Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 304-319

  Estes, Zachary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037295144     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00507-7     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bock, J. S., & Clifton, C. (2000). The role of salience in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1378-1386.
2. Coolen, R., van Jaarsveld, H. J., & Schreuder, R. (1991). The interpretation of isolated novel nominal compounds. Memory & Cognition, 19, 341-352.
3. Costello, F., & Keane, M. T. (1997). Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 137-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349.
5. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 255-271.
6. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810-842.
7. Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (1998). Contextual activation of features of combined concepts. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 333-338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (1999). Relevance and feature accessibility in combined concepts. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 149-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2000a). Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 28-34.
10. Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2000b). Similarity and attribution in concept combination: Reply to Wisniewski. Memory & Cognition, 28, 39-40.
11. Franks, B. (1995). Sense generation: A "quasi-classical" approach to concepts and concept combination. Cognitive Science, 19, 441-505.
12. Gagné, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and dual-process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 365-389.
13. Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 236-254.
14. Gagné, C. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Influence of discourse context on feature availability in conceptual combination. Discourse Processes, 22, 79-101.
15. Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 71-87.
16. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152-158.
17. Gerrig, R. J., & Bortfeld, H. (1999). Sense creation in and out of discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 457-468.
18. Gerrig, R. J., & Murphy, G. L. (1992). Conceptual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 205-230.
19. Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and Paraphrase: Some Innovative Uses of Language. New York: Norton.
20. Glucksberg, S., & Estes, Z. (2000). Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 510-515.
21. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.
22. Hampton, J. A. (1988). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 12-32.
23. Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
24. Luchins, A. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(1), entire.
25. Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 54-70.
26. Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 259-288.
27. Springer, K., & Murphy, G. L. (1992). Feature availability in conceptual combination. Psychological Science, 3, 111-117.
28. Warren, B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
29. Wilkenfeld, M. J., & Ward, T. B. (2001). Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 21-38.
30. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434-453.
31. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 167-183.
32. Wisniewski, E. J. (2000). Similarity, alignment, and conceptual combination: Comment on Estes and Glucksberg. Memory & Cognition, 28, 35-38.
33. Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.
34. Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (2000). A dual-process account of conceptual combination and metaphor. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.
35. Wisniewski, E. J., & Middleton, E. L. (2002). Of bucket bowls and coffee cup bowls: Spatial alignment in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 1-23.