Is Conceptual Combination Influenced by Word Order? 
Phil Maguire 
Department of Computer Science 
University College Dublin 
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland 
Phil.Maguire@ucd.ie 
Arthur Cater 
Department of Computer Science 
University College Dublin 
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland 
Arthur.Cater@ucd.ie 
 
Abstract 
We describe two experiments using French 
noun-noun combinations which parallel a 
study carried out by Gagné (2001) using 
English combinations. The order of the 
modifier and head noun are reversed in 
French, allowing us to investigate whether the 
influence of relation priming that Gagné found 
is due to the order of the modifier and head 
noun or whether it is due to their different 
functional roles. While our findings indicate 
that interpretation is influenced by previous 
exposure to combinations incorporating one of 
the same constituent nouns, the results show 
that primes with the same modifier have a 
greater influence when associated with a 
different relation to the target. This pattern of 
influence is similar to that found in English 
and suggests that the modifier is exclusively 
involved in relation selection, irrespective of 
its order in a combination. 
1 Introduction 
The combination of two existing words is a 
productive strategy used by speakers to convey 
new concepts and extend the limits of the 
vernacular. The process of understanding these 
novel compounds is worthy of study, both because 
it is intimately associated with the creativity of 
language use and because it provides a constrained 
domain in which to test cognitive theories of 
conceptual representation and language 
comprehension. In English compounds, the first 
word or modifier attaches further meaning to the 
second word or head, thus creating a reference to 
the intended concept. In order to interpret a 
nominal compound such as “mountain stream”, 
people must find a relation to link the compound’s 
head and modifier. Several different theories have 
been proposed as to how people find the correct 
relation with which to link the constituent nouns. 
Gagné and Shoben’s (1997) Competition Among 
Relations In Nominals (CARIN) theory maintains 
that there is a fixed, relatively small taxonomy of 
standard relations that can be used to link the 
modifier and head noun concepts. According to 
this theory, the representation of the modifier 
concept includes statistical knowledge about those 
relations with which the modifier tends to be used 
during conceptual combinations. The most 
available standard relation is the one most 
frequently used to interpret other compounds 
containing that same modifier. For instance, the 
modifier “mountain” is most often associated with 
the <head LOCATED modifier> relation thus 
making the combination “mountain stream” easier 
to interpret than “mountain magazine” which uses 
the <head ABOUT modifier> relation. 
Important evidence in support of the CARIN 
model is the finding that the modifier’s relational 
distribution influences the ease with which a 
combined concept can be interpreted. Gagné and 
Shoben (1997) found that combinations involving 
a relation used frequently with the modifier were 
easier to interpret than combinations involving a 
less frequent relation, while the frequency 
distribution of the head noun had no influence. 
This raises the question as to why it should be the 
case that the frequencies of relations associated 
with the modifier affect ease of interpretation, but 
not those of the head noun. Gagné and Shoben 
(1997) suggest that the modifier may have more of 
an influence than the head noun because it is 
encountered first and consequently highly frequent 
relations for the modifier may become activated 
prior to frequent relations for the head noun. A 
second possibility they suggest is that the modifier 
noun has certain associated properties which give 
it a semantic privilege in determining the meaning 
of a combination. One way to test both of these 
hypotheses is to examine the interpretation of 
combinations in a language in which the order of 
the nouns is the reverse of that in English. We 
adopt such an approach by examining the 
interpretation of combinations in the French 
language in order to determine which of the above 
possibilities can account for Gagné and Shoben’s 
findings. 
The following experiments parallel a speeded 
sensibility study by Gagné (2001) which 
investigated the ways in which recent exposure to a 
similar combination influences the processing of a 
subsequent combination. Gagné found that when 
the prime and the target had the same head noun, 
there was no significant difference in reaction 
times between the cases where they shared the 
same relation and cases where they did not. 
However, when the modifier was the repeated 
constituent, primes that used the same relation 
exerted more influence than those that used a 
different relation. Thus, “mountain stream” was 
more effective than “mountain magazine” at 
priming “mountain goat” while “kitchen chair” 
and “wood chair” were equally effective at 
priming “garden chair”. Gagné concluded that 
when the prime and target share the same modifier, 
relation priming increases the availability of a 
selected relation within the modifier’s relational 
distribution. We replicate Gagné’s study in French 
in order to determine whether the same effect will 
be observed. 
While conceptual combination in the English 
language involves the straightforward juxtaposition 
of two nouns, combinations in French are made up 
of three separate elements, namely the head, the 
modifier and a linking preposition. The preposition 
gives some indication of the relation between the 
two concepts as different prepositions are used 
with different relations. The three French 
prepositions typically used are “de”, “à” and 
“en”. While the use of a preposition in French can 
bias the selection of a particular relation, we have 
controlled for this by choosing materials 
exclusively associated with the “de” preposition, 
which can be used with almost all relations. 
Consequently this eliminates any alternative 
influences on relation selection other than those 
exerted by the modifier and the head. 
2 Empirical Study 
Two separate experiments were carried out. In 
the first, the prime had the same head as the target 
and in the second, the modifier was the repeated 
constituent. In both experiments, there were three 
conditions. In one condition the prime used the 
same relation as the target; in another it used a 
different relation. There was also a neutral 
condition in which the target combination was 
preceded by a combination with no common noun 
constituent. The experimental design follows that 
of Gagné (2001) and facilitates the analysis of the 
relative amounts of priming derived from a 
combination containing the same head or the same 
modifier as the target. Priming was evaluated by 
comparing each of the first two conditions with the 
neutral condition and by comparing response times 
to target combinations in the same-relation 
condition with response times to target 
combinations in the different-relation condition. 
2.1 Method 
Materials. In both experiments, sixty 
combined concepts were created as targets. For 
each target combination, three prime combinations 
were constructed. One used the same relation as 
the target and either the same head (experiment 1) 
or the same modifier (experiment 2). Similarly, 
another combination used a different relation. The 
control combination shared no noun constituent 
with the target. Three lists of stimuli were arranged 
such that there was an equal number of each prime 
type in each list. Across all three lists, each target 
was seen with each type of prime combination. 
Our materials were controlled for plausibility and 
familiarity. Two raters scored the plausibility and 
familiarity of the referents of the prime 
combinations on a Likert scale from 1 to 7. A two-
sided Wilcoxon signed-ranks test revealed no 
reliable differences between conditions for 
plausibility, familiarity or average syllable length 
(p > 0.05).  
Procedure. Each participant was exposed to 
one of the lists and hence saw each target item only 
once. The pairs of prime and target items were 
presented in a randomised order along with 60 
filler pairs and the complete set of filler pairs was 
presented to each individual. Participants sat in 
front of a computer screen and placed the index 
finger of their left hand on the F key of the 
keyboard and the index finger of their right hand 
on the J key. Participants were told that J 
corresponded to “Juste” and F corresponded to 
“Faux”. Trial presentation was self-paced. 
Following exposure to the prime combination, 
participants indicated whether it had a sensible, 
literal interpretation by pressing the appropriate 
key. Subsequently, the target combination was 
similarly displayed and participants made another 
sensibility judgment. There was nothing in the 
method of presentation to suggest any connection 
between consecutive combinations. 
Participants. 36 native French speakers 
participated, 18 in each experiment (ages 20-31, M 
= 24.2). This selection consisted of students and 
teachers based in Ireland. 
2.2 Results and Discussion 
9.1% of trials were excluded from the analysis. 
0.8% of trials were rejected because participants 
pressed a key other than J or F. Additionally, 4.6% 
of trials were excluded in cases where the response 
“faux” was incorrectly given. Responses deemed 
unreasonably fast (< 400ms; 0.2%) and 
unreasonably slow (> 4000ms; 0.9%) were also 
excluded. After eliminating all trials which did not 
meet the above criteria, any response times which 
were more than three standard deviations outside 
each participant’s mean were also rejected. This 
eliminated another 2.6% of responses. A repeated 
measures ANOVA test was conducted to examine 
the effect of prime type on sense-nonsense 
judgments for each experiment. Tables 1 and 2 
display the response time (in milliseconds) for 
appropriate responses to the target combinations in 
each of the experiments. 
Prime 
Same 
Head 
Same 
Modifier 
Same 
Relation 
Target 
Response 
Time (ms) 
   994 
   999 
  NA 1 1153 
Table 1: Response Times (in milliseconds) for 
Target Combinations in Experiment 1 
Prime 
Same 
Head 
Same 
Modifier 
Same 
Relation 
Target 
Response 
Time (ms) 
   998 
   1043 
  NA 1062 
Table 2: Response Times (in milliseconds) for 
Target Combinations in Experiment 2 
Evidence of priming. Responses to the target 
combination were faster when the prime and target 
shared a constituent noun.  In the first experiment, 
the 159ms difference between the same-relation 
and neutral conditions was reliable, Fsubject(1, 34) = 
31.70, p < .01; Fitem(1, 118) = 27.30, p < .01. The 
154ms difference between the different-relation 
and neutral conditions was also reliable, Fsubject(1, 
34) = 22.22, p < .01; Fitem(1, 118) = 27.309, p < 
.01. In the second experiment the 64 ms difference 
between the same-relation and neutral conditions 
was reliable, Fsubject(2, 34) = 9.248, p < .05; Fitem(2, 
118) = 11.437, p < .05. However, the 19 ms 
difference between the different-relation and 
neutral conditions was not reliable, Fsubject(2, 34) = 
.587,  p > .05; Fitem(2, 118) = .337, p > .05. 
Relation influence. As predicted by the CARIN 
theory, the first experiment, in which the head was 
the repeated constituent, revealed no evidence of 
relation influence. No significant difference was 
found between response times to target 
                                                     
1 The relation of the neutral condition was considered 
irrelevant following Gagné’s (2001) finding that 
priming does not occur when the preceding combination 
does not share either of the target’s constituent nouns 
combinations in the same-relation and in the 
neutral conditions. The 5ms difference between the 
two conditions was not reliable (Fs < 1). However, 
in the repeated modifier experiment the target was 
easier to interpret when it was preceded by a 
combination with the same relation than when it 
was preceded by one with a different relation. 
Participants responded to targets following the 
same relation prime 45ms quicker than they did to 
targets following the different relation prime, 
Fsubject(2, 34) = 4.349,  p < .05; Fitem(2, 118) = 
4.194, p < .05. These data indicate that French 
speakers are only sensitive to relational 
information associated with the modifier. 
Summary. The results of the two experiments 
show that the influence of a recently viewed 
combination is affected by its relation only in cases 
where the target shares the same modifier 
(experiment 2) and not in cases where it shares the 
same head (experiment 1). Thus “ruisseau de 
montagne” (mountain stream) was more effective 
than “chaussures de montagne” (mountain shoes) 
at priming “glacier de montagne” (mountain 
glacier) while “sac de voyage” (travel bag) and 
“sac de cuir” (leather bag) were equally effective 
at priming “sac de sport” (sports bag). These 
results are similar to those of Gagné (2001) and are 
thus consistent with research in the English 
language indicating that relational information is 
associated with the modifier and not with the head 
noun. Since these effects have been replicated in a 
language in which the order of the modifier and 
head are reversed, this suggests that modifiers and 
head nouns maintain the same role in the process 
of interpretation regardless of the order in which 
they are realised. Our findings confirm that 
relational information is a tangible feature of 
conceptual combinations and that the association 
between the modifier and the relation is an intrinsic 
property that is evident regardless of the order of 
the constituent nouns. 
3 General Discussion 
While our results correspond with those of 
Gagné (2001), we interpret them differently. In her 
study Gagné distinguished two priming effects, 
namely lexical priming and relation priming. She 
claimed that when the head noun was repeated, 
only lexical priming was observed but that when 
the modifier was repeated, both types of priming 
were evident. This distinction is not necessary. It is 
simpler to suppose that the repeated-modifier 
different-relation condition exhibits an interference 
effect which diminishes the effectiveness of lexical 
priming. Such an interference could arise for two 
reasons, neither of which requires an assumption of 
relation priming. The first possibility is that 
combinations using a different relation elicit no 
priming because a different sense of the modifier is 
associated with each relation. For example, the 
French term “en chocolat” (made of chocolate) 
has very different connotations to “à chocolat” 
(for chocolate) or “de chocolat” (of chocolate). 
While these terms employ the same modifier, they 
each have different meanings since the preposition 
immediately elucidates the modifying capacity of 
the noun. Though the relation associated with a 
modifier in English may not be expressed in the 
same way, the conceptual disparity is likely to 
persist nonetheless. It is therefore conceivable that 
the relation with which the modifier is associated 
can change its meaning and as a result, one 
modifier might not necessarily prime a 
combination using the same modifier in a different 
sense.  
A second possibility is that the availability of 
one meaning of a modifier is increased after 
encountering a prime using it with that sense. 
When the same modifier is encountered being used 
with a different sense in the target, the original 
sense is more accessible than the appropriate one. 
Hence, following the prime “sel de mer” (sea salt), 
participants may find it more difficult to interpret 
“mal de mer” (sea sickness) because they are more 
likely to assume the “from the sea” sense of the 
modifier instead of the correct “caused by the sea” 
interpretation. An explanation of our results may 
be due to a combination of the above possibilities, 
both of which emphasise the co-dependence of the 
modifier and its associated relation.  
While our results have emphasised the link 
between modifier and relation, they do not suggest 
that modifier relational frequency is the only factor 
involved in selecting a plausible relation and it is 
likely that both the head and the modifier are 
involved in this process. In order to develop an 
accurate computational model of conceptual 
combination, future studies will need to consider 
the influence of other contributing factors. Certain 
heads and modifiers are strongly biased towards 
suggesting one particular relation. For instance, 
modifiers denoting substances are biased towards 
the <head MADE OF modifier> relation (e.g. 
“plastic”) and in the same way, head nouns with a 
strongly associated schema, such as “factory”, can 
be biased towards suggesting a certain relation. 
Furthermore, relation likelihood may be influenced 
by the presence of facilitating features (Devereux 
& Costello, 2004). Facilitating features are those 
features of a pair of concepts that are necessary for 
a given relation to be possible. For example a 
compound with the modifier “kitchen” is unlikely 
to be interpreted using the <head MADE OF 
modifier> relation since kitchens are not a type of 
substance. Computational models of conceptual 
combination may have to account for the 
characteristics of heads and modifiers individually 
in order to simulate the ways in which each 
constituent influences relation selection. 
4 Conclusion 
In summary, we investigated the influence of 
relation priming on the interpretation of French 
noun-noun compounds in order to ascertain 
whether the influence of the modifier observed in 
studies of English stems from its functional 
properties rather than the fact that it is encountered 
first. Our results showed that same and different-
relation primes were equally effective when they 
shared the same head as the target, but that when 
they shared the same modifier the different-relation 
primes were less effective. This is consistent with 
findings from studies of English and suggests that 
the properties of the modifier and head noun 
remain consistent regardless of their order in a 
combination. While our results agree with 
predictions of the CARIN theory, we speculate that 
this effect may be due to different senses of the 
modifier being appropriate depending on its 
associated relation. Consequently modifiers using 
different relations are less effective at priming 
targets with the same relation used in a different 
sense. 
5 Acknowledgements 
This research was funded by a UCD grant to the 
first author. We would like to thank Nicole 
Maguire for assistance in creating the French 
materials and we would also like to thank Rebecca 
Maguire for valuable comments and feedback. 
References  
Devereux, B. & Costello, F. J. (2004). Learning 
relations between concepts: classification and 
conceptual combination. In Proceedings of the 
Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the 
Cognitive Science Society, (Chicago). Hillsdale, 
NJ: Erlbaum. 
Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming 
during the interpretation of noun-noun 
combinations. Journal of Experimental 
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 
27, 236-254. 
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). The 
influence of thematic relations on the 
comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. 
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, 
Memory and Cognition, 23, 71-87. 
