1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 15, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We investigate how people extend properties from head nouns to compound words. Two conflicting principles seem to be important. Concepts license inference of properties: Knowing that birds fly allows an inference that songbirds fly. On the other hand, a subcategory term like songbirds is created only when that subcategory contrasts with the general category of birds. Participants rate the extent to which properties true of all, some, or no members of the head noun category are true of a subcategory denoted by an Opaque-Transparent compound. Both categorical inference and contrast affect these judgments: Properties true of the head are less true of the compound though still generally true, while those false of the head are more true of the compound, though still generally false. We discuss how modification effects with Opaque-Transparent compounds compare to both Transparent-Transparent compounds and novel combinations.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
2020-10-30
2025-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
    (2010) The evolution of morphology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark, E. V.
    (1993) The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554377
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554377 [Google Scholar]
  3. Connolly, A. C., Fodor, J. A., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H.
    (2007) Why stereotypes don’t even make good defaults. Cognition, 103, 1–22. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Inferential processing and meta-knowledge as the bases for property attribution in combined concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 176–192. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2014) Subcategorisation, not uncertainty, drives the modification effect. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29:10, 1283–1294. 10.1080/23273798.2014.911924
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.911924 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2015) Semantics, concepts, and meta-cognition: Attributing properties and meanings to complex concepts. InBauer, Körtvélyessy, & Stekauer (Eds.), Semantics of Complex Words. (pp.9–25). New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Schmidtke, D.
    (2019) LADEC: Large database of English compounds. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2152–2179. 10.3758/s13428‑019‑01282‑6
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01282-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hampton, J. A.
    (1987) Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition, 15, 55–71. 10.3758/BF03197712
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197712 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1991) The combination of prototype concepts. InP. J. Schwanenflugal (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hampton, J. A., Passanisi, A., & Jönsson, M. L.
    (2011) The modifier effect and property mutability. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 233–248. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ji, H., Gagne, C. L. & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Jönsson, M. L. & Hampton, J. A.
    (2008) On prototypes as defaults (comment onConnolly, Fodor, Gleitman, and Gleitman 2007), Cognition, 106, 913–923. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2012) The modifier effect in within-category induction: Default inheritance in complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 90–116. 10.1080/01690965.2010.544107
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.544107 [Google Scholar]
  14. Keuleers, E. & Brysbaert, M.
    (2010) Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuperman, V. & Bertram, R.
    (2013) Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun-noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 939–966. 10.1080/01690965.2012.701757
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.701757 [Google Scholar]
  16. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T.
    (1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211. 10.1037/0033‑295X.104.2.211
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211 [Google Scholar]
  17. Libben, G.
    (1998) Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61(1), 30–44. 10.1006/brln.1997.1876
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1876 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2017) Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: A review and empirical validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 57–78. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Markman, E. M.
    (1989) Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Murphy, G. L.
    (2002) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., & Shafir, E.
    (1990) Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185–200. 10.1037/0033‑295X.97.2.185
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185 [Google Scholar]
  22. Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. L.
    (2015) Property attribution in combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 693–707.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Spalding, T. L., Gagné, C. L., Nisbet, K., Chamberlain, J. & Libben, G.
    (2019) If birds have sesamoid bones, do blackbirds have sesamoid bones? The modification effect with known compound words. Frontiers in Psychology: Section Language Sciences, 10:1570. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01570
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01570 [Google Scholar]
  24. StataCorp
    StataCorp (2017) Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station: StataCorp LP.
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
Loading
Property inference from heads to opaque-transparent compounds
The Mental Lexicon 15, 123 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): compound words; concepts; modification effect; property verification; semantic transparency

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error