People often create novel lexical expressions to efficiently communicate their thoughts to others. Noun-noun phrases, also known as conceptual combinations, serve as an example of these novel expressions. Most of the research on conceptual combination has focused on structural features of the phrases. However, other research has demonstrated that discourse context can also influence how these phrases are interpreted. Across two experiments, we demonstrate that discourse context has a greater influence on how people interpret these combinations than does a structural level manipulation. We also examine the strength of this contextually based-effect over a series of time delays. The findings from this study indicate that, while structural features of a given conceptual combination influence how that combination is interpreted, the discourse surrounding the novel combination plays a more influential role in the resulting interpretation. The influence of context is more pronounced than has been suggested in much of the research on conceptual combination.

In two experiments the Weighted Salience Model (WSM) of conceptual combination was examined. Several of the hypotheses set forth in the WSM were evaluated, including the importance of salience of constituent features, differential interpretation strategies based on similarity, an initial reliance on the modifier as opposed to the head, and a context effect of salience reorganization. Results confirmed that the hierarchy of output dominance within constituent features was important in determining features in final combinations. Additionally, similar pairs were defined with property interpretations more frequently than were dissimilar pairs, and dissimilar pairs were defined with relation interpretations more frequently than were similar pairs. Context effects were demonstrated through the finding that target features were found more often in primed than unprimed pairs. The hypothesis of modifier superiority was not confirmed. These findings indicate that the WSM adds to the current understanding of conceptual combination through a reliance on output dominance and the importance of context. Despite these strengths, changes to the WSM may be necessary if future studies fail to support the importance of the modifier over the head noun.

In two experiments the Weighted Salience Model (WSM) of conceptual combination was examined. Several of the hypotheses set forth in the WSM were evaluated, including the importance of salience of constituent features, differential interpretation strategies based on similarity, an initial reliance on the modifier as opposed to the head, and a context effect of salience reorganization. Results confirmed that the hierarchy of output dominance within constituent features was important in determining features in final combinations. Additionally, similar pairs were defined with property interpretations more frequently than were dissimilar pairs, and dissimilar pairs were defined with relation interpretations more frequently than were similar pairs. Context effects were demonstrated through the finding that target features were found more often in primed than unprimed pairs. The hypothesis of modifier superiority was not confirmed. These findings indicate that the WSM adds to the current understanding of conceptual combination through a reliance on output dominance and the importance of context. Despite these strengths, changes to the WSM may be necessary if future studies fail to support the importance of the modifier over the head noun.

This thesis proposes a theoretical framework explaining cognitive processes of meaning construction through conceptual interactions. It was noted that while the nine models or theories (Fuzzy Sets, Selective Modification model, Amalgam theory, Concept Specialization model, Composite Prototype Model, Dual-Process model, Constraint model, CARIN model, and Coherence Theory) in literature on conceptual combination offered insights on the problem of how people understand conceptual combinations, most of them assumed a schematic representation of our knowledge of concepts. However, it is possible that our minds represent knowledge in less structured ways and that schematic structure may not necessarily play a role in making sense of conceptual combinations. In this thesis, I attempted to make fewer assumptions about how knowledge is represented to explain the cognitive processes of conceptual combinations. I assume that concepts are related to other concepts, and knowledge can be represented by associations among concepts. Based on this assumption, the meaning of a conceptual combination is constructed through interactions between these associated concepts. It is proposed that the cognitive processes involved in meaning construction start from a distinction between different roles each component concept plays (head or modifier), and then a system of associations are activated contingently, prototypically, and efficiently with the goal of forming a cognitive field (analytically represented as a closed cycle) to connect head and modifier in a balanced way. The balanced system of concepts is strengthened further by reconciling remaining tensions in the field. Experimental results confirmed that component concepts in a combination activate associations contingently, and prototypicality and balance are major factors influencing whether an association will be activated by the combination to construct the meaning. Head / Modifier and Novelty were also studied as moderating variables. The experimental results indicated that head is a stronger moderator for association activation than modifier, and novelty was not found to be a significant moderator in association activation. Implications of these findings are discussed and future research is identified.

This thesis proposes a theoretical framework explaining cognitive processes of meaning construction through conceptual interactions. It was noted that while the nine models or theories (Fuzzy Sets, Selective Modification model, Amalgam theory, Concept Specialization model, Composite Prototype Model, Dual-Process model, Constraint model, CARIN model, and Coherence Theory) in literature on conceptual combination offered insights on the problem of how people understand conceptual combinations, most of them assumed a schematic representation of our knowledge of concepts. However, it is possible that our minds represent knowledge in less structured ways and that schematic structure may not necessarily play a role in making sense of conceptual combinations. In this thesis, I attempted to make fewer assumptions about how knowledge is represented to explain the cognitive processes of conceptual combinations. I assume that concepts are related to other concepts, and knowledge can be represented by associations among concepts. Based on this assumption, the meaning of a conceptual combination is constructed through interactions between these associated concepts. It is proposed that the cognitive processes involved in meaning construction start from a distinction between different roles each component concept plays (head or modifier), and then a system of associations are activated contingently, prototypically, and efficiently with the goal of forming a cognitive field (analytically represented as a closed cycle) to connect head and modifier in a balanced way. The balanced system of concepts is strengthened further by reconciling remaining tensions in the field. Experimental results confirmed that component concepts in a combination activate associations contingently, and prototypicality and balance are major factors influencing whether an association will be activated by the combination to construct the meaning. Head / Modifier and Novelty were also studied as moderating variables. The experimental results indicated that head is a stronger moderator for association activation than modifier, and novelty was not found to be a significant moderator in association activation. Implications of these findings are discussed and future research is identified.

Two experiments examined processing of "near-nonsense" noun-noun combinations (e.g., dictionary treatment, olive signals). In the first experiment, readers’ eye movements were monitored as they read sentences containing such combinations, or control sentences containing easy-to-interpret adjective-noun combinations. A preceding context sentence either did or did not support a specific interpretation of the critical noun-noun combination. The earliest measures of processing difficulty were not modulated by the context manipulation, but on later measures, the potentially helpful context did alleviate difficulty. In the second experiment, participants provided detailed interpretations of the critical combinations, with and without the potentially helpful context sentence; the results confirmed that the context sentences encouraged specific interpretations of these combinations. The results suggest that a noun-noun combination is initially interpreted without taking into account the immediate context, but that this context may ultimately play a critical role.

Design fixation is a phenomenon experienced by professional designers and engineering design students that stifles creativity and innovation through discouraging ideational productivity, fluency and diversity. During the design idea and concept generation phase of the design process, a reliance on perceptual surface feature similarities between design artefacts increases the likelihood of design fixation leading to design duplication. Psychologists, educators and designers have become increasingly interested in creative idea generation processes that encourage innovation and entrepreneurial outcomes. However, there is a notable lack of collaborative research between psychology, education and engineering design particularly on inductive reasoning of undergraduate engineering students in higher education. The data gathered and analysed for this study provides an insight into property inference decision-making preferences and decision switching (SWITCH) patterns of engineering undergraduates under similarity-based inductive judgements [SIM] and category-based inductive judgements [CAT]. For this psychology experiment, property induction tasks were devised using abstract shapes in a triad configuration. Participants (N = 180), on an undergraduate engineering programme in London, observed a triad of shapes with a target shape more similar-looking to one of two given shapes. Factors manipulated for this experiment included category alignment, category group, property type and target shape. Despite the cognitive development and maturation stage of undergraduate engineers (adults) in higher education, this study identified similarity-based inductive judgements [SIM] to play a significant role during inductive reasoning relative to the strength of category-based inductive judgements [CAT]. In addition to revealing the property inference decision-making preferences of a sample of undergraduate engineers (N = 180), two types of switch classification and two types of non-switch classification (SWITCH) were found and named SIM_NCC, SIM-Salient, Reverse_CAT and CAT_Switching. These different classifications for property inference switching and non-switching presented a more complex pattern of decision-making driven by the relative strength between similarity-based inductive judgements [SIM] and category-based inductive judgements [CAT]. The conditions that encouraged CAT_Switching is of particular interest to design because it corresponds to inference decision switching that affirms the sharing of properties between dissimilar-looking shapes designated as category members, i.e., in a conflicting category alignment condition (CoC). For CAT_Switching, this study found a significant interaction between a particular set of conditions that significantly increased the likelihood of property inference decisions switching to affirm the sharing of properties between dissimilar-looking shapes. Stimuli conditions that combined a conflicting category alignment condition (where dissimilar-looking shapes belong to the same category) with category specificity, a causal property and a target shape with merged (or blended) perceptual surface features significantly increased the likelihood of a property inference decision switching. CAT_Switching has important implications for greater ideational productivity, fluency and diversity to discourage design fixation within the conceptual design space. CAT_Switching conditions could encourage more creative design transformations with alternative design functions through inductive inferences that generalise between dissimilar artefact designs. The findings from this study led to proposing a Cartesian view of the concept design space to represent the possibilities for greater movements through flexible and expanding category boundaries to encourage conceptual combinations, greater ideational fluency and greater ideational diversity within a configuration design space. This study has also created a platform for further research into property inference decision-making, ideational diversity and category boundary flexibility under stimuli conditions that encourage designers and design students to make inductive generalisations between dissimilar domains of knowledge through a greater emphasis on causal relations and semantic networks.