Relation availability was not confounded with familiarity or plausibility in Gagné and Shoben (1997): Comment on Wisniewski and Murphy (2005).

C. L. Gagné and E. Shoben (1997) proposed that the conceptual system contains information about how concepts are used to modify other concepts and that this relational information influences the ease with which concepts combine. Recently, E. J. Wisniewski and G. L. Murphy suggested that C. L. Gagné and E. Shoben's measure of relation availability was confounded with familiarity and plausibility and that the participants could simply retrieve the stored meanings of the phrases because the phrases were not novel. In this article, the authors demonstrate that E. J. Wisniewski and G. L. Murphy's plausibility and familiarity judgments are dependent variables that (a) are themselves responsive to changes in relation availability, (b) modifier relation availability predicts response time even when the influence of phrase familiarity and plausibility is controlled, and (c) the materials consisted of mainly novel phrases.

[1]  W S Murray,et al.  Serial mechanisms in lexical access: the rank hypothesis. , 2004, Psychological review.

[2]  J. Hampton.  Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[3]  J. Fodor,et al.  The red herring and the pet fish: why concepts still can't be prototypes , 1996, Cognition.

[4]  Gregory L. Murphy,et al.  Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination , 1990 .

[5]  H. H. Clark.  Psychology and language , 1977 .

[6]  Judith N. Levi,et al.  The syntax and semantics of complex nominals , 1978 .

[7]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Lexical and Relational Influences on the Processing of Novel Compounds , 2002, Brain and Language.

[8]  Kevin J. Hawley,et al.  Contribution of perceptual fluency to recognition judgments. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Allen and Rosenbloom Paul S. Newell,et al.  Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice , 1993 .

[10]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  E. Wisniewski.  When concepts combine , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. , 1988 .

[13]  Lila R. Gleitman,et al.  Phrase and Paraphrase: Some Innovative Uses of Language , 1970 .

[14]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Gert Storms,et al.  Does the order of head noun and modifier explain response times in conceptual combination? , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[16]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Direct versus indirect tests of memory for source: judgments of modality. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Gregory L. Murphy,et al.  Comprehending Complex Concepts , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. , 2000 .

[19]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[20]  Veronica J. Dark,et al.  Perceptual Fluency and Recognition Judgments , 1985 .

[21]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  The Contributions of Verb Bias and Plausibility to the Comprehension of Temporarily Ambiguous Sentences , 1997 .

[22]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun–noun compounds , 2004, Brain and Language.

[23]  Gregory L Murphy,et al.  Frequency of relation type as a determinant of conceptual combination: a reanalysis. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Influence of Thematic Relations on the Comprehension of Modifier–noun Combinations , 1997 .