Processing thematic constraints in pseudo-words. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greek Linguistics Thematic Constraints in Deverbal word formation: psycholinguistic evidence from pseudo-words 1 Christina Manouilidou University of Ottawa Abstract Η παȡȠȪıα İȡȖαıȓα αıȤȠȜİȓIJαȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ İπİȟİȡȖαıȓα IJȦȞ șİȝαIJȚțȫȞ πİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȫȞ țαIJȐ IJȘȞ ȜİȟȚțȒ αȞαȖȞȫȡȚıȘ ȝİIJαȡȘȝαIJȚțȫȞ ȥİυįȠȜȑȟİȦȞ țαȚ ȞİȠȜȠȖȚıȝȫȞ ȝİ IJα İπȚșȒȝαIJα -IJȒς, - ıȓμος, -IJȚțός, -IJός. ΠαȡȠυıȚȐȗȠυȝİ IJα απȠIJİȜȑıȝαIJα İȞȩȢ on-line πİȚȡȐȝαIJȠȢ ȜİȟȚțȒȢ αȞαȖȞȫȡȚıȘȢ IJα ȠπȠȓα țαIJαįİȚțȞȪȠυȞ ȩIJȚ Ș İπİȟİȡȖαıȓα IJȦȞ șİȝαIJȚțȫȞ ȤαȡαțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȫȞ ȥİυįȠȜȑȟİȦȞ țαȚ ȞİȠȜȠȖȚıȝȫȞ απȠIJİȜİȓ απαȡαȓIJȘIJȠ ȕȒȝα țαIJȐ IJȘȞ įȚαįȚțαıȓα αȞαȖȞȫȡȚıȘȢ αυIJȫȞ IJȦȞ IJȪπȦȞ. ΤȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ αυIJȩ απȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞįİȚȟȘ ȖȚα IJȘȞ ȪπαȡȟȘ șİȝαIJȚțȫȞ πİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȫȞ țαIJȐ IJȘȞ παȡαȖȦȖȒ ȝİIJαȡȘȝαIJȚțȫȞ IJȪπȦȞ. ΕπȓıȘȢ, ıυȗȘIJȠȪȞIJαȚ ȠȚ ıυȞȑπİȚİȢ IJȘȢ παȡȠȪıαȢ ȑȡİυȞαȢ ȖȚα IJȠȞ IJȠȝȑα IJȘȢ ȥυȤȠȖȜȦııȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ șİȦȡȓαȢ IJȘȢ ȜİȟȚțȒȢ αȞαȖȞȫȡȚıȘȢ ȩπȦȢ İπȓıȘȢ țαȚ ȖȚα IJȚȢ įȚȐφȠȡİȢ șİȦȡȓİȢ παȡαȖȦȖȚțȒȢ ȝȠȡφȠȜȠȖȓαȢ. 1.0 Introduction The goal of the present research is to investigate the status of thematic constraints in deverbal word formation by examining the processing mechanisms of pseudo-words (Pseudo-Ws) which violate the thematic specifications of the verbal root and the suffix. Before launching into a description of the study, I will briefly review the theoretical background on the role of various constraints in word formation and summarize our current knowledge on the processing of Pseudo-Ws. 2.0 Constraints in word formation Every theory of word formation acknowledges the existence of constraints on collocations of elements, indicating that not all suffixes can attach to all bases (e.g. Ralli, 2005). The use of the term constraints has the advantage of indicating that the restrictions are not absolute (Bauer, 2001). They can be classified as “stronger” and “weaker”. A “stronger” constraint describes a process in which an affix attaches only to a particular type of base, such as the suffix -ness in English (e.g. happi-ness, white-ness). A “weaker” constraint refers to the fact that an affix prefers a particular type of base or usually attaches to a particular type of base while also permitting larger classes of words to act as potential bases. For instance, the English -er prefers verbal agentive bases (e.g. teacher), but it can also attach to non- agentive verbs (e.g. hearer) and nouns (e.g. villager). The experiments discussed below focus on a specific category of constraints, called interaction constraints, which result from the relation of morphology to other components of grammar. For instance, phonological constraints on morphological compatibility are 1 The research reported here was supported by the MCRI grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#412-2001-1009) awarded to Gary Libben, Gonia Jarema, Eva Kehayia, Bruce Derwing, and Lori Buchanan.