Case study on the processing effort of neonyms, neologisms and non-neological units

Authors

Keywords:

experimental neology, processing effort, neologisms, neonyms, political science

Abstract

This article presents evidence on the effort required to process neological units belonging to a specific domain of expertise by subjects who are specialists in other domains. In this pre-experimental design, reaction times (RTs) and accuracy rates were measured on a group of native Spanish speakers with expertise in fields other than political science, in line with the design of Suárez et al. (in press). This study provides empirical evidence regarding the processing of neonyms by participants who are specialists in other domains, in relation to general language neologisms and non-neological units. In this respect, it allows us to contrast the results obtained with those reported in the study by Suárez et al. (in press), providing evidence confirming that the processing effort is related to the individuals’ linguistic experience, allowing the use of different cognitive mechanisms according to the degree of proximity or distance with respect to the lexicon under study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adelman, J.; Sabatos-Devito, M.; Marquis, S.; Zachary, E. (2014). “Individual differences in reading aloud: A mega-study, item effects, and some models”. Cognitive Psychology, 68, pp. 113-160.

Anderson, R. C.; Freebody, P. (1981). “Vocabulary knowledge”. In: Comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews, pp. 77-117.

Anderson, R. C.; Pearson, P. D. (1984). “A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension”. In: Handbook of Reading Research. 1, pp. 255-291.

Andrews, S. (2012). “Individual differences in skilled visual word recognition and reading: The role of lexical quality”. In: Visual Word Recognition. 2: Meaning and Context, Individuals and Development. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Arándiga, A. V. (2005). “Comprensión lectora y procesos psicológicos”. Liberabit. Revista Peruana de Psicología, 11, pp. 49-61.

Ausubel, D.; Novak, J.; Hanesian, H. (1983). Psicología educativa: Un punto de vista cognoscitivo. 2nd ed. Mexico, D.F.: Trillas.

Ávila, C. P. C.; Higuera, M. R.; Soler, R. N. C. (2017). “Lectura crítica. Definiciones, experiencias y posibilidades”. Saber, Ciencia y Libertad, 12 (2), pp. 184-197.

Balbi, A.; Cuadro, A.; Trías, D. (2009). “Comprensión lectora y reconocimiento de palabras”. Ciencias Psicológicas, 3 (2), pp. 153-160.

Baayen, R. H.; Milin, P.; Durdevic, D. F.; Hendrix, P.; Marelli, M. (2011). “An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning”. Psychological Review, 118, pp. 438-481.

Baayen, R. H.; Shaoul, C.; Willits, J.; Ramscar, M. (2015). “Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naive discrimination learning”. In: Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31 (1), 106-128.

Berent, I.; Perfetti, C. A. (1995). “A rose is a Reez: The two-cycle model of phonology assembly in reading English”. Psychological Review, 102, (1), pp. 146-184.

Bormuth, J. R.; Manning, J.; Pearson, D. (1970). “Children’s comprehension of between and withinsentence syntactic structures”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 349–357.

Boulanger, J.-C. (2010). “Sur l’existence des concepts de ‘néologie’ et de ‘néologisme’. Propos sur un paradoxe lexical et historique”. In: Cabré, M. T.; Domènech, O.; Estopà, R. (eds.). Actes del I Congrés Internacional de Neologia de les Llengües Romàniques. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 31-73.

Brouwer, H.; Crocker, M. W.; Venhuizen, N. J.; Hoeks, J. C. (2017). “A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing”. Cognitive Science, 41, pp. 1318-1352.

Burani, C.; Caramazza, A. (1987). “Representation and processing of derived words”. Language and Cognitive Processes [online], 2 (3-4), pp. 217-227. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406932>.

Butterworth, B. (1983). “Lexical representation”. In: Butterworth, B. (ed.), Language Production. London: Academic Press, pp. 257-294.

Cabré, M. T. (1993). La terminología: Teoría, metodología, aplicaciones. 1st ed. Barcelona: Empúries.

Cabré, M. T. (2002). “La neologia efímera”. In: Cabré, M. T.; Freixa, J.; Solé, E. (eds.), Lèxic i neologia. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Institut Universitari de Lingü.stica Aplicada. Observatori de Neologia, pp. 13-28.

Cabré, M. T. (2015). “La neologia: un nou camp a la cerca de la seva consolidació científica”. Caplletra. Revista Internacional de Filologia [online], 59, pp. 125-136. <https://doi.org/0214- 8188>.

Campbell, D.T.; Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. (Traducción española: Amorrortu, Buenos Aires, 1973).

Castillo López. A. V. (2015). Análisis de las actividades de lectura incluidas en los libros de texto: ¿realmente desarrollan la comprensión lectora? [online]. Final-year project. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada.<https://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/handle/10481/40488/Castillo_Lopez_Ana_Victoria.pdf;jsessionid=C6977114C5D814C092BEE9EE80FB2B8B?sequence=1>.

Cervantes-Castro, R. D.; Pérez-Salas, J. A.; Pérez-Salas, M. D. (2017). “Niveles de comprensión lectora. Sistema Conalep: caso específico del plantel n.º 72”. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades Sociotam, 27 (2), pp. 73-114.

Coltheart, M.; Rastle, K.; Perry, C.; Langdon, R.; Ziegler, J. (2001). “DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud”. Psychological review, 108(1), 204–256.<https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204>.

Cree, G. S.; McRae, K.; McNorgan, C. (1999). “An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming”. Cognitive Science, 23 (3), pp. 371-414.

Cubides, C. P.; Rojas, M.; Cárdenas, R. N. (2017). “Lectura crítica. Definiciones, experiencias y posibilidades”. Saber, Ciencia y Libertad [online], 12 (2), pp. 184-197. <https://revistas.unilibre.edu.co/index.php/saber/article/view/1586>.

Cuetos, F.; Rodríguez, B.; Ruano, E. (1996). PROLEC. Procesos Lectores. Madrid: TEA.

Cunningham, A. E.; Stanovich, K. E. (1997). “Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later”. Developmental Psychology, 33 (6), pp. 934-945.

Dell, G. S.; O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). “Stages of lexical access in language production”. Cognition, 42(1-3), 287–314. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K>.

Devlin, K. (2002). El lenguaje de las matemáticas. Teià, Spain: Ediciones Robinbook. <https://www.iberlibro.com/lenguaje-matem%C3%A1ticas-Keith-Devlin-Ediciones Robinbook/30357306219/bd>

Díaz Barriga, F.; Hernández Rojas, G. (2001). Estrategias docentes para un aprendizaje significativo. Una interpretación constructivista. 2nd ed. Mexico, D.F.: McGraw Hill.

Ellis, A.; Young, A. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology. London: Psychological Press.

Estornell Pons, M. (2009). Neologismos en la prensa. Criterios para reconocer y caracterizar las unidades neológicas. Valencia: Universitat de València.

Fajardo Hoyos, A.; Hernández Jaramillo, J.; González Sierra, Á. (2012). “Acceso léxico y comprensión lectora: un estudio con jóvenes universitarios”. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 14 (2), pp. 25-33.

Falbén, J. K.; Tsamadi, D.; Golubickis, M.; Olivier, J. L.; Persson, L. M.; Cunningham, W. A.; Macrae, C. N. (2019). “Predictably confirmatory: The influence of stereotypes during decisional processing”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72 (10), pp. 2437-2451.

Feldman, L. B. (1994). “Beyond orthography and phonology: Differences between inflections and derivations”. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, pp. 442-470.

Firth, J. R. (1957). “A synopsis of linguistic theory: 1930-1955”. In: Firth, J. R. (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1-32.

Freixa Aymerich, J. (2010). “La neologicidad en las unidades formadas por prefijación”. Puente 9 – Revista de Traducción, Interpretación y Terminología, pp. 11-32.

Frisson, S.; Koole, H.; Hughes, L.; Olson, A.; Wheeldon, L. (2014). “Competition between orthographically and phonologically similar words during sentence reading: Evidence from eye movements”. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, pp. 148-173.

García, J. R.; Cain, K. (2014). “Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English”. Review of Educational Research, 84 (1), pp. 74-111.

Gardin, B. (1974). “La néologie. Aspects sociolinguistiques”. Langages, 36, pp. 67-73.

Gonnerman, L. M.; Seidenberg, M. S.; Andersen, E. S. (2007). “Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1362, pp. 323-345.

Guerrero Ramos, G. (1995). Neologismos en el español actual. Madrid: Arco Libros.

Hebb, D. (1949). The Organization of Behavior. A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Jenkinson, M. D. (1976). “Modos de enseñar”. In: Staiger, R. C. (comp.). La enseñanza de la lectura. Buenos Aires: Huemul.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W.; Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). “Toward a model of text comprehension and production”. Psychological Review, 85 (5), pp. 363-394.

Lamb, S. (1999): Pathways of the Brain. The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Landauer, T. K. (2007). “LSA as a theory of meaning”. In: Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 15-46.

Landauer, T. K.; Dumais, S. T. (1997). “A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge”. Psychological Review, 104 (2), p. 211.

Lansner, A.; Fransén, E.; Sandberg, A. (2003). “Cell assembly dynamics in detailed and abstract attractor models of cortical associative memory”. Theory in Biosciences, 122, pp. 19-36.

Llopart-Saumell, E.; Freixa, J. (2014). «La función comunicativa de los neologismos: caracterización a partir de criterios basados en el uso». In: Floyd Moore, A. (ed.). Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Association of Specific Purposes (AELFE) = Actas del XII Congreso de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE): A Coruña, Spain, 5th-7th September, 2013. A Coruña: Galebook, 240-251.

Llopart-Saumell, E.; Loureda, Ó.; Cabré, M. T. ; Freixa, J. (2014). An Experimental Approach to the Study of Neologisms. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Language and Cognition Lab.

Li, Q.; Liu, G.; Wei, D.; Liu, Y., Yuan, G.; Wang, G. (2019). “Distinct neuronal entrainment to beat and meter: Revealed by simultaneous EEG-fMRI”. Neuroimage, 194, pp. 128-135.

Martín, E. (1999). “Metacognición y estrategias de aprendizaje”. In Pozo, J. I. y C. Monereo (coords.). El aprendizaje estratégico, pp: 111-122. Madrid: Santillana.

Martínez, M. C.; Álvarez, D. I.; Hernández, F.; Zapata, F.; Castillo, L. C. (2004). Discurso y aprendizaje. Cali: Universidad del Valle. Cátedra UNESCO para la Lectura y la Escritura en América Latina.

McClelland, J. L.; Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). “An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings”. Psychological Review, 88 (5), p. 375.

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Milin, P.; Smolka, E.; Feldman, L. B. (2018). “Models of lexical access and morphological processing”. In: E. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 240–268). Wiley Blackwell.

Ministerio de Educación Nacional de Colombia (2006). Estándares básicos de competencias en lenguaje, matemáticas, ciencias y ciudadanas: Guía sobre lo que los estudiantes deben saber y saber hacer con lo que aprenden. Bogotá, D. C.: MEN. Ministerio de Educación Nacional de Colombia (2011). Plan Nacional de Lectura y Escritura de Educación Inicial, Preescolar, Básica y Media. Bogotá, D. C.: MEN.

Mountcastle, V. B. (1998). Perceptual Neuroscience: The Cerebral Cortex. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nagy, W.; Anderson, R. C. (1984). “How many words are there in printed school English?”. Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (3), pp. 304-330.

Nation, K.; Snowling, M. J. (2004). “Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading”. Journal of Research in Reading, 27 (4), pp. 342-356.

O’Reilly, T.; Sheehan, K. M. (2009). Cognitively Based Assessment of, for, and as Learning: A Framework for Assessing Reading Competency. Princeton: ETS Research Report.

Orton, S.T. (1937). Reading, Writing, and Speech Problems in Children. New York: W.W. Norton.

Pérez, M. (2003). Leer y escribir en la escuela: Algunos escenarios pedagógicos y didácticos para la reflexión. Bogotá D. C., Colombia: ICFES.

Pérez, M. (2005). “Evaluación de la comprensión lectora: dificultades y limitaciones”. Revista de Educación, special issue, pp. 121-138.

Perfetti, C.; Hart, L. (2002). “The lexical quality hypothesis”. John Benjamins Publishing Company [online]. <https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.11.14per>.

Perfetti, C. A.; Stafura, J. Z. (2014). “Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension”. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), pp. 22-37.

Pinker, S. (1991). “Rules of Language”. Science, 253, 530-535.

Posner, M. I.; Rueda, M. R.; Kanske, P. (2007). “Probing the mechanisms of attention”. In: J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 410–432). Cambridge University Press. <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546396.018>.

Pulvermüller, F. (2005, reprint). The Neuroscience of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rabovsky, M.; McRae, K. (2014). “Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning”. Cognition, 132 (1), pp. 68-89.

Rueckl, J. G.; Raveh, M. (1999). “The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network”. Brain Language, 68 (1-2), pp. 110-117.

Rumelhart D. E. (1977). “Toward an interactive model of reading”. In: S. Dornic (ed) Attention and Performance, vol. VI, London, Academic Press.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). “Schemata: The building blocks of cognition”. In: Spiro, R. J. B.; Bruce, C.;

Brewer, W. F. (eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33-58.

Sablayrolles, J. F. (2009). “¿Neologismo o no? Ensayo de clarificación de algunos problemas de incorporación”. Revista de Investigación Lingüística, 12, pp. 101-122.

Seidenberg, M. (1985). “The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems”. Cognition 19, (1), pp. 1-30.

Seidenberg, M. S.; Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). “Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (9), pp. 353-361.

Smith, C. B. (1989). La enseñanza de la lecto-escritura: un enfoque interactivo. Madrid: Aprendizaje Visor.

Solé, I. (1996). Estrategias de comprensión de la lectura. Barcelona: Graó.

Strang, R. (1965). Procesos del aprendizaje infantil. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Suárez, M.; Suaza, A.; Calvache, Ó. (in press). “Estudio sobre el esfuerzo de procesamiento de neónimos, neologismos y unidades no neológicas en el marco de la neología experimental”.

Suárez de la Torre, M.; Giraldo Ospina, D.; Calvache Dulce, Ó. (2019). “Estudio semántico-cognitivo del neologismo pedalista en la variante del español de Colombia”. Pragmalingüística, 27, pp. 349-371.

Taft, M.; Forster, K. I. (1975). “Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, pp. 638-647.

Tapia, V.; Luna, J. (2008). “Procesos cognitivos y desempeño lector”. Revista de Investigación en Psicología, 11 (1), pp. 37-68.

Todd, P.; Benbasat, I. (1991). “An experimental investigation of the impact of computer based decision aids on decision. Making strategies”. Information Systems Research, 2, (2), pp. 87-115.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Estructuras y funciones del discurso. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

Van Orden, G. (1987). “A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading”. Memory & Cognition, 15, (3), pp. 181-198.

Varo, C. (2013). “Aproximación teórico-práctica al procesamiento lingü.stico de neologismos léxicos: A theoretical and practical approach to the linguistic processing of neologisms”. Revista Signos [online], 46, (81), pp. 132-152. <https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718- 09342013000100006>.

Varo, C. (2020). “Claves para descifrar la naturaleza neurocognitiva de la neología”. In: Lavale-Ortiz, R.(ed.), Cognitivismo y neología: estudios teóricos y aplicados [online]. Frankfurt a. M.; Madrid: Vervuert Verlagsgesellschaft. <https://doi.org/10.31819/9783968690247-002>.

Varo, C.; Díaz, M. T.; Paredes, M. J. (2009). “Modelos comunicativos y producción e interpretación neológicas”. Revista de Investigación Lingüística, 12, pp. 185-216.

Vega Moreno, É.; Llopart Saumell, E. (2017). “Delimitación de los conceptos de novedad y neologicidad”. RILCE, 33, (3), pp. 1416-1451.

Vinson, D.; Ponari, M.; Vigliocco, G. (2014). “How does emotional content affect lexical processing?” Cognition & Emotion, 28 (4), pp. 737-746.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-30

How to Cite

Suaza Restrepo, A., Calvache Dulce, Óscar A., Jiménez Marín, J. E., & Suárez de la Torre, M. (2023). Case study on the processing effort of neonyms, neologisms and non-neological units. Terminàlia, 2(28), 27–48. Retrieved from https://revistes.iec.cat/index.php/Terminalia/article/view/150604

Issue

No. 28: December 2023

Section

Articles

License

Authors registered on the OJS platform must read the copyright assignment terms and fill in the corresponding acceptance box.

The intellectual property of articles belongs to the respective authors.

On submitting articles for publication to the journal Terminàlia, authors accept the following terms:

  1. Authors assign to SCATERM (a subsidiary of Institut d'Estudis Catalans) the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and distribution of the articles submitted for publication to Terminàlia.
  2. Authors answer to SCATERM for the authorship and originality of submitted articles.
  3. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for the reproduction of all graphic material included in articles.
  4. SCATERM declines all liability for the possible infringement of intellectual property rights by authors.
  5. The contents published in the journal, unless otherwise stated in the text or in the graphic material, are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (by-nc-nd) 3.0 Spain licence, the complete text of which may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/deed.en. Consequently, the general public is authorised to reproduce, distribute and communicate the work, provided that its authorship and the body publishing it are acknowledged, and that no commercial use and no derivative works are made of it.
  6. The journal is not responsible for the ideas and opinions expressed by the authors of the published articles.