Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T22:09:34.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Big-Five model of personality and word formation: role of open-mindedness in semantic transparency and economy of expression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022

Pavol Kačmár Open the ORCID record for Pavol Kačmár [Opens in a new window]  and
Lívia Körtvélyessy
Pavol Kačmár*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia
Lívia Körtvélyessy
Affiliation:
Department of British and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: pavol.kacmar@upjs.sk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As word formation can be conceptualized as an act of creativity with considerable space for differences among speakers, we present pilot research aimed at the examination of the role of Big-Five personality domains in the formation of new complex words. The sample consisted of 197 participants who underwent a word formation test and a personality assessment via The Next Big-Five Inventory. The results indicate that when ordinal regression is conducted with an aim of accounting for age and gender, open-mindedness is shown as a potentially important predictor – it positively predicted economy of expression and negatively predicted semantic transparency. Furthermore, a more nuanced approach differentiating three facets of open-mindedness shows that creative imagination predicted semantic transparency positively while esthetic sensitivity predicts semantic transparency negatively (the reverse is true for the economy of expression). These findings provide a promising starting point for future research.

Keywords

word formationonomasiological approachsemantic transparencyeconomy of expressionBig-Five modelopen-mindedness/openness to experience
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 217 - 244
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, A. (2019). The neuropsychology of creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, P. (2017). Morphological semantics. In Hippisley, A. & Stump, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 117–148). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), 1–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglim, J., & O’Connor, P. (2019). Measurement and research using the Big Five, HEXACO, and narrow traits: A primer for researchers and practitioners. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anshen, F., & Aronoff, M. (1981). Morphological productivity and phonological transparency. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne De Linguistique, 26(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1017S0008413100023525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anusic, I., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P. (2009). The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1142–1156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnaud, P. J. L. (2013). Word-formation and word-creation: A data-driven exploration of inventiveness in neologisms. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics, 18, 97–113.Google Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C., & Winter-Froemel, E. (Eds.) (2018). Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic innovation, morphological productivity, and ludicity. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. In Linguistic inquiry monograph (vol. 1). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (2020). Domains of creativity. In Runco, M. & Pritzker, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 377–382). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., Fink, A., Qiu, J., Kwapil, T. R., Kane, M. J., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(5), 1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713532115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, M., & Schäfer, M. (2016). Modelling semantic transparency. Morphology, 26, 157–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgwaldt, S., & Lüttenberg, D. (2010). Semantic transparency of compound nouns in native and non-native speakers. In Poster presentation at the 14th Morphological Meeting, Budapest, May 13–16, 2010.Google Scholar
Bourque, Y. S. (2014). Toward a typology of semantic transparency: The case of French compounds. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, A. P., Cotter, K. N., & Silvia, P. J. (2019). Reopening openness to experience: A network analysis of four openness to experience inventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1467428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, G. T., Rozing, M. P., Mortensen, E. L., Christensen, K., & Osler, M. (2018). Young adult cognitive ability and subsequent major depression in a cohort of 666,804 Danish men. Journal of Affective Disorders, 235, 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0801_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolen, R., van Jaarsveld, H. J., & Schreuder, R. (1991). The interpretation of isolated novel nominal compounds. Memory and Cognition, 19, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo Pi-R. Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Costa, S. D., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002Google Scholar
Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Rigorous and Replicable Methods in Social Psychology), 66, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fred, D’Agostino. 1984. “Chomsky on Creativity.” Synthese 58: 85–117.Google Scholar
De Raad, B., Barelds, D., Mlacic, B., Di Blas, L., Hrebickova, M., Ostendorf, F., Szirmak, Z., & Szarota, P. (2018). Take 2 personality factors: A study of two fundamental ways of trait differentiation in eleven trait taxonomies. International Journal of Personality Psychology, 4, 39–55.Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 4, 810–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (2005). Word-formation in natural morphology. In Štekauer, P. & Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 267–284). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., & Brabaresi, L. M. (1994). Morphopragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Bialy, R., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2013). Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents’ semantic transparency. Mental Lexicon, 8(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.1.04elbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feher, A., & Vernon, P. A. (2021). Looking beyond the Big Five: A selective review of alternatives to the Big Five model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences (Celebrating 40th Anniversary of the Journal in 2020), 169, 110002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2019a). The function of personality in creativity: Updates on the creative personality. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology) (2nd ed., pp. 353–373). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2019b). Creativity and the Big Two model of personality: Plasticity and stability. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Frisson, S., Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaetano, J. (2018). Holm–Bonferroni sequential correction: An excel calculator (1.3) [Microsoft Excel workbook]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322568540_Holm-Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.236Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.71Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Nisbet, K. A. (2016). Processing English compounds: Investigating semantic transparency. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13(2), 2–22.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halama, P., Kohút, M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). Slovak adaptation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Psychometric properties and initial validation. Studia Psychologica, 62 ( 1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition, 15, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peter, Hohenhaus. 2007. “How to do (even more) things with nonce words (other thannaming).” In Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts, edited by Munat, Judith, 15–38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hrubovčák, M. (2016). A sociolinguistic research into word-formation strategies. Language Use and Language Acquisition, B.A.S., 22, 145–152.Google Scholar
Hüffmeier, J., Mazei, J., & Schultze, T. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Rigorous and Replicable Methods in Social Psychology), 66, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janovcová, L. (2015). The influence of cognitive abilities on compound-interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, P. J. Safarik University, Kosice.Google Scholar
Jauk, E. (2019). A bio-psycho-behavioral model of creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (Creativity), 27, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 406–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big-Five inventory-version 4a and 54. Berkeley Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.Google Scholar
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The Big Five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J.. 2019. “Preface.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), edited by Kaufman, J. C. and Sternberg, R. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenett, Y. N., Levy, O., Kenett, D. Y., Stanley, H. E., Faust, M., & Havlin, S. (2018). Flexibility of thought in high creative individuals represented by percolation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(5), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717362115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Vantassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and intelligence. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 395–412). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinmintz, O. M., Ivancovsky, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2019). The two-fold model of creativity: The neural underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of creative ideas. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (Creativity), 27, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohút, M., Kohútová, V., Žitný, P., & Halama, P. (2020). Further validation of Slovak Big Five Inventory–2: Six-months test-retest stability and predictive power. Studia Psychologica, 62(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2020.03.803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L., & Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivation in a social context. In Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 407–423). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P., & Kačmár, P. (2020). On the influence of creativity upon the interpretation of complex words. The Mental Lexicon, 15(1), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00018.korCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P., & Kačmár, P. (2021). On the role of creativity in the formation of new complex words. Linguistics, 59(4), 1017–1055. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P., & Kačmár, P. (2022). Creativity in word-formation and word-interpretation. Creative potential and creative performance. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P., & Zimmermann, J. (2015). Word-formation strategies: Semantic transparency vs. formal economy. In Bauer, L., Körtvélyessy, L., & Štekauer, P. (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 85–114). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwiatkowska, M. M., Rogoza, R., & Poole, K. L. (2019). Exploring shy minds: Relations between shyness and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladányi, Mária. 2000. “Productivity, creativity and analogy in word formation (WF):Derivational innovations in Hungarian poetic language.” In Approaches to Hungarian:Papers from the Pécs conference, vol. 7, edited by Gábor, Alberti and Kenesei, Istvaìn, 73–90. Szeged: JATE Press. http://ladanyi.web.elte.hu/derivational_innovations.pdf.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2015). Language, creativity and cognition. In Jones, R. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 40–60). Routledge.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1970. “Problems in the Grammatical Analysis of English Nominal Compounds.” In Progress in Linguistics, edited by Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E., 174–186. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1974). On the alleged idiosyncrasy of non-predicate NP’s. In Binnick, R. I. (Ed.), Papers from the 10th regional meeting, Chicago linguistic society (pp. 402–415). Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1975). The syntax and semantics of non-predicating adjectives in English. University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. (1971). Semantics and structure of compounds in Chinese. University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequence for representation, processing and impairment. Brain and Language, 61, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1876CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libben, G. (2010). Compounds, semantic transparency, and morphological transcendence. In Olson, S. (Ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 17) (pp. 212–232). Buske.Google Scholar
Libben, G., Gagné, C. L., & Dressler, W. U. (2020). The representation and processing of compounds words. In Pirreli, V., Plag, I., & Dressler, W. U. (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: A cross-disciplinary guide to the mental Lexicon (pp. 336–352). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440577-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00620-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libben, G., & Weber, S. (2014). Semantic transparency, compounding, and the nature of independent variables. In Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Gardani, F., & Luschützky, H. C. (Eds.), Morphology and meaning (pp. 205–222). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.14libCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (2010). Introducing morphology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
López Rúa, P. (2010). Making and breaking the rules: Lexical creativity in the alternative music scene. Language Awareness 19(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197363Google Scholar
Marelli, M., & Luzzatti, C. (2012). Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-grammatical morphology in English. Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2018). Paradigmatic morphology splinters, combining forms and secreted affixes. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 15(1), 2–22.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munat, J. (2007). Lexical creativity as a marker of style in science fiction and children’s literature. In Munat, J. (Ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts (pp. 163–185). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.58.20munCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollatsek, A., & Hyönä, J. (2005). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Finnish compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puryear, J. S., Kettler, T., & Rinn, A. N. (2019). Relating personality and creativity: Considering what and how we measure. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(2), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Gardani, F., & Luschützky, H. C. (2014). In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschützky, H. C., & Dressler, W. U. (Eds.), Morphology and meaning. An overview (pp. 3–46). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.02raiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2018). The semantic transparency of English compound nouns. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 345–364). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schultink, H. (1961). Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomen. Forum der letteren, 2, 110–125.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2012). In Whitbourne, S. K. & Sliwinski, M. J. (Eds.), Creative productivity and aging (pp. 477–496). Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Soto, C. J., & Jackson, J. J. (2013). Five-factor model of personality. In Soto, C. J. & Jackson, J. J. (Eds.), Psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0120Google Scholar
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spalding, T. L., Gagné, C. L., Mullaly, A., & Ji, H. (2010). Relation-based interpretation of noun-noun phrases: A new theoretical approach. In Olsen, S. (Ed.), New impulses in word-formation (pp. 283–316). Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1998). An onomasiological theory of English word-formation. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005a). Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. & Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 207–232). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005b). Meaning predictability in word-formation. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2017). Competition in natural languages. In Santana-Lario, J. & Valera, S. (Eds.), Competing patterns in English affixation (pp. 15–32). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P., Chapman, D., Tomaščíková, S., & Franko, Š. (2005). Word-formation as creativity within productivity constraints: Sociolinguistic evidence. Onomasiology Online, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Constraints on creativity: Obvious and not so obvious. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 467–482). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarasova, E. (2013). Some new insights into the semantics of English N+N compounds. PhD dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
The Jamovi Project. (2021). Jamovi (Version 2.0) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.orgGoogle Scholar
Weiner, R. (2000). Creativity and beyond: Cultures, values and change. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E. (1971). Some general observations about nominal compounds. Working papers on language universals. Stanford University 5, 1–21.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E. (1972). Appropriateness conditions for nominal compounds. Working papers on language universals. Stanford University 8, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, P. (1994). The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kačmár and Körtvélyessy supplementary material

Kačmár and Körtvélyessy supplementary material

Download Kačmár and Körtvélyessy supplementary material(File)
File 293.2 KB