June 2013, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 463-469,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 06 Oct 2012
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.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database. (2.5 ed.): Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316.CrossRef
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., & Cortese, M. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning (a travel update). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 285–375). London: Academic Press.CrossRef
Binder, J. R., & Price, C. J. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of language. In R. Cabeza & A. Kingstone (Eds.), Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition (pp. 187–251). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(1), 73–79.CrossRef
Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 371–383.CrossRef
Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 384–387.CrossRef
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(1), 71–87.CrossRef
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20–35.CrossRef
Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12(4), 395–427.CrossRef
Graves, W. W., Binder, J. R., Seidenberg, M. S., & Desai, R. H. (2012). Neural correlates of semantic processing in reading aloud. In M. Faust (Ed.), The Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language vol 1 (pp. 167–183). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.), The Computer and Literary Studies. Edinburgh: University Press.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240.CrossRef
Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). Conceptual combination The Big Book of Concepts (pp. 443–475). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms., from http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 45–52.CrossRef
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76(1, Pt. 2), 1–25.CrossRef
Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Sanders, M., & Langer, P. (1984). Pre- and postlexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 315–328.CrossRef
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2007). A USENET corpus (2005–2007), from http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~westburylab/downloads/usenetcorpus.download.html
Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(2), 439–456.
Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177–202.CrossRef
Wisniewski, E. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2005). Frequency of relation type as a determinant of conceptual combination: A reanalysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 31(1), 169–174.CrossRef
- Noun–noun combination: Meaningfulness ratings and lexical statistics for 2,160 word pairs
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Behavior Research Methods
Volume 45, Issue 2 , pp 463-469
- Cover Date
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Conceptual combination
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Smith Hall Room 337, 101 Warren Street, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA
- 2. Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
- 3. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI, USA