‘Hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’: The phonological planning of compound words

Cassandra L. Jacobs, Gary S Dell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Do we say dog when we say hotdog? In five experiments using the implicit priming paradigm, we assessed whether nominal compounds composed of two free morphemes like sawdust or fishbowl are prepared for production at the segmental level in the same way that two-syllable monomorphemic words (e.g. bandit) are, or instead as sequences of separable words (e.g. full bowl or grey dust). The experiments demonstrated that nominal compounds are planned as a single sequence, not as two sequences. Specifically, the onset of the second component of the compound (e.g. /d/ in sawdust) did not act as a primeable starting point, although comparable onsets did when that component was an independent word (grey dust). We conclude that there may be a dog in hotdog at the morpheme level, but not when phonological segments are prepared for production.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)512-523
Number of pages12
JournalLanguage, Cognition and Neuroscience
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Dust
Dogs
planning
experiment
paradigm
Planning
Compound Words
Dog
Experiment
Nominal Compounds
Onset

Keywords

  • Compound words
  • Language production
  • Morphology
  • Phonological planning
  • Serial order

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Cognitive Neuroscience

Cite this

‘Hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’ : The phonological planning of compound words. / Jacobs, Cassandra L.; Dell, Gary S.

In: Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, Vol. 29, No. 4, 01.01.2014, p. 512-523.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{063b694cfc4340d68df15c04ac30e449,
title = "‘Hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’: The phonological planning of compound words",
abstract = "Do we say dog when we say hotdog? In five experiments using the implicit priming paradigm, we assessed whether nominal compounds composed of two free morphemes like sawdust or fishbowl are prepared for production at the segmental level in the same way that two-syllable monomorphemic words (e.g. bandit) are, or instead as sequences of separable words (e.g. full bowl or grey dust). The experiments demonstrated that nominal compounds are planned as a single sequence, not as two sequences. Specifically, the onset of the second component of the compound (e.g. /d/ in sawdust) did not act as a primeable starting point, although comparable onsets did when that component was an independent word (grey dust). We conclude that there may be a dog in hotdog at the morpheme level, but not when phonological segments are prepared for production.",
keywords = "Compound words, Language production, Morphology, Phonological planning, Serial order",
author = "Jacobs, {Cassandra L.} and Dell, {Gary S}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/23273798.2014.892144",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "512--523",
journal = "Language, Cognition and Neuroscience",
issn = "2327-3798",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘Hotdog’, not ‘hot’ ‘dog’

T2 - The phonological planning of compound words

AU - Jacobs, Cassandra L.

AU - Dell, Gary S

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Do we say dog when we say hotdog? In five experiments using the implicit priming paradigm, we assessed whether nominal compounds composed of two free morphemes like sawdust or fishbowl are prepared for production at the segmental level in the same way that two-syllable monomorphemic words (e.g. bandit) are, or instead as sequences of separable words (e.g. full bowl or grey dust). The experiments demonstrated that nominal compounds are planned as a single sequence, not as two sequences. Specifically, the onset of the second component of the compound (e.g. /d/ in sawdust) did not act as a primeable starting point, although comparable onsets did when that component was an independent word (grey dust). We conclude that there may be a dog in hotdog at the morpheme level, but not when phonological segments are prepared for production.

AB - Do we say dog when we say hotdog? In five experiments using the implicit priming paradigm, we assessed whether nominal compounds composed of two free morphemes like sawdust or fishbowl are prepared for production at the segmental level in the same way that two-syllable monomorphemic words (e.g. bandit) are, or instead as sequences of separable words (e.g. full bowl or grey dust). The experiments demonstrated that nominal compounds are planned as a single sequence, not as two sequences. Specifically, the onset of the second component of the compound (e.g. /d/ in sawdust) did not act as a primeable starting point, although comparable onsets did when that component was an independent word (grey dust). We conclude that there may be a dog in hotdog at the morpheme level, but not when phonological segments are prepared for production.

KW - Compound words

KW - Language production

KW - Morphology

KW - Phonological planning

KW - Serial order

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921664329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921664329&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/23273798.2014.892144

DO - 10.1080/23273798.2014.892144

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84921664329

VL - 29

SP - 512

EP - 523

JO - Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

JF - Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

SN - 2327-3798

IS - 4

ER -