바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.19 No.4
Citation Share

A Model on the Processing of Noun-Noun Conceptual Combination and its Verification: Selective Effects of Constituent Concepts' Role on Relevance Between Properties

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2007, v.19 no.4, pp.401-432
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.009


& (2007). A Model on the Processing of Noun-Noun Conceptual Combination and its Verification: Selective Effects of Constituent Concepts' Role on Relevance Between Properties. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 19(4), 401-432, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.009
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Current views of conceptual combination postulate that interpretations can be classified into two types; thematic-relation and property-mapping interpretations. In this study, a new model on the processing of noun-noun conceptual combination was proposed and two experiments were conducted to verify it. The model suggests that thematic-relation interpretation can be facilitated when there are any salient external properties in the head and the modifier is relevant to one of them. On the other hand, property-mapping interpretation can be facilitated when there are any salient internal properties in the modifier and the head has any relevant slot (dimension) to one of them. Two experiments examined whether external/internal properties in the heads/modifiers and relevance between modifier and head can facilitate property or relation interpretation by measuring interpretation times and degrees of interpretation consistency. The results showed that the interpretation time is faster and the interpretation consistency is higher when there are internal or external properties and their relevant slots as well. These results further suggest that the different roles of constituent concepts selectively affect the relevance between properties which consist of modifier and head. With regard to these results, it was discussed whether property-mapping interpretation and thematic-relation interpretation are caused by independent processes.

keywords
conceptual combination, internal․external properties, property-mapping interpretation, thematic-relation interpretation, 개념결합, 내재적․외재적 자질, 속성해석, 관계해석

Reference

1.

국어 정보화 종합 정보실 (2003). 세종말뭉치. 국립국어연구원.

2.

김채리 (1996). 문장맥락이 구체명사의 의미 초기활성화에 미치는 효과. 부산대학교 석사학위논문.

3.

신현정 (2000). 개념과 범주화. 서울: 아카넷.

4.

신현정, 이루리, 유나영 (2003). 명사-명사로 표현된 결합개념 이해의 인지적 기제. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 15, 81-102.

5.

신현정, 최민경, 김수연 (2005). 명사-명사 개념결합의 처리과정. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 24, 61-84.

6.

유나영, 신현정 (2005). 명사-명사 결합개념의 이해에서 마음갖춤새와 이야기 맥락의 효과. 심리과학연구, 4, 145-159. 부산대학교 심리과학연구소.

7.

정영철, 이정모 (2004). 한국어 명사의 내재적/외재적 의미특징 연구: 곡식, 과일, 채소 범주를 중심으로. 인지과학, 15, 1-25.

8.

Bock, J. & Clifton, C. (2000). The role of salience in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1378-1386.

9.

Costello, F. J. (2004). The diversity of conceptual combination. Talk for symposium on the diversity of conceptual combination. Symposium conducted at the annual meetinmg of the CogSci2004, Chicago, Illinois.

10.

Costello, F. J. & Keane, M. T. (1997). Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In Proceedings of the nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.

Costello, F. J. & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349.

12.

Estes, Z. (2003). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 27, 911-921.

13.

Estes, Z. & Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 28-34.

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, and Cognition, 23, 71-87.

15.

Gentner, D. & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory & Cognition, 29, 565-577.

16.

Keane, M. & Costello, F. (2001). Setting limits on analogy: Why conceptual combination is not structural alignment. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 287-312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

17.

Myers, A. & Hansen, C. (2003). 실험심리학 제 5판 [Experimental psychology fifth edition]. (신현정 역). 서울: 박학사.

18.

Prinz, J. J. (2004). Furnishing mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. MA: MIT Press

19.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., & Brewer, W. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

20.

Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434-453.

21.

Wisniewski, E. J. (1997a). Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 51-81). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

22.

Wisniewski, E. J. (1997b). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 167-183.

23.

Wisniewski, E. J. & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy