Italian compounds, usually do not carry a normal morphological reflex of compound structure. Fiorentino and Poeppel (2007) give proof that lexicalized English compounds are decomposed into morphological constituents. They utilized a visual lexical selection activity together using the electrophysiological brain-imaging approach magnetoencephalography (MEG), comparing the processing of lexicalized compounds (e.g., teacup) and matched lengthy monomorphemic words (e.g., throttle). The outcomes showed faster response times and earlier latency from the M350 element, argued to index lexical access, for the compounds compared to the monomorphemic words. This finding was interpreted as reflecting constituent activation for the lexicalized compounds. As this study did not manipulate aspects which may possibly reflect post-decompositional, integrative processing, further neurophysiological investigation on the processing of English compounds is named for.1 In addition, effects of morphological constituent access and effects of morphological combination have seldom been investigated systematically inside the exact same study (and have not been investigated with visually-presented lexicalized and novel English compounds, to our expertise). A current study that approached this problem for auditorily-presented English compounds is MacGregor and Shtyrov (2013), who utilized a mismatch negativity paradigm and showed effects of whole-word frequency for semantically opaque but not transparent compounds within the mismatch negativity time window (130?60 ms post-onset from the second constituent), and increased negativities for transparent than opaque compounds, for low- in comparison with high-frequency compounds, and for pseudocompounds (akin for the novel compounds inside the present study) in their N400 time window (350?00 ms post-onset of the second constituent). They interpret these effects as reflecting at the very least in part recourse to combinatorial processing for transparent compounds, with a additional main reliance on stored lexical representation for opaque compounds (given that opaque compounds yielded effects ofNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript1See also Pratarelli (1995) to get a study on English auditorily presented compounds working with a picture-word priming activity, showing N400 responses sensitive to semantic relatedness amongst the image in addition to a subsequently presented compound with either complete overlap or overlap of a shared morpheme amongst the picture and compound word. Cogn Neuropsychol. Author manuscript; offered in PMC 2015 January 01.Fiorentino et al.Pagefrequency in the mismatch negativity, and significantly less adverse N400s than transparent compounds, that is taken to implicate less combinatorial processing).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptParticipantsAs discussed above, investigating this challenge with visually-presented compounds delivers a crucial test case for the extent of morpheme-based processing in compounds, and for elucidating the neurophysiological mechanisms that help this processing. In the visual modality, compound appears at after as an alternative to unfolding more than time, and will not carry prosodic markers of morphological status like auditory compounds may well (see, e.g., Koester et al., 2004; Isel, Gunter, Friederici, 2003 for discussion of prosody in compounds); additionally, in English, compounds do not carry a morphological marker of compound structure, offering a.