FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2767487638> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2767487638 abstract "An Analysis of the CARIN Model of Conceptual Combination Barry Devereux (Barry.Devereux@ucd.ie) 1 Phil Maguire (Phil.Maguire@ucd.ie) Fintan Costello (Fintan.Costello@ucd.ie) Arthur Cater (Arthur.Cater@ucd.ie) School of Computer Science and Informatics, University College Dublin Dublin, Ireland Abstract The CARIN model of conceptual combination (Gagn´e & Shoben, 1997) assumes that people interpret noun- noun compounds by selecting a relation to link the two constituent nouns from a fixed list of possible relations. The model uses statistical information about the frequency with which the modifiers of compounds have been associated with different possible thematic relations in past experience. The CARIN model describes how relation selection could involve competition between relations; Gagn´e and Shoben have shown that response strengths computed by the model correlate with people’s reaction times when judging the sensibility of compounds. We present data in support of the CARIN model’s assumption that people store statistical information about relation frequency: an analysis of representative compounds selected from a corpus produced frequencies that agreed with those derived by Gagn´e and Shoben. We also present an analysis of the equation proposed in the CARIN model, showing that it does not provide for competition among relations in the manner asserted by the theory. We propose a simple alternative mechanism for relation selection in compounds whereby response times for a given compound are proportional to the number of frequent relations that must be considered before reaching the correct relation. Keywords: Conceptual combination; noun-noun com- pounds; CARIN; mathematical modelling. Introduction For speakers of English and many other languages, noun- noun compounds such as volcano science or gas crisis are a productive and efficient strategy for referring to novel concepts and ideas. In English, compounds con- sist of a modifier noun followed by a head noun: the head noun typically denotes the main category and the modi- fier indicates a contrast or specialization of this category (e.g. a kitchen chair is a type of chair typically found in kitchens). Both lexicalized and spontaneous compounds are ubiquitous phenomena in everyday language, provid- ing a concise way to reference concepts. Such concision can be exploited when the addresser is confident that the addressee can interpret the phrase in its reduced state using their knowledge of the situation. This interpre- tation process can be dependent on an accompanying context or alternatively the meaning of the constituent nouns alone may be sufficient for comprehension. The first two listed authors should equally be regarded as first author There has been much interest in this phenomenon within cognitive psychology due to the fact that the study of concept combination presents a well-defined do- main which retains the potential to reveal much about conceptual representation and language comprehension in general. Consequently, many different models of con- cept combination have been proposed (e.g. Costello & Keane, 2000; Wisniewski, 1997). Most of these mod- els have tended to converge on the view that during the interpretation process, the basic head noun category is somehow refined or modified by the modifier concept. One theory which has adopted a different view is the Competition Among Relations In Nominals (CARIN) model (Gagn´e & Shoben, 1997). According to the CARIN model, the interpretation of a compound occurs when a person identifies a relation that exists between the modifier and the head noun. The number of poten- tial relation types (called thematic relations) is restricted to a set of about 16, including basic relation types such as located and for. According to the theory, the acces- sibility of thematic relations determines the ease with which the compound can be understood. Accessibility of thematic relations was estimated by determining the frequencies with which different thematic relations co- occurred with different modifiers and heads in a large corpus of compounds. This allowed them to identify which thematic relations were most common for the dif- ferent modifiers and heads. For example, the modifier mountain was found to combine with the location re- lation far more than with any other relation type (in compounds such as mountain cloud, mountain stream, and mountain goat). After analyzing response times for a sample of compounds incorporated into a sensi- bility judgment task, it was found that the distribution of thematic relation preferences of the modifier noun in- fluenced response time but that this was not the case for the head noun. In other words, Gagn´e and Shoben’s find- ings suggest that the fact that mountain was frequently associated with the location relation appears to influence response times for compounds involving mountain as a modifier, whereas the fact that magazine was frequently associated with the about relation does not appear to have any effect for compounds involving magazine as a head. At first blush, this modifier primacy effect seems surprising given that previous theories have emphasized the importance of both constituents, and have usually viewed conceptual combination as a modification of the head noun concept. However, one problem with this evidence is that it is" @default.
• W2767487638 created "2017-11-17" @default.
• W2767487638 creator A5007017103 @default.
• W2767487638 creator A5013597864 @default.
• W2767487638 creator A5044724458 @default.
• W2767487638 creator A5087762435 @default.
• W2767487638 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2767487638 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2767487638 title "An Analysis of the CARIN Model of Conceptual Combination" @default.
• W2767487638 cites W1968129200 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2020487796 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2027666258 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2038918091 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2045314411 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2053154970 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2115983295 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2161888136 @default.
• W2767487638 cites W2319178748 @default.
• W2767487638 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2767487638 type Work @default.
• W2767487638 sameAs 2767487638 @default.
• W2767487638 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2767487638 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2767487638 hasAuthorship W2767487638A5007017103 @default.
• W2767487638 hasAuthorship W2767487638A5013597864 @default.
• W2767487638 hasAuthorship W2767487638A5044724458 @default.
• W2767487638 hasAuthorship W2767487638A5087762435 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C121934690 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C13606891 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C153962237 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C25343380 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConcept C91306197 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C121934690 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C124101348 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C13606891 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C138885662 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C153962237 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C154945302 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C18903297 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C204321447 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C25343380 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C41008148 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C41895202 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C77088390 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C81917197 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C86803240 @default.
• W2767487638 hasConceptScore W2767487638C91306197 @default.
• W2767487638 hasIssue "28" @default.
• W2767487638 hasLocation W27674876381 @default.
• W2767487638 hasOpenAccess W2767487638 @default.
• W2767487638 hasPrimaryLocation W27674876381 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W1019583700 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W1715295215 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W1971116331 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2183993274 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W219854783 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2237568186 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2346358901 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2359791668 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2481256009 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2486548566 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2591739151 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2767356513 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W2777339208 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W3024510679 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W3141232431 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W431592545 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W579351565 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W981302321 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W3102617984 @default.
• W2767487638 hasRelatedWork W3145127621 @default.
• W2767487638 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W2767487638 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2767487638 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2767487638 magId "2767487638" @default.
• W2767487638 workType "article" @default.