{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026859504132231406, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.547297297297297, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of interword spaces in the processing of English compound words

Four experiments are reported which examined the role of interword spaces in the processing of English compound words. Normally nonspaced compounds (e.g., softball) as well as normally spaced compounds (e.g., front door) were presented with either their correct spatial layout (softball, front door) or with an incorrect spatial layout (soft ball, frontdoor). Lexical decisions and first fixations on the compounds showed an advantage for interword spaces. However, when refixations on the compounds were taken into account, inserting a space into a normally nonspaced compound significantly disrupted processing. This disruption was larger for adjective-noun compounds than for noun-noun compounds. The results indicate that spatially segmenting compounds facilitates access to the constituent lexemes while spatial unification of compounds benefits the specification of full compound meaning.