Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40050532›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Compositional processing in the recognition of Chinese compounds: Behavioural and computational studies.

Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Marco Marelli, Kathleen Rastle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cheng-Yu HsiehDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK. Cheng-Yu.Hsieh.2021@live.rhul.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2826-1435
Marco MarelliDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5831-5441
Kathleen RastleDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3070-7555

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/W002310/1)European Research Council ERC-COG-2022Ministry of Education, Taiwan 1100173777
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research has shown that the compositional meaning of a compound is routinely constructed by combining meanings of constituents. However, this body of research has focused primarily on Germanic languages. It remains unclear whether this same computational process is also observed in Chinese, a writing system characterised by less systematicity of the meanings and functions of constituents across compounds. We quantified the ease of integrating the meanings of Chinese constituent characters into a compositional compound meaning using a computational model based on distributional semantics. We then showed that this metric predicted sensibility judgements on novel compounds (Study 1), lexical decision latencies for rejecting novel compounds (Study 2), and lexical decision latencies for recognising existing compounds (Study 3). These results suggest that a compositional process is involved in Chinese compound processing, even in tasks that do not explicitly require meaning combination. Our results also suggest that a generic statistical learning framework is able to capture the meaningful functions of Chinese compound constituents. We conclude by discussing the advantages of routine meaning construction during compound processing in Chinese reading.

Indexed as

LanguageReadingRecognition, PsychologySemanticsAdultChinaHumansMalePsycholinguisticsChinese word recognitionCompositional distributional semanticsCompound processingMeaning construction

Identifiers

PMID40050532
PMCPMC12325552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.