The role of salience in conceptual combination

The present study investigated three factors that affect the interpretation of novel noun-noun (N-N) combinations: simple feature salience, ontological category, and assessed similarity. Participants read and defined a series of novel N-N combinations in which the feature salience of N1 and N2 was manipulated. Participants also rated the combinations for similarity. The combinations were constrained to be within ontological category. All interpretations were scored in terms of the strategies (property mapping vs. relation linking) used to produce the given interpretations. Highly salient features drove property-mapping interpretations based on those features. Natural kinds produced more propertymapping interpretations than did artifacts. There was no correlation between the proportion of propertymapping interpretations and the assessed similarity of the N-N combinations. These results are discussed as an extension of Estes and Glucksberg’s (2000) interactive theory of conceptual combination and argue for the importance of feature salience as a factor in conceptual combination.

[1]  E. Wisniewski.  Construal and Similarity in Conceptual Combination , 1996 .

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

[3]  L. Rips.  Similarity, typicality, and categorization , 1989 .

[4]  Edward J. Wisniewski,et al.  Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. , 1997 .

[5]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[7]  W. Ahn.  Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts?: the role of causal status in determining feature centrality , 1998, Cognition.

[8]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  Relations versus Properties in Conceptual Combination , 1998 .

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

[10]  R. Barr,et al.  Category representations and their implications for category structure , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[11]  E. Wisniewski,et al.  Property instantiation in conceptual combination , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Pamela A. Downing.  On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns. , 1977 .

[13]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Relation-Based Combinations Versus Property-Based Combinations: A Test of the CARIN Theory and the Dual-Process Theory of Conceptual Combination , 2000 .

[14]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[15]  F. Keil.  Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development , 1989 .

[16]  D. Gentner,et al.  Chapter 10 On the Combinatorial Semantics of Noun Pairs: Minor and Major Adjustments to Meaning , 1991 .

[17]  L. Komatsu,et al.  Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts , 1989 .

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

[19]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Property attribution in metaphor comprehension , 1997 .

[20]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Interactive property attribution in concept combination , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Richard J. Gerrig,et al.  Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts , 1992 .

[22]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different: The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .

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