Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 281–294 | Cite as

An Investigation into the Processing of Lexicalized English Blend Words: Evidence from Lexical Decisions and Eye Movements During Reading

  • Barbara J. JuhaszEmail author
  • Rebecca L. Johnson
  • Jennifer Brewer


New words enter the language through several word formation processes [see Simonini (Engl J 55:752–757, 1966)]. One such process, blending, occurs when two source words are combined to represent a new concept (e.g., SMOG, BRUNCH, BLOG, and INFOMERCIAL). While there have been examinations of the structure of blends [see Gries (Linguistics 42:639–667, 2004) and Lehrer (Am Speech 73:3–28, 1998)], relatively little attention has been given to how lexicalized blends are recognized and if this process differs from other types of words. In the present study, blend words were matched to non-blend control words on length, familiarity, and frequency. Two tasks were used to examine blend processing: lexical decision and sentence reading. The results demonstrated that blend words were processed differently than non-blend control words. However, the nature of the effect varied as a function of task demands. Blends were recognized slower than control words in the lexical decision task but received shorter fixation durations when embedded in sentences.


Blends Word formation processes Visual word recognition Eye movements Lexical decision 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Barbara J. Juhasz, Rebecca L. Johnson and Jennifer Brewer declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Algeo, J. (1977). Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech, 52, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or nonlexical effects? Journal of Memory and Language., 25(6), 726–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. H., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42.
  7. Bauer, L. (1998). Is there a class of neoclassical compounds, and if so is it productive? Linguistics, 36, 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cannon, G. (1986). Blends in English word formation. Linguistics, 24, 725–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, P., & Stevenson, S. (2010). Automatically identifying source words of lexical blends in English. Computational Linguistics, 36, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jong, N. H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, R. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81, 555–567.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Drieghe, D., Pollatsek, A., Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2010). Parafoveal processing during reading is reduced across a morphological boundary. Cognition, 116, 136–142.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). The role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from Basque and Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1171–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiorentino, R., & Fund-Reznicek, E. (2009). Masked morphological priming of compound constituents. The Mental Lexicon, 4, 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 953–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gries, S Th. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics, 42, 639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyönä, J., & Pollatsek, A. (1998). The role of component morphemes on eye fixations when reading Finnish compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1612–1627.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Inhoff, A. W., Briihl, D., & Schwartz, J. (1996). Compound word effects differ in reading, on-line naming, and delayed naming tasks. Memory & Cognition, 24, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inhoff, A. W., Starr, M. S., Solomon, M., & Placke, L. (2008). Eye movements during the reading of compound words and the influence of lexeme meaning. Memory & Cognition, 36, 675–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juhasz, B. J. (2007). The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. In R. von Gompel, W. Murray, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 373–389). Boston, MA: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juhasz, B. J. (2008). The processing of compound words in English: Effects of word length on eye movements during reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1057–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Juhasz, B. J. (2012). Sentence context modifies compound word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 855–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Juhasz, B. J., & Berkowitz, R. N. (2011). Effects of morphological families on English compound word recognition: A multitask investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 653–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Juhasz, B. J., Starr, M., 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelly, M. H. (1998). To “brunch” or to “brench”: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics, 36, 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuperman, V., Drieghe, D., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 563–580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Laubstein, A. S. (1999). Lemmas and lexemes: The evidence from blends. Brain and Language, 68, 135–143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehrer, A. (1996). Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lehrer, A. (1998). Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech, 73, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica, 15, 371–384.Google Scholar
  34. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. López Rúa, P. (2004). The categorical continuum of English blends. English Studies, 85, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2000). The role of morphological constituents in reading Finnish compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 820–833.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2006). Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica, 40, 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shoolman, N., & Andrews, S. (2003). Recehorses, reindeer, and sparrows: Using masked priming to investigate morphological influences on compound word identification. In S. Kinoshita & S. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 241–278). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  41. Simonini, R. C. (1966). Word-making in present-day English. The English Journal, 55, 752–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taft, M., & Kougious, P. (2004). The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 90, 9–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Thelwall, M., & Price, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomaszewicz, E. (2008). Novel words with final combining fors in English. A case for blends in word formation. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 44, 363–378.Google Scholar
  46. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Hillard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NJ: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara J. Juhasz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebecca L. Johnson
    • 2
  • Jennifer Brewer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySkidmore CollegeSaratoga SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations