Parafoveal processing of the second constituent of compound words in Finnish

1. 1 2 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

2. Compound words LASTEN/TARHAN/OPETTAJA/KOULUTUS ‘kindergarten teacher schooling’ VANILJA/KASTIKE ‘vanilla sauce’ SIVU/OVI ‘side-door’

3. Effective visual field in reading Perceptual span attention -------> parafovea: poor acuity 40 40 fovea: good acuity 20 periphery

4. 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

5. Effective visual field & compound words 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 ’vanilla sauce’ Hyönä, Bertram, Pollatsek (MC, 2004) found that, nevertheless, orthographic information is extracted from 2nd constituent while fixating the 1st constituent

6. 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?

7. 2 2 Current study: boundary XP, 4 conditions Identical condition: 2nd constituent same throughout Change condition: 2nd constituent changes after saccade over invisible boundary 1 vanilja kastike 1 vanilja seoklii kastike

8. 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

9. First fixation duration on 2nd constituent = 3 Time course of long compound processing 6 5 1 2 4 3 vanilja/sinappi vanilja/kastike First Fixation Duration = Subgaze1 = + : gaze duration before boundary change Subgaze2 = + + + : gaze duration after boundary change Early measure 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Late measure 2. Are parafoveal constituents/lexemes processed in parallel with fixated constituents/lexemes? => Parafoveal-on- foveal effects

10. 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 ...

11. 5 6 2 3 4 1 vanilja/kastike Earliest measure: First Fixation Duration 1 • No difference between 4 conditions (F1,2 < 1).

12. 5 6 2 3 4 1 vanilja/kastike Early measure: SubGaze1 2 1 • No difference between 4 conditions (ps > .15).

13. 5 6 2 3 4 1 vanilja/kastike Visual- Orthographic Effect Early late measure: First fixation duration on 2nd constituent 3 • Main effect, p1,2 < .001 • Identical vs other 3 conditions (all ps < .001)

14. 5 6 2 3 4 1 vanilja/kastike Visual- Orthographic Effect Lexical- Semantic Effect Late measure: SubGaze2 3 4 5 6 4 3 2 1 • 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

15. Conclusions

16. 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)

17. 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 first constituent. In other words, there were no parafoveal-on-foveal effects => Initial processing pertains to processing of 1st constituent.

18. Time course of long compound processing 1 vanilja/kastike => Access 1st constituent: vanilja => preview of 2nd constituent; information of 2nd constituent extracted, from orthographic to semantic 1 vanilja/kastike 2 => access of 2nd constituent; ortho-graphic preview benefits cashed in vanilja/kastike 4 5 3 => Semantic preview benefit cashed in; meaning integration of constituents vanilja/kastike

19. 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

20. Kiitos!

21. 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

22. Method • 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

23. 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

24. Size of parafoveal preview benefit (Identical – Preview Type) Visually Visually First 2-3 First 2-3 First 2-3 Dissimilar Similar Identical Identical Identical Study All XsLetters Letters +Rest Xs Rest Vis. Rest Vis. Dissimilar Similar Balota et al. 1985 +31 +8 Rayner et al. 1986 +40 +5 Lima, 1987, XP1 +18 +1 Lima, 1987 XP2 +29 +30 Inhoff, 1989a, XP1 +52 +26 Inhoff, 1989a, XP2 +53 +38 Inhoff, 1989b, XP1 +54 +38 Inhoff, 1989b, XP2 +32 +24 Inhoff, 1989b, XP3 +22 +16 Henderson & Ferreira, 1990, XP1 +5 -6 Henderson & Ferreira, 1990, XP2 +11 +1 Pollatsek et al., 1992 +43 +25 +10 -17 Briihl & Inhoff, 1995, XP1 +38 Briihl & Inhoff, 1995, XP2 +41 +30 Kennison & Clifton, 1995 +28 Inhoff et al., 2000 +91 Altarriba et al. (2001) +33 +15 Mean +42 +41 +16 +28 +14 -4

25. Change: NoChange: new door new tune new sorp new song new song new song 44ms 40 ms 5 ms Rayner, Balota, Pollatsek, 1986 vanilja/kaefhla vanilja/kastike 101 ms Hyönä et al, 2004 Further conclusions • The effect is much larger than any preview benefit effect before • => attention spreads more to the parafovea within a compound word than across two subsequent words!

26. C1 C2 Int C1C2 Implications for processing models • Morphological processing models Are morphemic units used in the course of processing? If so, how/when? Whole word access Morphemic access At least for one type of words, we can say: Yes => before whole-word units, c1 before c2 VANILJA_KASTIKE

27. Method Hyönä et al. • Boundary that determined display change was always the constituent boundary. • 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). • 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

28. Compound words & processing models • 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

29. Compound words & processing models • Morphological processing models Are morphemic units used in the course of processing? If so, how/when? Whole word access SIVU_OVI Morphemic access VANILJA_KASTIKE

30. song song Parafoveal processing across words brilliant tune sorp song Rayner, Balota, Pollatsek, 1986 WORD N+1 WORD N • 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)

31. Compound words & processing models General eye movement models of reading • How do foveal and parafoveal processes interact? John Smith is a great groundskeeper.

32. Effective visual field & compound words 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 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

33. 6 5 1 2 4 3 vanilja/kaeflha vanilja/kastike First Fixation Duration = Subgaze1 = + : gaze duration before boundary change Subgaze2 = + + + : gaze duration after boundary change Early measure 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Late measure Gaze Duration whole word= + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 Global measure

34. Major Findings Hyönä et al. 1 2 1 4 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 5 6 • Change effect, but in later measures only 6 5 1 2 4 3 vanilja/kaeflha vanilja/kastike

35. Conclusions • 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

36. Current study: boundary XP, 4 conditions • 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 1. Identical: vanilja/kastike ’vanilla sauce’ 2. SemRelated: vanilja/sinappi’vanilla mustard’ 3. SemUnrelated: vanilja/rovasti’vanilla priest’ 4. Nonword: vanilja/seoklii’vanilla nonword’

37. 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

38. Effective visual field & compound words • 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. 1 2 1 vanilja/kastike sivu/ovi