Noun–noun combination: Meaningfulness ratings and lexical statistics for 2,160 word pairs

The combining of individual concepts to form an emergent concept is a fundamental aspect of language, yet much less is known about it than about processing isolated words or sentences. To facilitate research on conceptual combination, we provide meaningfulness ratings for a large set of (2,160) noun–noun pairs. Half of these pairs (1,080) are reversed versions of the other half (e.g., ski jacket and jacket ski), to facilitate the comparison of successful and unsuccessful conceptual combination independently of constituent lexical items. The computer code used for obtaining these ratings through a Web interface is provided. To further enhance the usefulness of this resource, ancillary measures obtained from other sources are also provided for each pair. These measures include associate production norms, contextual relatedness in terms of latent semantic analysis distance, total number of letters, phrase-level usage frequency, and word-level usage frequency summed across the words in each pair. Results of correlation and regression analyses are also provided for a quantitative description of the stimulus set. A subset of these stimuli was used to identify neural correlates of successful conceptual combination Graves, Binder, Desai, Conant, & Seidenberg, (NeuroImage 53:638–646, 2010). The stimuli can be used in other research and also provide benchmark data for evaluating the effectiveness of computational algorithms for predicting meaningfulness of noun–noun pairs.

[1]  William W. Graves,et al.  Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[2]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Pre- and postlexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[4]  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.

[5]  R. Cabeza,et al.  Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition , 2001 .

[6]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? , 2009 .

[7]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[8]  David A. Balota,et al.  Visual Word Recognition: The Journey from Features to Meaning (A Travel Update) , 2006 .

[9]  M. Raichle Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition , 2001 .

[10]  R. Bailey,et al.  The computer and literary studies , 1974 .

[11]  Friedemann Pulverm Uuml,et al.  Words in the brain's language , 1999 .

[12]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Jeffrey R. Binder,et al.  Neural correlates of implicit and explicit combinatorial semantic processing , 2010, NeuroImage.

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

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

[16]  R. Logie,et al.  Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words , 1980 .

[17]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  F. Pulvermüller,et al.  Words in the brain's language , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  D. Howard,et al.  Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[20]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Neuroimaging studies of language production and comprehension. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[21]  E. Kaan,et al.  The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  W. F. Battig,et al.  Handbook of semantic word norms , 1978 .

[23]  Allan Paivio,et al.  Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[24]  B. Weekes Differential Effects of Number of Letters on Word and Nonword Naming Latency , 1997 .

[25]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  Evidence for conceptual combination in the left anterior temporal lobe , 2011, NeuroImage.

[26]  Bruce D. McCandliss,et al.  Development of neural systems for reading. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[27]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[28]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Handbook of Psycholinguistics , 2011 .

[29]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Language processing: functional organization and neuroanatomical basis. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[32]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Handbook of latent semantic analysis , 2007 .

[33]  Jeffrey R. Binder,et al.  Neural Correlates of Semantic Processing in Reading Aloud , 2012 .

[34]  Cathy J. Price,et al.  Functional Neuroimaging of Language , 2001 .

[35]  G. Thierry,et al.  Renewal of the neurophysiology of language: functional neuroimaging. , 2005, Physiological reviews.

[36]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  Simple Composition: A Magnetoencephalography Investigation into the Comprehension of Minimal Linguistic Phrases , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.