Combining Contextual and Morphemic Cues Is Beneficial During Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: Semantic Transparency in Novel Compound Word Processing
Abstract
In two studies, we investigated how skilled readers use contextual and morphemic information in the process of incidental vocabulary acquisition during reading. In Experiment 1, we monitored skilled readers’ eye movements while they silently read sentence pairs containing novel and known English compound words that were either semantically transparent (e.g., milkshake, drinkblend) or opaque (e.g., cocktail, deskdoor) in informative and neutral sentence contexts. In Experiment 2, we included a postreading vocabulary test following self‐paced reading, which allowed for an examination of word learning success. We found that readers showed processing time advantages for novel transparent compounds in informative contexts, when contextual and morphemic information converged on a meaning. Conversely, these readers showed processing time disadvantages for novel opaque compounds in informative contexts when contextual and morphemic information conflicted as to the interpretation of the novel compound. Postreading vocabulary test performance revealed that readers retained new word meanings after a single exposure, and retention rates were significantly improved as a result of combining contextual and morphemic cues. Further, readers spent more time reading sentences containing novel words for which they subsequently correctly identified the meaning of the novel word. The data suggest that skilled readers automatically decompose novel compound words, that readers’ ability to derive word meanings for novel English compounds is aided by pooling contextual and morphemic sources of information, and that readers’ monitoring of their comprehension when reading texts containing novel words leads to further gains in vocabulary knowledge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Brusnighan and Folk (2012) showed processing time disadvantages even in skilled adult readers when conflicting information was provided.
“Brusnighan and Folk (2012) showed processing time disadvantages even in skilled adult readers when conflicting information was provided.”
From Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 (2021) · cites this paper as Brusnighan and Folk (2012)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 68
- Authors
- Brusnighan, S. M., & Folk, J. R.
- Affiliations
- Kent State University (US)
- Venue
- Reading Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 172-190
- ISSN
- 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-2722
- OpenAlex
- W2118871974
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2012-10-10)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Reading Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- incidental vocabulary learning, compound words, semantic transparency, contextual cues, word learning, silent reading, eye movements, word decomposition, skilled readers, vocabulary retention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review