Making the Constraint Model of Concept Combination More Familiar and Efficient

Constraint theory and the C model, which is the computational-level implementation of the Constraint theory, explain how novel word combinations may be understood satisfying three constraints of diagnosticity, plausibility, and informativeness. Two limitations of the C model are less efficient computation procedures that operate over a large space of possibilities in order to identify the best interpretations, and the system’s inability to deal with familiarity effects. In this paper we explore the issue of familiarity in the comprehension of noun-noun compounds and we present PUNC a prototype system for Producing and Understanding NounNoun Compounds. PUNC tries to overcome algorithmic limitations of the C model in being more efficient in its computational complexity. It also deals with a wider span of empirical phenomena, such as dimensions of word familiarity.

[1]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Setting limits on analogy: Why conceptual combination is not structural alignment. , 2001 .

[2]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Testing two theories of conceptual combination: alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[4]  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 .

[5]  Seana Coulson,et al.  Semantic Leaps: FRAME-SHIFTING , 2001 .

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

[7]  J. Gabrieli,et al.  Effects of Semantic and Associative Relatedness on Automatic Priming , 1998 .

[8]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

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

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

[11]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Polysemy in Conceptual Combination: Testing the Constraint Theory of Combination , 1996 .

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

[13]  Bradley Franks,et al.  Sense Generation: A "Quasi-Classical" Approach to Concepts and Concept Combination , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Jesse T Sheidlower Principles for the Inclusion of New Words in College Dictionaries , 1995 .

[15]  Mark T. Keane Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Dawn G. Blasko,et al.  Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[19]  M. Gernsbacher Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  Benjamin Cohen,et al.  Models of Concepts , 1984, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Umberto Eco,et al.  A theory of semiotics , 1976, Advances in semiotics.