Cover not available
Article published In:
Semantics and Psychology of Complex Words
Edited by Christina L. Gagné and Thomas L. Spalding
[The Mental Lexicon 15:1] 2020
► pp. 123–141

Property inference from heads to opaque-transparent compounds

| University of Alberta, Canada
| University of Alberta, Canada
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.
Keywords: compound words, semantic transparency, modification effect, property verification, concepts
Article outline
  • Property inference from heads to opaque-transparent compounds
  • Experiment 1
    • Method
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Participants
    • Results and discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials and design
      • Procedure
    • Results and discussion
  • General discussion
    • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00017.spa
References (24)
References
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2010). The evolution of morphology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connolly, A. C., Fodor, J. A., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (2007). Why stereotypes don’t even make good defaults. Cognition, 1031, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 651, 176–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Subcategorisation, not uncertainty, drives the modification effect. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29:10, 1283–1294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Semantics, concepts, and meta-cognition: Attributing properties and meanings to complex concepts. In Bauer, Körtvélyessy, & Stekauer (Eds.), Semantics of Complex Words. (pp. 9–25). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Schmidtke, D. (2019). LADEC: Large database of English compounds. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2152–2179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition, 151, 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). The combination of prototype concepts. In P. J. Schwanenflugal (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A., Passanisi, A., & Jönsson, M. L. (2011). The modifier effect and property mutability. Journal of Memory and Language, 641, 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jönsson, M. L. & Hampton, J. A. (2008). On prototypes as defaults (comment on Connolly, Fodor, Gleitman, and Gleitman. 2007), Cognition, 1061, 913–923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The modifier effect in within-category induction: Default inheritance in complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 271, 90–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, E. & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 421, 627–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V. & Bertram, R. (2013). Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun-noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 281, 939–966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61(1), 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 921, 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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, 101:1570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
StataCorp (2017). Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar