From ‘<i>jellyfish’</i> to ‘<i>poisson de gelée’</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the representation of compound words in the mental lexicon by examining compound word production in bilingual speakers with aphasia. Eight bilingual speakers with aphasia named pictures of concepts with either compound or (non-compound) simple names in both of their languages. Error types were coded and analysed within and across languages with a particular focus on constituent and language mixing errors in compound words. Four participants showed significantly greater accuracy for simple than compound words, three in their dominant and/or more proficient language, and one in their non-dominant language. Constituent errors were observed for all eight bilingual participants during compound word naming, while language mixing errors were observed in six participants. The observed error patterns support co-activation of (compound) representations during word retrieval in bilingual speakers. Language mixing errors suggest that the bilingual lexicon stores a morphologically structured compound representation, an assumption that is consistent with a multiple-lemma representation of compounds. Further research is required to explore the extent to which constituent-specific access processes are at play in bilingual compound production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".