Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations

We conducted two experiments to examine whether the interpretation of an ambiguous noun phrase is influenced by exposure to a similar combination. In Experiment 1, we found that it was easier to verify a definition for a combination (e.g., adolescent doctor, a doctor for adolescents) when the prime used the same relation as the target (e.g., adolescent magazine, a magazine for adolescents; animal doctor, a doctor for animals) than when the prime used a different relation (e.g., country doctor; adolescent experience). In Experiment 2, we found that the interpretation generated for an ambiguous combination was affected by prior exposure to sentences containing a combination with the same modifier or head noun as the target combination. The data are inconsistent with key predictions of schema-based theories of conceptual combination. Although the results do not contradict key assumptions of relation-based theories, modifications to these theories are required to account for these data.     

The role of categorical information in processing relational attributes

In two experiments, the effect of knowledge about relevant common taxonomic categories on judgments of relative magnitude was investigated. In Experiment 1, subjects judged the relative size of objects that belonged to the categoriesbuilding andanimal. The symbolic distance effect was smaller for between-category pairs (e.g.,horse-cabin) whose members could be classified more quickly into the two categories. This result strongly suggests that subjects used category membership to determine relative size on at least some portion of the trials. In Experiment 2, a similar attenuation of symbolic distance was obtained when subjects judged the relative height of furniture and vehicles. A simple explanation of the reduced symbolic distance effect for between-category pairs is that subjects occasionally fail to categorize the items into different categories and have to compute relative magnitude from the magnitudes of the two items. Fits to the data using the bootstrap technique suggest that more involved assumptions are required.     

Context effects in symbolic magnitude comparisons

Five experiments demonstrate that context has an effect on the ease with which people can determine the relative sizes of pairs of large and small animals. In a standard context, people are faster at choosing the larger of two large animals and the smaller of two small animals. However, when only pairs of small animals are presented (Experiment 1), relatively large pairs (RABBIT-BEAVER) are treated as if they were large animals and are discriminated more rapidly under the choose larger instruction. Similarly, when only large animals are presented (Experiment 2), the smaller of these are now treated as if they were small animals. Several models are presented that account for these effects of context, and these models are examined in subsequent experiments that impose yet other variations in magnitude pairings. The results demonstrate the importance of context in comparative judgement and place important constraints on theories of linear orders.