Emergent Properties in Conceptual Combination

概念整合後的浮現屬性

10.29718/TJHSS.201012.0005

何萬儀(Wan-I Her)

名詞詞組 ； 西班牙文及中文 ； 浮現屬性 ； 概念整合 ； emergent properties ； conceptual combination ； noun phrases ； Spanish and Chinese

淡江人文社會學刊

44期（2010 / 12 / 01）

112 - 139

英文

概念整合乃一高度倚賴百科知識的過程。若僅具備兩個單獨概念的知識，無法建構出一個完整的內容。在概念整合時之所以需求助於外在知識，是為了對複雜的概念進行加工或整理，使其連貫、齊全。概念的探知可謂認知語言學的核心，因為概念與字義密不可分，或者說，字義以概念為根本，因此，掌握概念結構有助於了解字義和語言。本文主要研究概念整合後的浮現屬性，實驗材料由不同主題的新創名詞詞組構成，例如：tarjeta oro，rey pez。兩組分別為中、西籍的受試者皆就100對生物主題之詞組及100對非生物主題之詞組給予詮釋，據以統計分析。結果顯示，兩種不同類型概念的詞組間存在明顯差異：在生物主題中運用屬性解釋策略居多；而在非生物主題中則以關係詮釋策略為主，這點中西皆同。然則，概念整合後的浮現屬性中西各異其趣，本文嘗試探討幾個可能導致的因素。

Integrating two concepts is a heavily knowledge-dependent procedure. It could be impossible to form the complete idea if one knew only the two concepts involved. The reason for consulting outside knowledge is that one should elaborate or arrange the complex concept in order to make it more coherent and complete. The psychology of concepts may be central to cognitive linguistics because concepts are closely related to word meanings or, perhaps, form the basis for word meanings. Therefore, familiarizing ourselves with the structure of concepts may help us to understand word meaning and language comprehension. This article focuses on emergent properties derived from combining concepts. Two experiments of different themes investigated the interpretations of 100 noun phrases of animate categories and 100 noun phrases of inanimate categories. The obtained responses were analyzed. The results showed that the property-based interpretations override other kinds in animate categories while the relation linking interpretations are preferred in inanimate categories for both languages. The two languages had different properties emerge in combination, and some possible factors are explained.

1. Almela, R.,Cantos, P.,Sánchez, A.,Sarmiento, R.,Almela, M.(2005).Frecuencias del español: Diccionario y estudios léxicos y morfológicos.Madrid:Editorial Universitas, S. A..
2. Anderson, R. C.,Ortony, A.(1975).On putting apples into bottles-A problem of polysemy.Cognitive Psychology,7,167-180.
3. Barsalou, L. W.(1993).Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols.Theories of memory,Hillsdale, NJ:
4. Carey, S.(1985).Conceptual change in childhood.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
5. Cohen, B.,Murphy, G. L.(1984).Models of concepts.Cognitive Science,8,27-58.
6. Costello, F. J.,Keane, M. T.(2000).Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination.Cognitive Science,24,299-349.
7. Costello, F. J.,Keane, M. T.(1997).Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination.Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
8. Demopoulos, W.(ed.),Marras, A.(ed.)(1986).Language learning and concept acquisition.Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
9. Downing, P.(1977).On the creation and use of English compound nouns.Language,53(4),810-842.
10. Fodor, J. A.(1983).The modularity of mind.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
11. Gerrig, R. J.,Murphy, G. L.(1992).Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts.Language and Cognitive Processes,7,205-230.
12. Glucksberg, S.,Keysar, B.(1990).Understanding metaphorical comparison: Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97,3-18.
13. Glucksberg, S.,McGlone, M. S.,Manfredi, D.(1997).Property attribution in metaphor comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,36,50-67.
14. Hampton, J. A.(1987).Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions.Memory and Cognition,15,55-71.
15. Hampton, J. A.(1997).Emergent attributes in combined concepts.Creative thought,Washington, DC:
16. Hampton, J. A.(1997).Conceptual combination.Knowledge, concepts and categories,Hove, UK:
17. Hastie, R.,Schroeder, C.,Weber, R.(1990).Creating complex social conjunction categories from simple categories.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,28,242-247.
18. Keil, F. C(1989).Concepts, kinds, and the acquisition of word meaning.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
19. Kunda, Z.,Miller, D. T.,Clare, T.(1990).Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning.Cognitive Science,14,551-578.
20. Markman, A. B.,Gentner, D.(1993).Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory and Language,32,517-535.
21. Markman, A. B.,Wisniewski, E. J.(1997).Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,23,40-57.
22. Marr, D.(1982).Vision.San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.
23. Martin, J. D.,Billman, D. O.(1994).Acquiring and combining overlapping concepts.Machine Learning,16,121-155.
24. Medin, D. L.,Shoben, E. J.(1988).Context and structure in conceptual combination.Cognitive Psychology,20(2),158-190.
25. Murphy, G. L.(1993).Theories and concept formation.Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis,London:
26. Murphy, G. L.(1988).Comprehending complex concepts.Cognitive Science,12,529-562.
27. Murphy, G. L.(1990).Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language,29,259-288.
28. Murphy, G. L.,Medin, D. L.(1985).The role of theories in conceptual coherence.Psychological Review,92,289-316.
29. Palmer, S. E.(1978).Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation.Cognition and categorization,Hillsdale, NJ:
30. Shoben, E. J.,Gagné, C. L.(1997).Thematic relations and the creation of combined concepts.Creative thought,Washington, DC:
31. Smith, E. E.,Osherson, D. N.,Rips, L. J.,Keane, M.(1988).Combining prototypes: A modification model.Cognitive Science,12,485-527.
32. Tagalakis, G.,Keane, M. T.(2006).Familiarity and relational preference in the understanding of noun-noun compounds.Memory & Cognition,34(6),1285-1297.
33. Wisniewski, E. J.(1997).When concepts combine.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4(2),167-183.
34. Wisniewski, E. J.(1996).Construal and similarity in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory & Language,35,434-453.
35. Wisniewski, E. J.,Gentner, D.(1991).On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning.Understanding word and sentence,Amsterdam, NL:
36. Wisniewski, E. J.,Love, B.(1998).Relations versus properties in conceptual combination.Journal of Memory and Language,38,177-202.
37. Wisniewski, E. J.,Markman, A. B.(1993).The role of structural alignment in conceptual combination.Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
38. Wisniewski, E. J.,Medin, D. L.(1994).On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning.Cognitive Science,18,221-282.