19.12.2012 Views

1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Drews, 2005, Feldman 1991), there has been relatively little research conducted with<br />

compounds. Still, thus far, the evidence gained from studies involving compounds suggests an<br />

influence <strong>of</strong> morphemic structure (see, for example, Dohmes, Zwitserlood, & Bolte 2004).<br />

Although there has been some empirical evidence that morphology plays a role in the<br />

processing <strong>of</strong> complex words, the question whether morphology is explicitly represented in the<br />

system, or whether morphological structure emerges from representation representing form <strong>and</strong><br />

meaning remains unanswered. Some researchers argue in favor <strong>of</strong> explicitly including<br />

information about a word‘s morphological structure in the mental lexicon. For example, S<strong>and</strong>ra<br />

(1994) argues that the morpheme should be considered the basic unit <strong>of</strong> representation in the<br />

lexical system. He points out that much <strong>of</strong> psycholinguistic research has focused on the access<br />

representations that mediate between the perceptual system <strong>and</strong> the mental lexicon; he argues<br />

that researchers should also focus on linguistic representations within the mental lexicon <strong>and</strong> that<br />

these representations contain linguistically relevant information (such as semantic <strong>and</strong> syntactic<br />

information). Roel<strong>of</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Baayen (2002) also support the inclusion <strong>of</strong> morphological<br />

information in psycholinguistic theories <strong>of</strong> word processing, <strong>and</strong> suggest that morphemes might<br />

act as planning units during the production <strong>of</strong> complex words rather than acting as units that<br />

convey semantic information; that is, the morphological rules that govern a complex word‘s<br />

structure might not influence a word‘s semantic interpretation (see also Aron<strong>of</strong>f 1994). Theories<br />

such as the supralexical model <strong>of</strong> morphological representation (Giraudo & Grainger, 2000,<br />

2001) assume that related forms are linked through higher (more abstract) morphemic<br />

representations which form an interface between word form <strong>and</strong> word meaning, but that these<br />

abstract morphological units are independent <strong>of</strong> word-form representation, <strong>and</strong> are accessed only<br />

after form specific representations (such as phonology <strong>and</strong> orthography) have been activated.<br />

413

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!