Abstract
The present study investigated three factors that affect the interpretation of novel noun-noun (N-N) combinations: simple feature salience, ontological category, and assessed similarity. Participants read and defined a series of novel N-N combinations in which the feature salience of N1 and N2 was manipulated. Participants also rated the combinations for similarity. The combinations were constrained to be within ontological category. All interpretations were scored in terms of the strategies (property mapping vs. relation linking) used to produce the given interpretations. Highly salient features drove property-mapping interpretations based on those features. Natural kinds produced more propertymapping interpretations than did artifacts. There was no correlation between the proportion of propertymapping interpretations and the assessed similarity of the N-N combinations. These results are discussed as an extension of Estes and Glucksberg’s (2000) interactive theory of conceptual combination and argue for the importance of feature salience as a factor in conceptual combination.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality.Cognition,69, 135–178.
Barr, R. A., &Caplan, L. J. (1987). Category representations and their implications for category structure.Memory & Cognition,15, 397–418.
Barton, M. E., &Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Defining features of natural kinds and artifacts.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18, 433–447.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80(3, Pt. 2).
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns.Language,53, 810–842.
Estes, Z., &Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination.Memory & Cognition,28, 28–34.
Gagné, C. (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.
Gerrig, R. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,7, 205–230.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 50–67.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.
Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,23, 431–467.
Markman, A. B., &Wisniewski, E. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 54–70.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12, 529–562.
Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 259–288.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 27–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 434–453.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1997a). Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 51–81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1997b). When concepts combine.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 167–183.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1998). Property instantiation in conceptual combination.Memory & Cognition,26, 1330–1347.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241–284). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Love, B. C. (1998). Properties versus relations in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 177–202.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported here constituted portions of a Masters of Science thesis submitted to the University of Massachusetts by the first author and was supported in part by NIH Grant HD-18708.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bock, J.S., Clifton, C. The role of salience in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition 28, 1378–1386 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211838
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211838