de Almeida Roberto G, Gallant Jordan, Antal Caitlyn, Libben Gary
Department of Psychology, Concordia University.
Department of Linguistics and Language, McMaster University.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2025 Mar;51(3):435-459. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001378. Epub 2024 Sep 5.
How does the language comprehension system identify and interpret word constituents-or morphemes-during sentence reading? We investigated this question by employing words containing semantically ambiguous roots (e.g., , with meanings related to both "dog" and "tree") which are disambiguated when affixed by - (e.g., ; related to "dog" only). We aimed to understand whether higher-level access to the meaning of the root would be constrained by lower-level morphological affixation. In Experiment 1, using eye-tracking, participants read sentences containing words with semantically ambiguous roots, such as (a prime), combined with targets that were either related to two meanings of the root (, ) or they were cloze and unrelated controls. All five eye-tracking measures we employed (first fixation duration, gaze duration, go-past time, total reading time, and regressions to target) showed no difference between the two root-related targets, which were slower than cloze, but faster than unrelated. Results show that even in cases where a meaning is inconsistent with the full word form ), both meanings of the ambiguous root are activated. These results were supported by Experiment 2, employing a maze task in which the time to select the cloze () continuation for the sentence … was disrupted by the presence of distractors related to both meanings of bark. We discuss the implications of these findings for the nature of morphological parsing and lexical ambiguity resolution in sentence contexts. We suggest that word recognition and lexical access processes involve separating roots from affixes, yielding independent and exhaustive access to root meanings-even when they are ruled out by affixation and context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
语言理解系统在句子阅读过程中是如何识别和解释单词成分——即词素的呢?我们通过使用包含语义模糊词根(例如,具有与“狗”和“树”相关的含义)的单词来研究这个问题,这些词根在加上 - (例如,;仅与“狗”相关)时会消除歧义。我们旨在了解对词根 含义的高级访问是否会受到低级形态词缀的限制。在实验1中,使用眼动追踪技术,参与者阅读包含语义模糊词根的单词的句子,例如 (一个词素),并结合与词根的两种含义相关的目标(, ),或者是完形填空且不相关的控制目标。我们采用的所有五项眼动追踪测量指标(首次注视持续时间、注视持续时间、越过时间、总阅读时间和对目标的回视)在两个与词根相关的目标之间均未显示出差异,这两个目标比完形填空慢,但比不相关的目标快。结果表明,即使在一种含义与完整单词形式不一致的情况下(),模糊词根的两种含义都会被激活。实验2支持了这些结果,该实验采用了一个迷宫任务,其中选择句子 … 的完形填空()延续的时间因与“树皮”的两种含义相关的干扰项的存在而受到干扰。我们讨论了这些发现对句子语境中形态分析和词汇歧义消解性质的影响。我们认为,单词识别和词汇访问过程涉及将词根与词缀分离,从而对词根含义进行独立且详尽的访问——即使它们被词缀和语境排除在外。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2025美国心理学会,保留所有权利)