Familiarity and relational preference in the understanding of noun-noun compounds

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1285-1297

  Tagalakis, Georgios ^a   Keane, Mark T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; EMPIRICISM; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORY;

EID: 33846018395     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193272     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. BLASKO, D. G., & CONNINE, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 295-308.
2. BOCK, J. S., & CLIFTON, C., JR. (2000). The role of salience in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1378-1386.
3. BURNARD, L. (1995). Users' reference guide for the British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Service.
4. COHEN, B., & MURPHY, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27-58.
5. CONNINE, C. M., MULLENNIX, J., SHERNOFF, E., & YELEN, J. (1990). Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 1084-1096.
6. COSTELLO, F. J., & KEANE, M. T. (1997). Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 137-142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. COSTELLO, F. J., & KEANE, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349.
8. 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, & Cognition, 27, 255-271.
9. DOWNING, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810-842.
10. ESTES, Z., & GLUCKSBERG, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 28-34.
11. 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 & Language, 42, 365-389.
12. GAGNÉ, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 236-254.
13. GAGNÉ, C. L. (2002). Metaphoric interpretations of comparison-based combinations. Metaphor & Symbol, 17, 161-178.
14. GAGNÉ, C. L., & SHOBEN, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 71-87.
15. GENTNER, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
16. GERNSBACHER, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
17. GLUCKSBERG, S., MCGLONE, M. S., & MANFREDI, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 50-67.
18. GOLDVARG, Y., & GLUCKSBERG, S. (1998). Conceptual combinations: The role of similarity. Metaphor & Symbol, 13, 243-255.
19. GRAY, K. C., & SMITH, E. E. (1995). The role of instance retrieval in understanding complex concepts. Memory & Cognition, 23, 665-674.
20. HAMPTON, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition, 15, 55-71.
21. HOEY, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
22. JESPERSEN, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles: Vol. 7. Morphology. London: Allen & Unwin.
23. KEANE, M. T., & COSTELLO, F. J. (2001). Setting limits on analogy: Why conceptual combination is not structural alignment. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 287-312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. KEANE, M. T., LEDGEWAY, T., & DUFF, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models. Cognitive Science, 18, 387-438.
25. KILGARRIFF, A., & GREFENSTETTE, G. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on the Web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29, 333-347.
26. LEVI, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
27. LYNOTT, D., TAGALAKIS, G., & KEANE, M. T. (2004). Conceptual combination with PUNC. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22, 247-267.
28. MARKMAN, A. B., & WISNIEWSKI, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 54-70.
29. MEDIN, D. L., & SHOBEN, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 158-190.
30. MURPHY, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529-562.
31. MURPHY, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. SHOBEN, E. J. (1993). Nonpredicating conceptual combinations. In G. V Nakamura, R. M. Taraban, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 29, pp. 391-409). New York: Academic Press.
33. SHOBEN, E. J., & GAGNÉ, C. L. (1997). Thematic relations and the creation of combined concepts. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 31-50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34. SPRINGER, K., & MURPHY, G. L. (1992). Feature availability in conceptual combination. Psychological Science, 3, 111-117.
35. TAGALAKIS, G., & KEANE, M. T. (2004). Automating the interpretation of novel noun-noun compounds using WordNet. In P. Gervás & K. M. Gupta (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning 2004 Workshops (pp. 225-236). Madrid: Complutense University of Madrid.
36. WISNIEWSKI, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 434-453.
37. WISNIEWSKI, E. J., & GENTNER, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241-284). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
38. WISNIEWSKI, E. J., & LOVE, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 177-202.