Interactive property attribution in concept combination

We address the question of how people understand attributive noun—noun compounds. Alignment-andcomparison models suggest that the similarity of the constituent concepts guides interpretation. We propose, as an alternative, an interactive property attribution model wherein the modifier and head concepts have different functions: The head provides relevant dimensions, whereas the modifier provides candidate features for attribution. According to our model, the interaction of dimensions and features, rather than constituent similarity, guides interpretation. In this study, we empirically contrasted the two models by holding constituent similarity of compounds constant while varying the interaction of modifier feature salience and head dimension relevance. Compounds consisting of a head concept with a relevant dimension for attribution and a modifier with a salient property on that dimension were interpreted by means of property attribution. Other compounds with equivalent constituent similarity, but lacking the high salience—relevance interaction, were not interpreted by means of attribution. The interactive property attribution model more accurately predicted interpretation of noun—noun compounds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9]  C. Clifton,et al.  The role of salience in conceptual combination , 2000, Memory & cognition.

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

[11]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Conceptual Combination with Prototype Concepts , 1984, Cogn. Sci..

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

[13]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Conceptual Combinations: The Role of Similarity , 1998 .

[14]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

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

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

[17]  S. Glucksberg,et al.  Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity. , 1990 .

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

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

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

[21]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

[22]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

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

[24]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  The Current Status of Research on Concept Combination , 1995 .

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

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

[27]  L. Barsalou Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts , 1982, Memory & cognition.

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