바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.1

Citation Share

A meta-model on the processing of conceptual combination: Focusing on the knowledge structure and levels of processing

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2013, v.32 no.1, pp.299-323


& (2013). A meta-model on the processing of conceptual combination: Focusing on the knowledge structure and levels of processing. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 32(1), 299-323.

Abstract

The purpose of this article was to provide a comprehensive meta-model of conceptual combination by analyzing nine representative models of conceptual combination along the following three dimensions: types of representation, types of information, and types of processing. The analysis identified two types of processing into which the nine models can be summarized: Relation-based processing and dimension-based processing. Based on this analysis, we proposed a 3-stage model of conceptual combination as a meta-model. The model consists of two dimensions: Levels of processing and diversity of conceptual knowledge. The first dimension, ‘levels of processing’ corresponds to the levels of elaboration or automaticity, and consists of 3 qualitatively distinctive stages. Completion of processing can be occur in any stage of the model. The second dimension, ‘diversity of conceptual knowledge’ corresponds to the types of information actually involved in the processing of conceptual combination. Not only relational information and dimensional information but any types of information that the human memory systems retain and use can be involved in the processing of conceptual combination. Implications and further research directions were discussed.

keywords
메타모형, 지식 구조, 처리 수준, 관계기반 모형, 차원기반 모형, meta-model, knowledge structure, levels of processing, relation-based model, dimension-based model

Reference

1.

강정란 (2008). 명사-명사 결합어를 이용한 글쓰기활동이 아동의 언어 창의성 및 쓰기 표현력에 미치는 효과. 부산대학교 석사학위논문.

2.

신현정 (2000). 개념과 범주화. 서울: 아카넷.

3.

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

4.

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

5.

이정모 (2010, 8, 30). 어떻게 하면 기억을 잘 하는가: 처리 깊이와 냉엄한 인지세계. http://blog.naver.com/metapsy/40113516127

6.

이태연 (2003). 복합명사의 해석에 미치는 속성 현저성과 차원 적절성의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 15, 103-117.

7.

조명한 외 (2003). 언어심리학. 서울: 학지사.

8.

최민경 (2007). 명사-명사 개념결합 처리과정 모형의 제안 및 검증. 부산대학교 석사학위논문.

9.

최민경, 신현정 (2007). 명사-명사 개념결합 처리과정 모형의 제안 및 검증: 성분개념의 역할이 자질 간 부합성에 미치는 선택적 영향. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 19, 401-432.

10.

최민경, 신현정 (2010). 개념결합 처리과정에 대한 관계기반 접근과 차원기반 접근의 조망 차이. 인지과학, 21, 1-20.

11.

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

12.

Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Testing two theories of concepual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 255-271.

13.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

14.

Craik, F, I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.

15.

Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810-842.

16.

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

17.

Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 149-156.

18.

Gagné, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and the dual-process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 365-389.

19.

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.

20.

Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structure? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20-35.

21.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170

22.

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

23.

Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. (2005). Relational categories. In W. K. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman & P. W. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the lab. Washington, DC: APA.

24.

Goldwater, M. B., Goodman, N. D., Wechsler, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2009, August). Relational and role-governed categories: Views from psychology, computational modeling, and linguistics. Paper presented at 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

25.

Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritnace of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory and Cognition, 15, 55-71.

26.

Hampton, J. A. (1996). Emergent attributes in combined concepts. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Viad, J. (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence discovery and change. Washinton DC: American Psychological Association.

27.

Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., & Claire, T. (1990). Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14, 551-577.

28.

Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.

29.

Lin, E., & Murphy, G. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 3-28.

30.

Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2010). Embodied conceptual combination. Frontiers in Psychology, 25, 1-14.

31.

Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed). The psychology of computer vision (pp.211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 259-288.

33.

Murphy, G. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. MIT Press.

34.

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

35.

Ran, B., & Duimering, P. R. (2010). Conceptual Combination: Models, Theories and Controversies. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 65-90. Cross-published in S. P. Weingarten & H. O. Penat. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology Research Developments, (pp.39-64). New York, NY: Nova Science.

36.

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

37.

Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revised. NY: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.

40.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.

41.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

42.

Smith, E. E., & Osherson, D. N. (1984). Conceptual combination with prototype concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 337-361.

43.

Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485-527.

44.

Wan, W. W. (2000). Effects of novel conceptual combination on creativity. University of Hong Kong. Master Thesis.

45.

Wan, W. W., & Chiu, C. Y. (2002). Effects of novel conceptual combination on creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 227-240.

46.

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

47.

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.

48.

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

49.

Wisniewski, E. J. (2001). On the necessity of alignment: Reply to Costello and Keane (2001). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 272-277.

50.

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

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy