Upload
mura
View
34
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
1. 2. Parafoveal processing of the second constituent of compound words in Finnish. Raymond Bertram 1 , Sarah White 2 , Jukka Hyönä 1. AMLaP 2006 , 31.8.2006, 09:20 - 09:40 Oral session 4: Morphology. Compound words. LASTEN/TARHAN/OPETTAJA/KOULUTUS ‘ kindergarten teacher schooling’ - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Parafoveal processing of the second constituent of
compound words in Finnish
Raymond Bertram1, Sarah White2, Jukka Hyönä1
AMLaP 2006, 31.8.2006, 09:20 - 09:40 Oral session 4: Morphology
1 2
Compound words
LASTEN/TARHAN/OPETTAJA/KOULUTUS
‘kindergarten teacher schooling’
VANILJA/KASTIKE
‘vanilla sauce’
SIVU/OVI
‘side-door’
Perceptual span
attention
------->
periphery
parafovea: poor acuity
40 40
fovea:goodacuity
20
Effective visual field in reading
Parafoveal processing: 2 critical issues
1. Do we extract semantic information from the parafovea?
Heated debate going on about this issue, most evidence speaks against it (see Rayner et al., 2003, for a review)
2. Are parafoveal words processed in parallel with fixated words?
Serial models (e.g. EZ-Reader, Reichle et al., 2003)Processing Word N before Word N+1, although Word N+1 can
be partly processed while on Word N (in later phase) Parallel models (e.g., SWIFT, Engbert, Longtin, Kliegl, 2002)
Processing Word N + Word N+1 simultaneously
Word N Word N+1
Bertram & Hyönä, JML, 2003, found that access of long compound starts off with access of 1st constituent, purely because of visual acuity reasons
1
vanilja/kastike
Effective visual field & compound words
’vanilla sauce’
Hyönä, Bertram, Pollatsek (MC, 2004) found that, nevertheless, orthographic information is extracted from 2nd constituent while fixating the 1st constituent
Current study
1. Do we extract semantic information from the parafovea in
compounds like vaniljakastike?
=> would imply that extracting information from parafovea is not only an acuity issue, but also linguistically determined
2. Are parafoveal constituents/lexemes processed in parallel with fixated constituents/lexemes?
=> across words more evidence for serial processing => does this extend to within-word processes?
vanilja seokliikastike
kastike
Identical condition: 2nd constituent same throughout
Change condition: 2nd constituent changes after saccade over invisible boundary
1 2
vanilja
1 2
Current study: boundary XP, 4 conditions
Current study: boundary XP, 4 conditions
1. Identical: vanilja/kastike ’vanilla sauce’ 2. SemRelated: vanilja/sinappi ’vanilla mustard’3. SemUnrelated: vanilja/rovasti ’vanilla priest’4. Nonword: vanilja/seoklii ’vanilla nonword’
1. Do we extract semantic information from the parafovea in compounds like vaniljakastike? 2 < 3, 4
2. Are parafoveal constituents/lexemes processed in parallel with fixated constituents/lexemes? => Parafoveal-on-foveal effects
1 2 3 4
5 6
vanilja/sinappiFirst Fixation Duration = Subgaze1 = + : gaze duration before
boundary change
Subgaze2 = + + + : gaze duration after boundary change
Early measure
Late measure
1
1 2
3 4 5 6
First fixation duration on 2nd constituent = 3
Time course of long compound processing
2. Are parafoveal constituents/lexemes processed in parallel with fixated constituents/lexemes? => Parafoveal-on- foveal effects
vanilja/kastike
Method
1. Identical: vanilja/kastike ’vanilla sauce’ 2. SemRelated: vanilja/sinappi ’vanilla mustard’3. SemUnrelated: vanilja/rovasti ’vanilla priest’4. Nonword: vanilja/seoklii ’vanilla nonword’
Semantically related: Lauran mielestä vaniljasinappi kuuluu ...
Lauran mielestä vaniljakastike kuuluu ...
To Laura’s mind vanilla sauce belongs ...
Earliest measure: First Fixation Duration
200
205
210
215
220
225
Identical:kastikesauce
SemRel:sinappimustard
SemUnr:rovastipriest
Nonword:seoklii
Fir
st f
ixat
ion
Du
rati
on
No difference between 4 conditions (F1,2 < 1).
vanilja/kastike3 4
5 61 2
1
Early measure: SubGaze1
270
290
310
330
350
370
Identical:kastikesauce
SemRel:sinappimustard
SemUnr:rovastipriest
Nonword:seoklii
Su
bG
aze1
No difference between 4 conditions (ps > .15).
vanilja/kastike3 4
5 61 2
1 2
Visual-Orthographic
Effect
Early late measure: First fixation duration on 2nd constituent
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
Identical:kastikesauce
SemRel:sinappimustard
SemUnr:rovastipriest
Nonword:seoklii
FF
D o
n c
on
stit
uen
t 2
Main effect, p1,2 < .001 Identical vs other 3 conditions (all ps < .001)
vanilja/kastike3 4
5 61 2
3
Visual-Orthographic
Effect
Lexical-Semantic
Effect
Late measure: SubGaze2
Main effect, p1,2 < .001 Identical vs other 3 conditions, all ps < .001 Other contrasts: 2-4 ps < .001; 2-3 and 3-4, ps < .05
250
290
330
370
410
450
Identical:kastikesauce
SemRel:sinappimustard
SemUnr:rovastipriest
Nonword:seoklii
Su
bG
aze2
4
3
2
1
vanilja/kastike3 4
5 61 2
3 4 5 6
Conclusions
Parafoveal processing: 2 critical issues (1)
1.Do we extract semantic information from parafovea?
If parafoveal area is 2nd constituent of a compound, the answer is yes!
=> While fixating on 1st constituent 1(vanilja), semantic information of 2nd constituent is extracted, leading to faster processing in the late stages of compound processing (after crossing constituent boundary)
Parafoveal processing: 2 critical issues (2)
2. Are parafoveal words/lexemes processed in parallel with fixated words
No! All effects were found in late measures, nothing on firstconstituent. In other words, there were no parafoveal-on-foveal
effects
=> Initial processing pertains to processing of 1st constituent.
Time course of long compound processing
=> preview of 2nd constituent; information of 2nd constituent extracted, from orthographic to semantic
vanilja/kastike1
=> Access 1st constituent: vaniljavanilja/kastike1
vanilja/kastike2 => access of 2nd constituent; ortho-
graphic preview benefits cashed in
vanilja/kastike34 5 => Semantic preview benefit
cashed in; meaning integration of constituents
Implications for eye movement control models
• Semantic preview benefit within compound words contrasts with parafoveal processing across words=> extracting parafoveal information is not only question of visual acuity => linguistic relationship between lexical units important as well!
• Lack of parafoveal-on-foveal effects in line with models of serial processing, e.g. EZ-Reader. => Attention shifts to next word/lexeme after currently fixated word/lexeme has been accessed
Kiitos!
Boundary experiment with 4 conditions
1. Identical: vanilja/kastike ’vanilla sauce’ 2. Semantically related: vanilja/sinappi ’vanilla mustard’3. Semantically unrelated: vanilja/rovasti ’vanilla priest’4. Pronounceable nonword:vanilja/seoklii ’vanilla nonword’
• 1,2,3,4 matched on 1st/2nd constituent length (average 7.5/5.4)• 2,3,4 on visual-orthographic overlap with 1;• 1,2,3 on 2nd constituent frequency (around 200 per million);• 1 vs 2 and 2 vs 3 pretested on semantic relatedness (scale 1-7)
=> 1 vs 2: 5.8 2 vs 3: 1.4
• Semantically related: Lauran mielestä vanilja/sinappi kuuluu ...
• Semantically related: Lauran mielestä vanilja/kastike kuuluu ...
• In order to minimise the possibility of participants consciously noticing display change => boundary located prior to the ultimate letter of the first constituent. • Participants were only included in the analyses if they reported to have noticed no more than five changes
Method
• Latin square design • 28 sentences were filler items without display change• 4 lists of 84 sentences were constructed (56 targets + 28 fillers)• 50% items without display change (14 identical + 28 fillers)• 7 participants were randomly allocated to each list• Participants asked to read for comprehension• Comprehension question after 18 of the 84 sentences• Eye movements monitored by EyeLink 2
Method
Size of parafoveal preview benefit (Identical – Preview Type)
Visually Visually First 2-3 First 2-3First 2-3Dissimilar Similar Identical Identical Identical
Study All Xs Letters Letters +Rest Xs Rest Vis. Rest Vis. Dissimilar Similar
Balota et al. 1985 +31 +8Rayner et al. 1986 +40 +5Lima, 1987, XP1 +18 +1Lima, 1987 XP2 +29 +30Inhoff, 1989a, XP1 +52 +26Inhoff, 1989a, XP2 +53 +38Inhoff, 1989b, XP1 +54 +38Inhoff, 1989b, XP2 +32 +24Inhoff, 1989b, XP3 +22 +16Henderson &Ferreira, 1990, XP1 +5 -6Henderson &Ferreira, 1990, XP2 +11 +1Pollatsek et al., 1992 +43 +25 +10 -17Briihl & Inhoff, 1995, XP1 +38Briihl & Inhoff, 1995, XP2 +41 +30Kennison & Clifton, 1995 +28Inhoff et al., 2000 +91Altarriba et al. (2001) +33 +15
Mean +42 +41 +16 +28 +14 -4
•The effect is much larger than any preview benefit effect before
Further conclusions
• => attention spreads more to the parafovea within a compound word than across two subsequent words!
vanilja/kaefhlavanilja/kastike
101 ms
Hyönä et al, 2004
new door new tune new sorpnew song new song new song 44ms 40 ms 5 ms
Rayner, Balota, Pollatsek, 1986
Change:NoChange:
Implications for processing models
At least for one type of words, we can say: Yes =>before whole-word units, c1 before c2
• Morphological processing modelsAre morphemic units used in the course of processing? If so, how/when?
Whole word access
Morphemic access
VANILJA_KASTIKE
C1 C2
IntC1C2
Method Hyönä et al.
1) Boundary that determined display change was always the constituent boundary.
2) The first two letters of the 2nd constituent were preserved in the change condition and all the other letters were changed to visually similar letters).
3) This was done so that display change was not noticed and to create a visual-orthographic condition that was quite similar to the no change condition
Studying processing of compound words in context using online measures of eye movement behavior
More detailed insight in the role of morphology during complex word processing => Morphological processing models
Specification of eye movement behavior as a function of morphological structure => General eye movement models of reading
Compound words & processing models
Compound words & processing models
• Morphological processing modelsAre morphemic units used in the course of processing? If so, how/when?
Whole word access
SIVU_OVI Morphemic access
VANILJA_KASTIKE
brilliant
• We do extract information from word N+1, while we are fixating on word N => Parafoveal preview benefits
• The information we extract is low-level information (pertaining to word length and orthographic/phonological level)
• We process words in a serial manner: first word N, than word N+1 => We do not find effects on word N as a function of manipulations of word N+1 => No parafoveal-on-foveal effects (cf EZ-READER, Reichle et al., 2003)
Parafoveal processing across words
WORD N WORD N+1
tunesongsorpsongsong Rayner, Balota, Pollatsek, 1986
Compound words & processing models
General eye movement models of reading• How do foveal and parafoveal processes interact?
John Smith is a great groundskeeper.
b. Hyönä et al. (2004) also tested whether readers extract orthographic information from the latter part of the 2nd consti-tuent, at the same time as they process the 1st constituent.
No change condition: v a n i l j a k a s t i k e
Change condition: v a n i l j a k a e f l h a
Effective visual field & compound words
1 2 3 4
If you extract orthographic information from kastike at the same time as you process the first constituent, the change manipulation should affect processing behavior on early measures already => parafoveal-on-foveal effects
Gaze Duration whole word= + + + + +
1
vanilja/kaeflha2 3 4
5 6
vanilja/kastike
First Fixation Duration = Subgaze1 = + : gaze duration before
boundary changeSubgaze2 = + + + : gaze duration
after boundary change
Early measure
Late measure
1
1 2
3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 65Global measure
Major Findings Hyönä et al.
Change effect, but in later measures only
MeasureNoChange (kastike)
Change (kaeflha)
Change Effect
1st Fixation duration 225 227 2
Subgaze1 260 268 8
Subgaze2 345 426 81 **
Gaze Duration 538 639 101 **
1
vanilja/kaeflha2 3 4
5 6
vanilja/kastike
1
1 2
3 4 5 6
3 4 5 61 2
Orthographic information of latter part of second constituent is picked up during first fixation(s).
However, the fact that the change effects are late suggests that processing of the two constituents is serial (in line with e.g. EZ-Reader)
First constituent frequency manipulation in this experiment yielded solid effects from the first fixation onwards
Conclusions
• With more attention spreading to parafovea, semantic parafoveal processing may take place within compounds
• Visual-orthographic manipulations in Hyönä et al. were subtle => parallel processing may take place (e.g., processing 1st constituent and first letters of 2nd constituent at the same time), but stronger visual-orthographic manipulations are called for
than in case of k a s t í k e vs. k a e f l h a
Current study: boundary XP, 4 conditions
1. Identical: vanilja/kastike ’vanilla sauce’ 2. SemRelated: vanilja/sinappi ’vanilla mustard’3. SemUnrelated: vanilja/rovasti ’vanilla priest’4. Nonword: vanilja/seoklii ’vanilla nonword’
Current study: boundary XP, 4 conditions
1. Identical: vanilja/kastike ’vanilla sauce’ 2. SemRelated: vanilja/sinappi ’vanilla mustard’3. SemUnrelated: vanilja/rovasti ’vanilla priest’4. Nonword: vanilja/seoklii ’vanilla nonword’
1. Do we extract semantic information from the parafovea in compounds like vaniljakastike? 2 < 3, 4
1b. Do we extract orthographic information from the parafovea in compounds like vaniljakastike? 1 < 2, 3, 4
• LASTEN_TARHAN_OPETTAJA_KOULUTUS
• Bertram & Hyönä, JML, 2003
• => Visual Acuity Hypothesis: access of long compound starts off with access of 1st constituent due to visual acuity benefit of 1st constituent over the latter part of the word.
Effective visual field & compound words
1 1
sivu/ovi
2
vanilja/kastike