Abstract
Three experiments investigate how people infer properties of compound words from the unmodified head. Concepts license inference of properties true of the concept to instances or sub-types of that concept: Knowing that birds generally fly, one infers that a new type of bird flies. However, different names are also believed to reflect real underlying differences. Hence, a different name creates the expectation that a new bird differs from birds in general, and this might impact property inference. In these experiments, participants were told, Almost all (Some, Almost no) birds have sesamoid bones, and then asked, What percentage of blackbirds (birds) have sesamoid bones? The results indicate both inference and contrast effects. People infer properties as less common of the compound than the head when the property is true of the head, but they infer them as more common of the compound than the head when the property is not true of the head. In addition, inferences about properties true of the head are affected by the semantic similarity between the head and the compound, but properties not true of the head do not show any semantic similarity effect, but only a small, consistent effect of contrast. Finally, the presentation format (Open vs. Closed compounds) affects the pattern of effects only when the spacing suggests the existence of a permanent name.
Highlights
Much research on compound words focuses on the processing involved in accessing the words for use in language-related tasks
We analyzed the data using linear-mixed effects (LME) regression models in which subject and item were entered as random effects, and Modification and Likelihood (Almost all, Some, Almost no) were entered as fixed effects, using the mixed and contrast commands in Stata (StataCorp, 2017)
The effects of both Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and semantic transparency ratings indicate that the modification effect gets larger as the semantic distance between compound and head increases, as one would expect
Summary
Much research on compound words (words that consist of two or more free morphemes, e.g., snowball or hogwash) focuses on the processing involved in accessing the words (see, e.g., Libben, 1998; Libben and Jarema, 2006, for reviews) for use in language-related tasks. There is much less work on how compound words are used more broadly in human cognition. We investigate how compound words function in, and contribute to, human cognition more broadly. We are interested in what support compound words provide to conceptual (or categorical) inference. It is well accepted that a major function of concepts in human thinking is to provide the ability to infer properties from the concept to members of the category named or referred to by the concept (see e.g., Murphy, 2002; see Osherson et al, 1990). If one knows that birds have sesamoid bones, one can make a reasonable inference that a particular
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
