Abstract
I present a computational level account of how people combine concepts, and I use this account to evaluate current models of conceptual combination. Constrained by this account, I then provide an algorithmic level description of how people combine concepts. The algorithmic level account highlights the importance of two additional processes (comparison and construction) in explaining how some concepts combine and change. I then show that the interpretation of nominal metaphors involves these processes as well. Current approaches to metaphor understanding emphasize the importance of one or the other of these processes, but not both.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.Memory & Cognition,10, 82–93.
Barsalou, L. W. (1991). Deriving categories to achieve goals. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 27, pp. 1–64). New York: Academic Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. C. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. M. Morris (Eds.),Theories of memory (pp. 29–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barsalou, L. W., &Hale, C. R. (1992). Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. In I. Van Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.),Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 97–144). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brachman, R. J. (1978).A structural paradigm for representing knowledge (BBN Report No. 3605). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranck, & Newman.
Cohen, B., &Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts.Cognitive Science,8, 27–58.
Coolen, R., van Jaarsveld, H. J., &Schreuder, R. (1991). The interpretation of isolated novel nominal compounds.Memory & Cognition,19, 341–352.
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns.Language,53, 810–842.
Elliot, R. (1988).The complete vegetarian cuisine. New York: Pantheon.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., &Gentner, D. (1989). The structure mapping engine: Algorithm and examples.Artificial Intelligence,41, 1–63.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.),Unconstraineds in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, C., &Shoben, E. (1993, April).The influence of relational information on interpreting nonpredicating combinations. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Garrod, S. C., &Sanford, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675–698). New York: Academic Press.
Gentner, D. (1981). Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation.Cognitive Psychology,13, 56–83.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science,7, 155–170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity, analogy, and thought (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., &Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity.Psychological Science,5, 152–158.
Gerrig, R. J., &Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,7, 205–230.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., &Bookin, M. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 85–98.
Glucksberg, S., &Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97, 3–18.
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D., &McGlone, M. S. (1997). How metaphors create new categories. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 327–350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Glucksberg, S.,McGlone, M. S., &Manfredi, D. (in press). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Similarity, interactive-activation and mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 3–28.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics: Vol 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory & Cognition,15, 55–71.
Heit, E., &Barsalou, L. W. (1996). The instantiation principle in natural categories.Memory,4, 413–451.
Holyoak, K. J., &Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction.Cognitive Science,13, 295–355.
Hummel, J. E., &Holyoak, K. J. (1996). LISA: A computational model of analogical inference and schema induction. InProceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hummel, J. E., &Holyoak, K. J. (in press). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping.Psychological Review.
Lakoff, G., &Johnson, M. (1980).Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levi, J. N. (1978).The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
Levin, B. (1993).English verb classes and alterations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 517–535.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons.Cognitive Psychology,23, 431–467.
Markman, A. B., &Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 54–70.
Marks, L. E., &Bornstein, M. H. (1987). Sensory similarities: Classes, characteristics, and cognitive consequences. In R. E. Haskel (Ed.),Cognition and symbolic structures: The psychology of metaphoric transformation (pp. 49–65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Martin, J. D., &Billman, D. O. (1994). Acquiring and combining overlapping concepts.Machine Learning,16, 121–155.
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought?Journal of Memory & Language,35, 544–565.
Medin, D. L., &Shoben, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination.Cognitive Psychology,20, 158–190.
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.
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.
Nisbett, R. E., &Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy.Linguistics & Philosophy,3, 143–184.
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 259–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pinker, S., &Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition.Cognition,28, 73–193.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart D. E., &McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group,Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstucture of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Schank, R. (1972).Conceptual information processing. New York: Elsevier.
Schyns, P. G., &Oliva, A. (1994). From blobs to boundary edges: Evidence for a time- and spatial-scale-dependent scene recognition.Psychological Sciences,5, 195–200.
Shoben, E. J. (1993). Comprehending nonpredicating conceptual combinations. In G. Nakamura, R. Taraban, & D. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 20, pp. 391–401). San Diego: Academic Press.
Shoben, E. J., &Gagne, C. L. (1997). Thematic relations and the creation of combined concepts. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 31–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.
Thagard, P. (1984). Conceptual combination and scientific discovery. In P. Asquith & P. Kitcher (Eds.),PSA: Proceedings (Vol. 1). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Urdang, L., &Abate, F. R. (1983).Idioms and phrases index. Detroit, MI: Book Tower.
Wilson, D., &Sperber, D. (1981). On Grice’s theory of conversation. In P. Werth (Ed.),Conversation and discourse. London: Croom Helm.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1994).Interpretations of novel noun-noun combinations (Technical Report). Northwestern University, Department of Psychology.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996a). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 434–453.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996b).Property instantiation in conceptual combination. Manuscript submitted for publication.
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. (1996).Properties versus relations in conceptual combination. Manuscript in preparation.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Markman, A. B. (1993). The role of structural alignment in conceptual combination. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1083–1086). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wisniewski, E. J., &Medin, D. L. (1994). On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning.Cognitive Science,18, 221–282.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I thank Miriam Bassok, James Hampton, Doug Medin, Tom Ward, and two anonymous reviewers for trenchant comments on previous drafts, Kristen Carpenter and Beth Lynch for drawing the pictures, and Bob Dylan for providing some of the inspiration.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wisniewski, E.J. When concepts combine. Psychon Bull Rev 4, 167–183 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209392
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209392