- Email: [email protected]
Repetition between and within languages in free recall
JOURNALOF VERBALLEARNINGANDVERBALBEHAVIOR,10, 625-630 (1971)
Repetition Between and W i t h i n Languages in Free Recall 1 MURRAY GLANZER AND ANIBAL DUARTE New York University, New York, New York 10003 Bilingual Ss were given free recall lists consisting of both Enghsh and Spanish words. In those lists, words were repeated in the same language (within-language repetition) or were followed by their translation in the other language (between-language repetition). The distance, 1.e., number of other words intervening, between the word and its repetition was systematically varied. The results show that the probability of recall is an orderly function of distance, type of repetition and their interaction. The greater the distance, the hlgher the probability of recall. Between-language repetitions gwe higher recall overall than within-language repetitions. Th~s advantage is most marked at short distances, disappearing at the greater distances. These effectsare related to a p~ctureof short-term storage and the way in which a word is represented in it.
Two effects of repetition in free recall will be explored here. One effect, the distribution effect, has been found in monolingual recall. The other effect, the bilingual equivalence effect, has been asserted to hold for bilingual recall. 1. The distribution effect. The probability of recall of a word increases if the word is repeated in a list. The amount of this increase is a positive function of the distance, the number of intervening words, between the word and its repetition. This relation is the distribution effect. It has been shown in several studies of free recall (Glanzer, 1969; Madigan, 1969; Melton, 1967, 1970) and in studies of recall with the distractor technique (Peterson, 1963; Pollatsek, 1969) and the paired associates probe technique (Peterson, Wampler, Kirkpatrick & Saltzman, 1963). Some investigators of free recall do not, however, find the effect (Waugh, 1963) for reasons that remain unclear. The evidence in support of it is then strong but not unanimous. 2. The bilingual equivalence effect. The repetitions discussed above refer to mono1This work was carried out under grant ROI HD 04213 sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
lingual tasks. In bilingual tasks two kinds of repetition are possible: (a) within-language repetition, in which a word is given and later repeated in the same language, and (b) between-language repetition, in which a word is later followed by its translation in the second language. There are some findings (Kolers, 1966) that indicate a bilingual equivalence effect--that within-language and betweenlanguage repetitions increase the amount recalled by the same amount. The evidence for this relation is therefore limited. The explanation offered for the distribution effect here is based on a two-storage model of recall (Glanzer, in press). According to this model, an item first enters short-term store (STS) and stays there until displaced by later items. During the item's stay in STS the processing necessary to register it in long-term store (LTS) occurs. If the item is presented a second time while the first representation is still in STS, the second representation is ignored. This will be referred to as the cancellation of duplicates in STS. An item will therefore be represented for a longer period in STS, and will have greater opportunity to transfer to LTS, if it is repeated after the first representation has left STS. From this it 625
626
GLANZER AND DUARTE
follows that the more widely spaced the repetitions, the greater their effect on recall. The reasoning above has been applied only to within-language repetition. It will now be extended to between-language repetition. To make this extension, it is necessary to distinguish certain alternative views of the way in which a word is represented in STS. It is assumed that the word is represented in STS as a set of components. These components may be phonetic, semantic, or both. These three alternatives lead to the following different expectations concerning the effect of repetition: 1. The word is represented in STS solely by phonetic components. In this case a between-language repetition would be handled as an unrelated word. The distance between the word and its translation would be irrelevant. A plot relating probability of recall to distance for between-language repetition should give a straight line of zero slope. 2. The word is represented in STS solely by semantic components. Two cases may be distinguished under this alternative. (a) The semantic components of the word and its translation are identical. In this case, a between-language repetition would show the same distribution effect as a within-language repetition. This case, however, seems unlikely. Kintsch and Kintsch (1969) have presented evidence that bilingual Ss do not confuse between-language repetitions in STS. (b) The semantic components of the word and its translation overlap but are not identical. The lack of identity should decrease the probability that a closely spaced between-language repetition will be cancelled as a duplicate. The distribution effect should therefore occur but in a weakened form. 3. The word is represented in STS by a combination of phonetic and semantic components. Since only the semantic components would be the same in a word and its translation, a weakened distribution effect would be expected as in case 2B above. A plot relating
probability of recall to distance for betweenlanguage repetition should give a flattened, ascending curve. The curve should start higher than the curve for matched within-language repetition and eventually merge with it. Three questions were therefore posed: 1. What is the effect of variation in distance, the number of words between a word and its repetition ? Specifically, does the distribution effect hold ? 2. What is the effect of between-language repetition as compared with within-language repetition ? Specifically, does the independence effect hold ? 3. What is the interaction of these effects ? Specifically, is the distribution effect the same for between-language and within-language repetitions ? METHOD The procedures and scoring were designed to make the between-language repetitions and within-language repetitions as comparable as possible. Repetition conditions were combined to balance out the specific effects of language. Scoring of responses was done by types rather than by tokens. If during recall, S says the word "house" twice, he has uttered two tokens but one type. Type scoring is the customary scoring for within-language repet~tlons. This was done here. By extension to bilingual performance, if S says "house" and "casa" he has also uttered two tokens but one type. The Ss' recall of between-language repetitions was also scored here by types, that is, both "casa" and "house" were counted as a single response. This was done to keep the handhng of between-language repetitions the same as withinlanguage repetitions. Moreover, Ss generally avoid giving the same response twice during recall of withinlanguage repetitions but wdl often give both the word and its translation during recall of between-language repetitions. Type scoring avoids the effect of Ss biases with respect to repetition. The results of token-scoring will, however, also be given. The Ss were given a series of 24 lists, each hst containing 24 words. Half the words in each list were English, half were Spanish. Each list contained two within-language Spanish repetitions, two withinlanguage English repetitions, two between-language repetitions with the English word first, and two with the Spanish word first. In addition to these 16 paired words, there were four unpaired Spanish words and
REPETITION BETWEEN AND WITHIN LANGUAGES
627
four unpaired English words in each list. The repetitions m each list were evenly divided into four distances ---0, 1, 2, and 5 intervening items. Across the 24 lists given to an S, the pairs for each of the 16 treatment combinations--four distances by four repetition conditions--appeared once at each possible serial position. For example, across the lists, a SpanishSpanish sequence, distance 0, appeared once in positions 1 and 2, once in positions 3 and 4, etc. Similarly across the lists a Spanish-English sequence, distance 5, appeared once in positions 1 and 7, once in positions 2 and 8, once in positions 3 and 9, etc.
Spanish. He was told that he did not have to write a repeated word more than once. This was done to make the between-language repetition condition as similar as possible to the within-language repetition. At the end of the session the S was given a free association test with four Spanish and four English words to measure fluency in the two languages. No systematic relation was found between the scores on this test and various aspects of their performance in recall. This test will, therefore, not be considered further.
Materials Three hundred and eighty-four noun pairs were selected from a hsting of English-Spanish (E-S) synonym pairs in Eaton's dictionary (1961) e.g., wolf-lobo. Pairs as close in meaning as possible were chosen. The final set was selected on the basis of a review by three bilingualjudges. Pairs with graphemic slmdarity were eliminated, e.g., beast-bestia. All words used in the lists were high in frequency of usage. They all were among the 2000 most frequently used words in their respective languages according to the rankings furnished by Eaton (1961). All of the words were between four and seven letters in length. For each S, 192 pairs were drawn at random from the group of 384 pairs, to furnish the repetition items used in the list. The unrepeated words were obtained by selecting the English word or the Spanish word from each of the remaining 192 pairs, for a total of 96 from each language. Each S was therefore given a different set of lists generated by an independent random selection of words from the pool described above. There was, moreover, an independent random placement of the pairs and unrepeated words in list positions, within the counterbalancing constraints descr,bed above. The obtained lists were ordered at random.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Subjects There were 60 Ss, 28 males and 32 females, ranging in age from 18 to 31 years. All were proficient in both English and Spamsh with Spanish as their first language. All had resided in the United States and had been speaking English two years or more. Procedure Each S was tested individually in a session that lasted approximately one and a half hours. The S was first given two practice lists, of the same form as the experimental lists, and then the 24 experimental lists. The"lists were shown on a memory drum at a 2-see rate. The S read each word aloud as it appeared. At the end of the list there was a 90-see recall period during which S wrote down as many words as he could recall, in any order. Instructions were read to S in both English and
The results are summarized in Fig. I. The solid-line curve represents the effect of increasing distancefor within-languagerepetitions. An effect similar to that obtained in previous studies of within-languagerepetition is observed (Glanzer, 1969). As the distance increases there is a marked increase in the p r o b a b i l i t y of recall. The b r o k e n curve represents the effect of increasing distance for between-language repetition. The curve is flatter t h a n the within language curve. It starts higher a n d levels off earlier to merge with the other curve. The p a t t e r n is the one expected if the words are represented in STS by pure b u t overlapping semantic c o m p o n e n t s (alternative 2B above) or by c o m b i n a t i o n s of phonetic a n d semantic c o m p o n e n t s (alternative 3). The single p o i n t plotted above C in the lower left h a n d corner represents the m e a n p r o b a b i l i t y of recall of u n r e p e a t e d words, Analysis of variance of the m e a n s for the eight repetition conditions represented in Fig. 1 finds all effects statistically significant: W i t h i n - versus between-language repetition F(1,59) = 35.71, p < .001 ; distance, F(1, 59) = 39.65, p < .001 ; a n d their interaction, F(1,59) = 6.29, p < .025. Each m e a n represented i n Fig. 1 a n d analyzed above is o b t a i n e d by averaging two different language conditions. A withinlanguage repetition m e a n is o b t a i n e d by c o m b i n i n g data f r o m repeated English words a n d f r o m repeated Spanish words. A betweenlanguage repetition m e a n is o b t a i n e d by c o m b i n i n g data from S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h (S-E)
628
GLANZER AND DUARTE
and E-S repetition sequences. These combinations permit comparison of the two main repetition conditions since both are then based on performance with an equal number of English and Spanish words. The two conditions that make up each main repetition condition can, however, be compared with each other. These comparisons are
fact that Spanish was the Ss' first language. Both Nott and Lambert (1968) and Tulving and Colotla (1970) have, however, presented data in which bilingual Ss recall more words from their weaker language in bilingual lists. Comparison of the two conditions that made up the between-language repetition condition gave results similar to the analysis
65 1-Ld el/ 0
60 55 5O
Z 0 I-© Q.. 0 n-" [1.
45 4O 0------0 55
C
BETWEEN LANGUAGE
0
WITHIN LANGUAGE
50 I
I
I
i
i
I
I
C
0
I
2
5
4
5
DISTANCE
FIG. 1. Proportions of words recalled with between-language and within-language repetition. Also shown above C m the proportion of unrepeated words recalled. of interest in their own right. They are also necessary to justify the combination of the component conditions as in Fig. 1. Plotting the recall probability of SpanishSpanish (S-S) repetitions and the EnglishEnglish (E-E) repetitions separately as a function of distance gives two ascending curves with the curve for Spanish repetition higher at all distances. Separate analysis of variance of these data gave the following: The effect of language (E-E repetition, versus S-S repetition) was significant F(1,59) = 93.11, p < .001. The effect of distance was also significant F(1,59) = 34.62, p < .001. Their interaction was not, F(1,59) = 2.89, p > .05. The within-language curve of Fig. 1 represents, then, the conditions that it combines fairly well. The only new information contained here was that the Ss recalled more Spanish than English words overall. The higher recall for Spanish than for English (see Table 1) might be related to the
of the within-language repetition condition. Plotting the English-Spanish and SpanishEnglish repetitions separately as a function of distance gave two ascending curves of the TABLE 1 OVERALL MEANS FOR THE REPETITION AND NONREPETITION CONDITIONS
E-E
S-S
E-S
S-E
E
S
.46
.57
.54
.58
.30
.36
same form as the between-language in Fig. 1. The curve for the S-E sequences was slightly higher than the curve for the E-S sequences. Separate analysis of variance of these data gave the following: The effect of E-S versus S-E repetition was significant, F(1,59) = 7.27, p < .01. The effect of distance was also significant, F(1,59) = 9.32, p < .005. Their interaction was not, F < 1. These results justify the combination of the two conditions
REPETITION BETWEEN AND WITHIN LANGUAGES
into one. It is not clear at this point why the S-E sequences were better than the E-S sequences. One possibility is that the recognition in STS of similarity or identity of the word and its translation involves an asymmetrical relation, that is, occurs more easily in the E-S sequences. One other comparison of conditions is possible: recall of unrepeated Spanish (S) words and the unrepeated English (E) words. The Ss recall more unrepeated Spanish words than unrepeated English words (see Table 1). The difference between means was significant, F(1,59) = 6.91, p < .025. These findings agree with the findings on the difference between S-S and E-E repetitions. It is possible to look at the data represented in Fig. 1 on the basis of token-scoring rather than type-scoring as done above. If this is done, the number of correct responses for each distance in the within-language repetition condition would be unaffected since Ss rarely gave multiple responses to within-language repetitions. There were four such responses out of a total of 2944 correct responses to within-language repetitions. The proportions corresponding to those plotted in Fig. 1 would, however, all be halved since they would be based on twice as many possible occurrences. In the case of between-language repetitions, there were a considerable number of instances in which the S gave the word and its translation. Counting these repeated responses as two correct responses and taking account of the doubled number of possible occurrences gives the following proportions for distances 0 to 5--0.33, 0.34, 0.36 and 0.36. Token-scoring gives a curve for between-language repetition that lies above the corresponding curve for within-language repetition, at all distances. It also reduces the distance effect, i.e., flattens the curve. The data on token-scoring are mentioned here only as background information. In a preceding study (Glanzer, 1969) on repetition it was argued that as distance increased, S approached a condition in which he had two independent trials for a
629
word. From this it follows that the curve for the type-scored data in Fig. 1 should reach an asymptote, Pl~ = Pl + P j - P~Pj
(1)
where p, and p j are the probabilities that unrepeated items in language i and j will be recalled and P t j is the probability of recall of an item given in language i and repeated in languagej. Since the mean probability for the recall of unrepeated Spanish words was Ps = .36 and for unrepeated English words was Pe = .30, the following asymptotes may be estimated. For both the probability of recall of an S-E sequence and the probability of an E-S sequence, the estimate is .55. The asymptote for between-language repetition should therefore be .55. For recall of an S-S sequence the estimate is .59. For an E-E sequence, it is .51. The estimated asymptote for within-language repetition, obtained by taking the mean of the two is, here, also. 55. These estimated asymptotes fall below .59, the mean at distance 5, for both the betweenand within-language repetition. Each of the differences between the expected and observed proportions is statistically significant, t(59) = 2.63, p < . 0 5 . These findings agree with previous findings in which the greater distances give recall probabilities higher than those estimated by the equation given above (Glanzer, 1969; Madigan, 1969; Melton, 1967, 1970). They present a problem for the explanation of distribution effect on the basis of the idea of a limited STS. Repeated items may be governed by a different learning function than that for the unrepeated items. Although this complicates the discussion of effects of repetition it is not unreasonable. It is known that the probability that S recognizes a repeated item as recently given is very high. It is reasonable to assume that the rehearsal of such a recognized item is favored over the rehearsal of a new item, producing a higher learning rate for a repeated item at all distances.
630
GLANZIER AND DUARTE
This effect, however, cannot be used to explain the basic distribution effect. Recognition of a repeated item does not increase with increasing distance. The distribution effect, however, does involve an increase in probability of recall with increase in distance. The explanation offered earlier for the distribution effect still is viable, although it cannot by itself handle all the effects of repetition. Two main points come through clearly. 1. The distribution effect holds for both within-language and between-language repetitions. 2. The bilingual independence effect holds under the following conditions: (A) When type-scoring is carried out. It may also hold under token-scoring if the S can be induced to repeat his responses to within-language repetitions in his recall. (B) For the larger distances. For short distances, between-language repetitions give higher probabilities of recall. The pattern of results conforms to expectations" based on either of two views of STS. One is'that STS processes a word as a set of semantic components with account taken of the non-overlap of these components for a word and its translation. The other is that STS processes a set of phonetic and semantic components. Again account is taken of the non-overlap of these components for a word and its translation. From either of these views and the assumption that there is cancellation of one of the two duplicates present simultaneously in STS, the curves,, seen in Fig. 1 follow. From either of these views there is processing of semantic information for words represented in STS. The reasoning outlined above leads to a more complex view of STS than that currently popular.
REFERENCES EATON,H. S. An English-French-German-Spanish word frequency dictionary. New York: Dover, 1961. GLANZER, M. Distance between related words in free recall: Trace of the STS. Journal of Verbal Learmng and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 105-111. GLANZER, M. Storage mechanisms in recall. In G. H. Bower (Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 5 New York: Academic Press, in press. IONTSCH,W., & KINTSCH,E. Interlingual interference and memory processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 16-19. KOLERS, P. A. Interlingual facihtation of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 314-319. MADIGAN, S. A. Intraserial repetition and coding process in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 828-835. MELTON,A. W. Repetition and retrieval from memory. Science, 1967, 158, 532. MELTON, A. W. The s~tuation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 596-606. NOTr, C. R., & LAMBERT,W. E. Free recall of bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 1065-1071. PETERSON,L. R. Immediate memory: Data and theory. In C. N. Corer and B. S. Musgrave (Eds.) Verbal behavior and learning, New York: McGraw Hill, 1963, 336-353. PETERSON,L. R., WAMPLER,R., KIRKPATRICK,M., & SALTZMAN,O. Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 206-209. POLLATSEK,A. W. Rehearsal, interference, and spacing of practice in short-term memory. Tech. Rept. No. 16 Human Performance Center, University of Michigan, 1969. TULVING,E., & COLOTLA,V. A. Free recall of trilingual lists. Cognitive Psychology, 1970, 1, 86-98. WAUGH, N. C. Immediate memory as a function of repetition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 107-112.
(Received April 29, 1971)
Repetition Between and W i t h i n Languages in Free Recall 1 MURRAY GLANZER AND ANIBAL DUARTE New York University, New York, New York 10003 Bilingual Ss were given free recall lists consisting of both Enghsh and Spanish words. In those lists, words were repeated in the same language (within-language repetition) or were followed by their translation in the other language (between-language repetition). The distance, 1.e., number of other words intervening, between the word and its repetition was systematically varied. The results show that the probability of recall is an orderly function of distance, type of repetition and their interaction. The greater the distance, the hlgher the probability of recall. Between-language repetitions gwe higher recall overall than within-language repetitions. Th~s advantage is most marked at short distances, disappearing at the greater distances. These effectsare related to a p~ctureof short-term storage and the way in which a word is represented in it.
Two effects of repetition in free recall will be explored here. One effect, the distribution effect, has been found in monolingual recall. The other effect, the bilingual equivalence effect, has been asserted to hold for bilingual recall. 1. The distribution effect. The probability of recall of a word increases if the word is repeated in a list. The amount of this increase is a positive function of the distance, the number of intervening words, between the word and its repetition. This relation is the distribution effect. It has been shown in several studies of free recall (Glanzer, 1969; Madigan, 1969; Melton, 1967, 1970) and in studies of recall with the distractor technique (Peterson, 1963; Pollatsek, 1969) and the paired associates probe technique (Peterson, Wampler, Kirkpatrick & Saltzman, 1963). Some investigators of free recall do not, however, find the effect (Waugh, 1963) for reasons that remain unclear. The evidence in support of it is then strong but not unanimous. 2. The bilingual equivalence effect. The repetitions discussed above refer to mono1This work was carried out under grant ROI HD 04213 sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
lingual tasks. In bilingual tasks two kinds of repetition are possible: (a) within-language repetition, in which a word is given and later repeated in the same language, and (b) between-language repetition, in which a word is later followed by its translation in the second language. There are some findings (Kolers, 1966) that indicate a bilingual equivalence effect--that within-language and betweenlanguage repetitions increase the amount recalled by the same amount. The evidence for this relation is therefore limited. The explanation offered for the distribution effect here is based on a two-storage model of recall (Glanzer, in press). According to this model, an item first enters short-term store (STS) and stays there until displaced by later items. During the item's stay in STS the processing necessary to register it in long-term store (LTS) occurs. If the item is presented a second time while the first representation is still in STS, the second representation is ignored. This will be referred to as the cancellation of duplicates in STS. An item will therefore be represented for a longer period in STS, and will have greater opportunity to transfer to LTS, if it is repeated after the first representation has left STS. From this it 625
626
GLANZER AND DUARTE
follows that the more widely spaced the repetitions, the greater their effect on recall. The reasoning above has been applied only to within-language repetition. It will now be extended to between-language repetition. To make this extension, it is necessary to distinguish certain alternative views of the way in which a word is represented in STS. It is assumed that the word is represented in STS as a set of components. These components may be phonetic, semantic, or both. These three alternatives lead to the following different expectations concerning the effect of repetition: 1. The word is represented in STS solely by phonetic components. In this case a between-language repetition would be handled as an unrelated word. The distance between the word and its translation would be irrelevant. A plot relating probability of recall to distance for between-language repetition should give a straight line of zero slope. 2. The word is represented in STS solely by semantic components. Two cases may be distinguished under this alternative. (a) The semantic components of the word and its translation are identical. In this case, a between-language repetition would show the same distribution effect as a within-language repetition. This case, however, seems unlikely. Kintsch and Kintsch (1969) have presented evidence that bilingual Ss do not confuse between-language repetitions in STS. (b) The semantic components of the word and its translation overlap but are not identical. The lack of identity should decrease the probability that a closely spaced between-language repetition will be cancelled as a duplicate. The distribution effect should therefore occur but in a weakened form. 3. The word is represented in STS by a combination of phonetic and semantic components. Since only the semantic components would be the same in a word and its translation, a weakened distribution effect would be expected as in case 2B above. A plot relating
probability of recall to distance for betweenlanguage repetition should give a flattened, ascending curve. The curve should start higher than the curve for matched within-language repetition and eventually merge with it. Three questions were therefore posed: 1. What is the effect of variation in distance, the number of words between a word and its repetition ? Specifically, does the distribution effect hold ? 2. What is the effect of between-language repetition as compared with within-language repetition ? Specifically, does the independence effect hold ? 3. What is the interaction of these effects ? Specifically, is the distribution effect the same for between-language and within-language repetitions ? METHOD The procedures and scoring were designed to make the between-language repetitions and within-language repetitions as comparable as possible. Repetition conditions were combined to balance out the specific effects of language. Scoring of responses was done by types rather than by tokens. If during recall, S says the word "house" twice, he has uttered two tokens but one type. Type scoring is the customary scoring for within-language repet~tlons. This was done here. By extension to bilingual performance, if S says "house" and "casa" he has also uttered two tokens but one type. The Ss' recall of between-language repetitions was also scored here by types, that is, both "casa" and "house" were counted as a single response. This was done to keep the handhng of between-language repetitions the same as withinlanguage repetitions. Moreover, Ss generally avoid giving the same response twice during recall of withinlanguage repetitions but wdl often give both the word and its translation during recall of between-language repetitions. Type scoring avoids the effect of Ss biases with respect to repetition. The results of token-scoring will, however, also be given. The Ss were given a series of 24 lists, each hst containing 24 words. Half the words in each list were English, half were Spanish. Each list contained two within-language Spanish repetitions, two withinlanguage English repetitions, two between-language repetitions with the English word first, and two with the Spanish word first. In addition to these 16 paired words, there were four unpaired Spanish words and
REPETITION BETWEEN AND WITHIN LANGUAGES
627
four unpaired English words in each list. The repetitions m each list were evenly divided into four distances ---0, 1, 2, and 5 intervening items. Across the 24 lists given to an S, the pairs for each of the 16 treatment combinations--four distances by four repetition conditions--appeared once at each possible serial position. For example, across the lists, a SpanishSpanish sequence, distance 0, appeared once in positions 1 and 2, once in positions 3 and 4, etc. Similarly across the lists a Spanish-English sequence, distance 5, appeared once in positions 1 and 7, once in positions 2 and 8, once in positions 3 and 9, etc.
Spanish. He was told that he did not have to write a repeated word more than once. This was done to make the between-language repetition condition as similar as possible to the within-language repetition. At the end of the session the S was given a free association test with four Spanish and four English words to measure fluency in the two languages. No systematic relation was found between the scores on this test and various aspects of their performance in recall. This test will, therefore, not be considered further.
Materials Three hundred and eighty-four noun pairs were selected from a hsting of English-Spanish (E-S) synonym pairs in Eaton's dictionary (1961) e.g., wolf-lobo. Pairs as close in meaning as possible were chosen. The final set was selected on the basis of a review by three bilingualjudges. Pairs with graphemic slmdarity were eliminated, e.g., beast-bestia. All words used in the lists were high in frequency of usage. They all were among the 2000 most frequently used words in their respective languages according to the rankings furnished by Eaton (1961). All of the words were between four and seven letters in length. For each S, 192 pairs were drawn at random from the group of 384 pairs, to furnish the repetition items used in the list. The unrepeated words were obtained by selecting the English word or the Spanish word from each of the remaining 192 pairs, for a total of 96 from each language. Each S was therefore given a different set of lists generated by an independent random selection of words from the pool described above. There was, moreover, an independent random placement of the pairs and unrepeated words in list positions, within the counterbalancing constraints descr,bed above. The obtained lists were ordered at random.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Subjects There were 60 Ss, 28 males and 32 females, ranging in age from 18 to 31 years. All were proficient in both English and Spamsh with Spanish as their first language. All had resided in the United States and had been speaking English two years or more. Procedure Each S was tested individually in a session that lasted approximately one and a half hours. The S was first given two practice lists, of the same form as the experimental lists, and then the 24 experimental lists. The"lists were shown on a memory drum at a 2-see rate. The S read each word aloud as it appeared. At the end of the list there was a 90-see recall period during which S wrote down as many words as he could recall, in any order. Instructions were read to S in both English and
The results are summarized in Fig. I. The solid-line curve represents the effect of increasing distancefor within-languagerepetitions. An effect similar to that obtained in previous studies of within-languagerepetition is observed (Glanzer, 1969). As the distance increases there is a marked increase in the p r o b a b i l i t y of recall. The b r o k e n curve represents the effect of increasing distance for between-language repetition. The curve is flatter t h a n the within language curve. It starts higher a n d levels off earlier to merge with the other curve. The p a t t e r n is the one expected if the words are represented in STS by pure b u t overlapping semantic c o m p o n e n t s (alternative 2B above) or by c o m b i n a t i o n s of phonetic a n d semantic c o m p o n e n t s (alternative 3). The single p o i n t plotted above C in the lower left h a n d corner represents the m e a n p r o b a b i l i t y of recall of u n r e p e a t e d words, Analysis of variance of the m e a n s for the eight repetition conditions represented in Fig. 1 finds all effects statistically significant: W i t h i n - versus between-language repetition F(1,59) = 35.71, p < .001 ; distance, F(1, 59) = 39.65, p < .001 ; a n d their interaction, F(1,59) = 6.29, p < .025. Each m e a n represented i n Fig. 1 a n d analyzed above is o b t a i n e d by averaging two different language conditions. A withinlanguage repetition m e a n is o b t a i n e d by c o m b i n i n g data f r o m repeated English words a n d f r o m repeated Spanish words. A betweenlanguage repetition m e a n is o b t a i n e d by c o m b i n i n g data from S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h (S-E)
628
GLANZER AND DUARTE
and E-S repetition sequences. These combinations permit comparison of the two main repetition conditions since both are then based on performance with an equal number of English and Spanish words. The two conditions that make up each main repetition condition can, however, be compared with each other. These comparisons are
fact that Spanish was the Ss' first language. Both Nott and Lambert (1968) and Tulving and Colotla (1970) have, however, presented data in which bilingual Ss recall more words from their weaker language in bilingual lists. Comparison of the two conditions that made up the between-language repetition condition gave results similar to the analysis
65 1-Ld el/ 0
60 55 5O
Z 0 I-© Q.. 0 n-" [1.
45 4O 0------0 55
C
BETWEEN LANGUAGE
0
WITHIN LANGUAGE
50 I
I
I
i
i
I
I
C
0
I
2
5
4
5
DISTANCE
FIG. 1. Proportions of words recalled with between-language and within-language repetition. Also shown above C m the proportion of unrepeated words recalled. of interest in their own right. They are also necessary to justify the combination of the component conditions as in Fig. 1. Plotting the recall probability of SpanishSpanish (S-S) repetitions and the EnglishEnglish (E-E) repetitions separately as a function of distance gives two ascending curves with the curve for Spanish repetition higher at all distances. Separate analysis of variance of these data gave the following: The effect of language (E-E repetition, versus S-S repetition) was significant F(1,59) = 93.11, p < .001. The effect of distance was also significant F(1,59) = 34.62, p < .001. Their interaction was not, F(1,59) = 2.89, p > .05. The within-language curve of Fig. 1 represents, then, the conditions that it combines fairly well. The only new information contained here was that the Ss recalled more Spanish than English words overall. The higher recall for Spanish than for English (see Table 1) might be related to the
of the within-language repetition condition. Plotting the English-Spanish and SpanishEnglish repetitions separately as a function of distance gave two ascending curves of the TABLE 1 OVERALL MEANS FOR THE REPETITION AND NONREPETITION CONDITIONS
E-E
S-S
E-S
S-E
E
S
.46
.57
.54
.58
.30
.36
same form as the between-language in Fig. 1. The curve for the S-E sequences was slightly higher than the curve for the E-S sequences. Separate analysis of variance of these data gave the following: The effect of E-S versus S-E repetition was significant, F(1,59) = 7.27, p < .01. The effect of distance was also significant, F(1,59) = 9.32, p < .005. Their interaction was not, F < 1. These results justify the combination of the two conditions
REPETITION BETWEEN AND WITHIN LANGUAGES
into one. It is not clear at this point why the S-E sequences were better than the E-S sequences. One possibility is that the recognition in STS of similarity or identity of the word and its translation involves an asymmetrical relation, that is, occurs more easily in the E-S sequences. One other comparison of conditions is possible: recall of unrepeated Spanish (S) words and the unrepeated English (E) words. The Ss recall more unrepeated Spanish words than unrepeated English words (see Table 1). The difference between means was significant, F(1,59) = 6.91, p < .025. These findings agree with the findings on the difference between S-S and E-E repetitions. It is possible to look at the data represented in Fig. 1 on the basis of token-scoring rather than type-scoring as done above. If this is done, the number of correct responses for each distance in the within-language repetition condition would be unaffected since Ss rarely gave multiple responses to within-language repetitions. There were four such responses out of a total of 2944 correct responses to within-language repetitions. The proportions corresponding to those plotted in Fig. 1 would, however, all be halved since they would be based on twice as many possible occurrences. In the case of between-language repetitions, there were a considerable number of instances in which the S gave the word and its translation. Counting these repeated responses as two correct responses and taking account of the doubled number of possible occurrences gives the following proportions for distances 0 to 5--0.33, 0.34, 0.36 and 0.36. Token-scoring gives a curve for between-language repetition that lies above the corresponding curve for within-language repetition, at all distances. It also reduces the distance effect, i.e., flattens the curve. The data on token-scoring are mentioned here only as background information. In a preceding study (Glanzer, 1969) on repetition it was argued that as distance increased, S approached a condition in which he had two independent trials for a
629
word. From this it follows that the curve for the type-scored data in Fig. 1 should reach an asymptote, Pl~ = Pl + P j - P~Pj
(1)
where p, and p j are the probabilities that unrepeated items in language i and j will be recalled and P t j is the probability of recall of an item given in language i and repeated in languagej. Since the mean probability for the recall of unrepeated Spanish words was Ps = .36 and for unrepeated English words was Pe = .30, the following asymptotes may be estimated. For both the probability of recall of an S-E sequence and the probability of an E-S sequence, the estimate is .55. The asymptote for between-language repetition should therefore be .55. For recall of an S-S sequence the estimate is .59. For an E-E sequence, it is .51. The estimated asymptote for within-language repetition, obtained by taking the mean of the two is, here, also. 55. These estimated asymptotes fall below .59, the mean at distance 5, for both the betweenand within-language repetition. Each of the differences between the expected and observed proportions is statistically significant, t(59) = 2.63, p < . 0 5 . These findings agree with previous findings in which the greater distances give recall probabilities higher than those estimated by the equation given above (Glanzer, 1969; Madigan, 1969; Melton, 1967, 1970). They present a problem for the explanation of distribution effect on the basis of the idea of a limited STS. Repeated items may be governed by a different learning function than that for the unrepeated items. Although this complicates the discussion of effects of repetition it is not unreasonable. It is known that the probability that S recognizes a repeated item as recently given is very high. It is reasonable to assume that the rehearsal of such a recognized item is favored over the rehearsal of a new item, producing a higher learning rate for a repeated item at all distances.
630
GLANZIER AND DUARTE
This effect, however, cannot be used to explain the basic distribution effect. Recognition of a repeated item does not increase with increasing distance. The distribution effect, however, does involve an increase in probability of recall with increase in distance. The explanation offered earlier for the distribution effect still is viable, although it cannot by itself handle all the effects of repetition. Two main points come through clearly. 1. The distribution effect holds for both within-language and between-language repetitions. 2. The bilingual independence effect holds under the following conditions: (A) When type-scoring is carried out. It may also hold under token-scoring if the S can be induced to repeat his responses to within-language repetitions in his recall. (B) For the larger distances. For short distances, between-language repetitions give higher probabilities of recall. The pattern of results conforms to expectations" based on either of two views of STS. One is'that STS processes a word as a set of semantic components with account taken of the non-overlap of these components for a word and its translation. The other is that STS processes a set of phonetic and semantic components. Again account is taken of the non-overlap of these components for a word and its translation. From either of these views and the assumption that there is cancellation of one of the two duplicates present simultaneously in STS, the curves,, seen in Fig. 1 follow. From either of these views there is processing of semantic information for words represented in STS. The reasoning outlined above leads to a more complex view of STS than that currently popular.
REFERENCES EATON,H. S. An English-French-German-Spanish word frequency dictionary. New York: Dover, 1961. GLANZER, M. Distance between related words in free recall: Trace of the STS. Journal of Verbal Learmng and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 105-111. GLANZER, M. Storage mechanisms in recall. In G. H. Bower (Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 5 New York: Academic Press, in press. IONTSCH,W., & KINTSCH,E. Interlingual interference and memory processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 16-19. KOLERS, P. A. Interlingual facihtation of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 314-319. MADIGAN, S. A. Intraserial repetition and coding process in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 828-835. MELTON,A. W. Repetition and retrieval from memory. Science, 1967, 158, 532. MELTON, A. W. The s~tuation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 596-606. NOTr, C. R., & LAMBERT,W. E. Free recall of bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 1065-1071. PETERSON,L. R. Immediate memory: Data and theory. In C. N. Corer and B. S. Musgrave (Eds.) Verbal behavior and learning, New York: McGraw Hill, 1963, 336-353. PETERSON,L. R., WAMPLER,R., KIRKPATRICK,M., & SALTZMAN,O. Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 206-209. POLLATSEK,A. W. Rehearsal, interference, and spacing of practice in short-term memory. Tech. Rept. No. 16 Human Performance Center, University of Michigan, 1969. TULVING,E., & COLOTLA,V. A. Free recall of trilingual lists. Cognitive Psychology, 1970, 1, 86-98. WAUGH, N. C. Immediate memory as a function of repetition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 107-112.
(Received April 29, 1971)