Most theories of how people interpret novel noun–noun combinations (e.g., ghost forest) do not sufficiently address the role of context, which is surprising given that novel combinations are generally encountered in discourse contexts. We evaluated three hypotheses for the role of context in interpretation. The generation hypothesis states that interpretation is based on sense generation both in and out of context. The anaphor resolution hypothesis states that interpretation initially involves identifying a referent from the prior discourse context, and meaning generation occurs only if anaphoric processing fails. The dual-process hypothesis states that sense generation and anaphor resolution operate in parallel, and both may influence initial interpretation. In two experiments, we examined reading times on novel combinations when the dominant meaning (most likely interpretation) or subordinate meaning (infrequent interpretation) preceded or followed the combination in text. Results supported the dual-process hypothesis.
AltmannG. T. M.van NiceK. Y.GarnhamA.HenstraJ.A. (1998). Late closure in context.Journal of Memory and Language38, 4459–484.
2.
BockJ. S.CliftonC. (2000). The role of salience in conceptual combination.Memory & Cognition28, 81378–1386.
3.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review108, 204–256.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 27(1), 255–271.
6.
DuffyS. A.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory and Language27, 4429–446.
7.
EstesZ. (2003). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination.Journal of Memory and Language48, 304–319.
EstesZ.JonesL. J. (2006). Priming via relational similarity: A copper horse is faster when seen through a glass eye.Journal of Memory and Language55, 89–101.
10.
GagnéC. 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 Language42, 3365–389.
11.
GagnéC. L. (2002). Lexical and relational influences on the processing of novel compounds.Brain and Language81, 1–3723–735.
12.
GagnéC. L.MurphyG. L. (1996). Influence of discourse context on feature availability in conceptual combination.Discourse Processes22, 179–101.
13.
GagnéC. L.ShobenE. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition23, 71–87.
14.
GagnéC. L.SpaldingT. L. (2004). Effect of discourse context and modifier relation frequency on conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language50, 444–455.
15.
GerrigR. J. (1989). The time course of sense creation.Memory & Cognition17, 2194–207.
16.
GerrigR. J.BortfeldH. (1999). Sense creation in and out of discourse contexts.Journal of Memory and Language41, 457–468.
17.
GerrigR. J.HealyA. F. (1983). Dual processes in metaphor understanding: Comprehension and appreciation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition9, 4667–675.
18.
GerrigR. J.MurphyG. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language and Cognitive Processes7, 205–230.
19.
HessD. J.FossD. J.CarrollP. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension.Journal of Experiment Psychology: General124, 162–82.
20.
LevyB. A.KirsnerK. (1989). Reprocessing text: Indirect measures of word and message level processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition15, 3407–417.
21.
LoganG. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review95, 492–527.
22.
McRaeK.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.TanenhausM. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language38, 3283–312.
23.
MurphyG. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science12, 529–562.
24.
MurphyG. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language29, 259–288.
25.
MurphyG. L. (2002). The big book of concepts, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
OliphantG. W. (1983). Repetition and recency effects in word recognition.Australian Journal of Psychology35, 393–403.
27.
ProulxA. (2000). Close range: Wyoming stories, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
28.
RawsonK. A. (2007). Testing the shared resource assumption in theories of text processing.Cognitive Psychology54, 155–183.
29.
TagalakisG.KeaneM. T. (2006). Familiarity and relational preference in the understanding of noun–noun compounds.Memory and Cognition34, 61285–1297.
30.
WardT. B. (2001). Creative cognition, conceptual combination, and the creative writing of Stephen R. Donaldson.American Psychologist56, 4350–354.
31.
WisniewskiE. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language35, 434–453.
32.
WisniewskiE. J. (1997). When concepts combine.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review4, 167–183.
33.
WisniewskiE. J. (1998). Property instantiation in conceptual combination.Memory and Cognition26, 1330–1347.
34.
WisniewskiE. J.LoveB. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language38, 177–202.
35.
WisniewskiE. J.MiddletonE. L. (2002). Of bucket bowls and coffee cup bowls: Spatial alignment in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language46, 1–23.
