Meaning Construction: Cognitive Processes of Conceptual Interaction by Bing Ran A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Sciences Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007 © Bing Ran 2007 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. Bing Ran ii ABSTRACT 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. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not be a possibility without the direct supervision and guidance of Professor Rob Duimering. In the last 7 years for my M.A.Sc and PhD degrees, Rob has spent numerous hours with me discussing and guiding every step in my research. Each of these meetings usually lasted couple of hours and we generally met once or twice every week. The diligence, seriousness, and preciseness are the three most important things I learned from him, and I would like to express my utmost gratitude to him for passing me not only the knowledge in my domain but the attitude towards being a serious researcher. I would like to thank Professor Frank Safayeni for his consistent support on my research. Frank constantly provides feedbacks on the progress of my research and his thoughts are always quite intriguing. I would also like to thank the members of my committee: Professor Dave Fuller, Professor Olga Vechtomova and especially my internal & external Professor Paul Thagard and my external Professor Wisniewski, for providing constructive feedbacks and comments, and spending time with me discussing and examining my ideas. I would like to thank my wife Jun. For these years, she is the one that has been supporting and helping me in every possible way. I have always been envy of her academic achievements and her ability to take care of her work and the family. Since she finished her PhD three years ago, she has assumed all the housework, taking care of our son Jonathan, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry etc. How could I convey my feeling towards her loving care using these plain words? This research has been supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, Ontario Graduate Scholarship, Ontario Graduate Scholarships in Science and Technology, University of Waterloo President's Graduate Scholarship, University of Waterloo Thesis Completion Award, University of Waterloo Scholarship, University of Waterloo Engineering Merit Scholarship, and most importantly, Bell University Funding. iv DEDICATION To Jun v TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHOR'S DECLARATION ...............................................................................................ii Abstract..................................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................iv Dedication...............................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................vi List of Figures.........................................................................................................................x List of Tables.........................................................................................................................xi Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Literature Review ..................................................................................................3 2.1 Conceptual Combination as the Intersection of (Fuzzy) Sets ................................................... 3 2.1.1 The Model .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Criticisms of the Model...................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 The Response of Zadeh (1982) and my comments ............................................................ 6 2.2 Selective Modification Model................................................................................................. 10 2.2.1 The Model ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Some Comments on this Model ....................................................................................... 11 2.3 Amalgam Theory..................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 The Theory ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Some Comment on this Theory........................................................................................ 15 2.4 Concept Specialization Model ................................................................................................ 16 2.4.1 The Model ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.4.2 Some Comments on this Model ....................................................................................... 17 2.5 Composite Prototype Model.................................................................................................... 22 2.5.1 The Model ........................................................................................................................ 22 2.5.2 Some Comments on the Model ........................................................................................ 24 2.6 Dual-Process Model ................................................................................................................ 26 2.6.1 The Model ........................................................................................................................ 26 2.6.2 Some Comments on this Model ....................................................................................... 29 2.7 Constraint Model..................................................................................................................... 30 2.7.1 The Model ........................................................................................................................ 30 vi 2.7.2 Some Comments on this Model ....................................................................................... 31 2.8 CARIN Model......................................................................................................................... 33 2.8.1 The Model ........................................................................................................................ 33 2.8.2 Some Comments on this Model ....................................................................................... 35 2.9 Coherence Theory ..................................................................................................................