Dominance, Overextensions and the Conjunction Effect in Different Syntactic Phrasings of Concept Conjunctions

Two studies are described in which the membership ratings of relative clause descriptions of concept conjunctions (such as pets that are also birds) are compared to membership ratings of adjective-noun and noun-noun phrasings of the same conjunctions. The results show that the different phrasings of the conjunction carry the same meaning as reflected in the membership ratings. Furthermore, it is shown that the different phrasings also result in similar patterns of dominance and overextensions. The results also demonstrate that the extent to which the conjunction effect described by Smith and Osherson (1984; Osherson & Smith, 1982; Smith, Osherson, Rips, & Keane, 1988) is found in the data is related not only to the incompatibility of the constituents, but also to the dominance effect. In summary, our results provide evidence for a unitary representation of conjunctive concepts, regardless of the syntactic phrasing of the conjunction.

[1]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

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

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

[4]  L. Barsalou.  Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  D. Medin,et al.  Context and structure in conceptual combination , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  Compound Nouns and Category Structure in Young Children. , 1985 .

[7]  Iven Mechelen,et al.  Not guppies, nor goldfish, but tumble dryers, Noriega, Jesse Jackson, panties, car crashes, bird books, and Stevie Wonder , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts , 1981, Cognition.

[9]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Gradedness and conceptual combination , 1982, Cognition.

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

[11]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? , 1978 .

[12]  Iven Mechelen,et al.  Dominance and noncommutativity effects in concept conjunctions: Extensional or intensional basis? , 1993, Memory & cognition.

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

[14]  Nick Chater,et al.  WHY ARE CONJUNCTIVE CATEGORIES OVEREXTENDED , 1990 .

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

[16]  G. Murphy,et al.  Feature Availability in Conceptual Combination , 1992 .

[17]  J. Hampton.  A demonstration of intransitivity in natural categories , 1982, Cognition.

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

[19]  J. Hampton.  Polymorphous Concepts in Semantic Memory , 1979 .

[20]  J. Hampton.  Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion , 1988 .

[21]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Typicality and reasoning fallacies , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[22]  I. Mechelen,et al.  Structural analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts , 1994 .

[23]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.