Skip to main content

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

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research volume 46, pages 281–294 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Algeo, J. (1977). Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech, 52, 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or nonlexical effects? Journal of Memory and Language., 25(6), 726–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

  • Bauer, L. (1998). Is there a class of neoclassical compounds, and if so is it productive? Linguistics, 36, 403–422.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, G. (1986). Blends in English word formation. Linguistics, 24, 725–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, P., & Stevenson, S. (2010). Automatically identifying source words of lexical blends in English. Computational Linguistics, 36, 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drieghe, D., Pollatsek, A., Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2010). Parafoveal processing during reading is reduced across a morphological boundary. Cognition, 116, 136–142.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorentino, R., & Fund-Reznicek, E. (2009). Masked morphological priming of compound constituents. The Mental Lexicon, 4, 159–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 953–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gries, S Th. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics, 42, 639–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhasz, B. J. (2012). Sentence context modifies compound word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 855–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. H. (1998). To “brunch” or to “brench”: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics, 36, 579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1089–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laubstein, A. S. (1999). Lemmas and lexemes: The evidence from blends. Brain and Language, 68, 135–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, A. (1996). Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 359–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, A. (1998). Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech, 73, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica, 15, 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • López Rúa, P. (2004). The categorical continuum of English blends. English Studies, 85, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2006). Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica, 40, 127–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simonini, R. C. (1966). Word-making in present-day English. The English Journal, 55, 752–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M., & Kougious, P. (2004). The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 90, 9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, 06459, USA

    Barbara J. Juhasz & Jennifer Brewer

  2. Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA

    Rebecca L. Johnson

Authors
  1. Barbara J. Juhasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca L. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Brewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara J. Juhasz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Additional information

This research was supported by a Wesleyan University project grant to the first author. We would like to thank the undergraduate research assistants who contributed to this project including Micaela Tolman, Michelle Woodcock, and Yun-Hsuan Lai. We would also like to Larry Savage who provided the inspiration to study how blend words are processed as well as lists of blends. Portions of the data were presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November 2012.

Appendix

Appendix

Blend and Non-Blend control words. Items were displayed in uppercase in Experiment 1 and in lowercase in Experiment 2 except where uppercase was warranted.

Blend Words

ALPHABET, BRUNCH, CARJACK, DRAMEDY, EBOOK, EMAIL, FEDEX, FRAPPUCCINO, INFOMERCIAL, MEDICARE, MULTIPLEX, SMOG, SPANGLISH, TWEEN, WEBCAM, WORKAHOLIC.

Non-Blend Control Words

COOKIE, COSMETIC, CHOLESTEROL, DINGO, DOPE, FILAMENT, FRONTIER, GERANIUM, GUAVA, LEMON, MAGISTRATE, MAIZE, NOZZLE, SCAFFOLD, TUBERCULOSIS, VERANDA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Juhasz, B.J., Johnson, R.L. & Brewer, J. An Investigation into the Processing of Lexicalized English Blend Words: Evidence from Lexical Decisions and Eye Movements During Reading. J Psycholinguist Res 46, 281–294 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9436-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9436-0

Keywords

  • Blends
  • Word formation processes
  • Visual word recognition
  • Eye movements
  • Lexical decision