Free recall of homographs and their primary associates

JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNINGAND VERBALBEHAVIOR9, 79-83 (1970)

Free Recall of Homographs and Their Primary Associates DONALD H . KAUSLER AND NEIL C. KAMICHOFF

Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 63103

Free recall of homographs and their primary associates was investigated under various priming conditions. Priming consisted of presenting distracting items simultaneously with to-be-remembered words during the study phases of free recall trials. When the distracting items were words related to the alternate meanings of the homographs, that is, meanings unrelated to the meanings inferred from the primary associates, both clustering between homographs and their primary associates and recall across trials were markedly reduced, relative to control conditions receiving neutral items (words or digits) as distractors.

Homographs are words which have identical spellings and, usually, identical pronunciations, but two, or more, meanings which are derived from different word roots. A common example is the word lock which refers to both "a means of fastening doors, etc.," and "a curl of hair." Thus a homograph seems to function semantically as if it is actually two or more distinct words, each of which has its own unique set of features (Katz & Fodor, 1963). One implication of this view concerns the nature of word associations to a homographic stimulus. Some associations are likely to be related to one meaning of the homograph, while others are related to the alternate meaning. For example, word associations (Bousfield, Cohen, Whitmarsh, & Kincaid, 1961) to lock as a stimulus word include k e y and hair, responses which are obviously related to the first and second meanings, respectively, of the stimulus. The nature of a given S's association thus suggests the specific meaning, or set of lexical features, of the homograph that served as the functional stimulus for eliciting his association. Moreover, Cramer (1968) has demonstrated that a specific meaning of a homograph may be primed, thereby increasing the likelihood that the word associations linked to the primed meaning will be activated. Conversely, the possibility exists that word associations linked

to the nonprimed meaning will diminish as a consequence of priming. The present study tested the implication of this priming effect upon the recall of a list containing homographs and their primary associates. Contemporary views of free-recall learning (Tulving, 1968) stress the organization of item traces into interitem associations as a means of promoting effective storage and retrieval. One method of inducing this organization is to have Ss learn a list composed of nonhomographic stimulus words and their primary associates (e.g., Jenkins & Russell, 1952). A similar organization is to be expected when homographs and their primary associates comprise the list. This expectation is based on the assumption that homographs will elicit meanings for most Ss that are consonant with their primary associates. Consequently, the relationship between homographs and their primary associates in a standard free-recall situation should be no different than it is for nonhomographs and their primary associates. However, priming of the alternate meanings of homographs should, in effect, generate functional stimuli that are relatively independent of the primary associates incorporated into the same list. The direct consequence of this priming effect should be a marked reduction of clustering between stimulus words and their primary associates during free recall. In 79

80

KAUSLERAND KAMICHOFF

addition, the reduction in organization that accompanies priming is expected to yield a decrease in recall scores per se, relative to a nonprimed control condition. A test of the priming effect requires a modification of the standard free-recall procedure in which to-be-remembered (TBR) words are exposed individually during study trials. The modification adopted in this study followed closely one introduced earlier by Cofer and his colleagues (Cofer, Segal, Stein, & Walker, 1969; Gonzalez & Cofer, 1959). Their procedure consisted of exposing a modifying word simultaneously with each TBR word. Cofer's studies revealed that both clustering and recall for categorically related TBR words were reduced when the modifiers were inappropriate adjectives which seemingly altered those features of the TBR words related to list organization. The present intent was to demonstrate the debilitating effect of modifiers on recall when both homographs and their primary associates are included as TBR words. The modifiers for the TBR words, half of which were homographs and half were primary associates of the homographs, for instance, lock and key (Bousfield et al., 1961), were distracting (D) words which S pronounced successively with the TBR words. In the experimental, or primed, condition the D word for each TBR homograph was a word related to the homograph's alternate meaning. Thus hair, an associate related to the alternate meaning of lock, served as the D word for lock. In two different control, or nonprimed, conditions the D words for the homographs were unrelated to the homographs. In one control condition they were neutral words equated in frequency, length, and initial letter with the D words of the experimental condition (e.g., hand replaced hair as the D word for lock). The uncertain effect of word distractors in general on free recall suggested the need for a second control condition in which the distracting task did not introduce a potential intrapair competition for item retrieval. The task selected was the reading of two single

digits, a task judged by the Es to be approximately equal in its time requirement to the pronouncing of the D words employed in the other two conditions. In all three conditions the remaining TBR words were, of course, the primary associates of the homographs. For both the experimental and the first control conditions, the D words for the primary associates were unrelated to the other words of the list (e.g., dirt was the D word for key in both conditions). For the second control condition the distractors were again two single digits. METHOD

Subjects and design. The Ss were 42 undergraduates, all of whom were naive with respect to prior participation in verbal learning experiments. They were assigned alternately to three groups (N = 14), representing the experimental (Group E) and the first and secondcontrol conditions described earlier (Groups C1 and C2, respectively). Lists. The free-recall list contained a set of 16 TBR words, 8 homographs and the 8 primary associates of these homographs, that was identical for each group, and 16 D items (words or digits), each paired with a TBR word, that varied across groups. For purposes of greater generalization of results and greater control over idiosyncratic characteristics of homographs, two forms, A and B, of the free-recall list were prepared, with half of the Ss in each group receivingForm A and half receiving Form B. Eight homograph-associate pairings were assigned randomly to each form. With the exoeptions of the associative relationship between homographs and their primary associates and between homographs and their distractors in Group E, both TBR words and D words were selected to yield zero interitem associative strengthaCcordingto norms. The form of the list.was subsequently found to be unrelated to any of the dependent variables employed, and the data for the two forms were pooled for the analyses reported below. Ten of the 16 homographs were stimulus words from the Connecticut word association norms (Bousfield et al., 1961). The paucity of homographs as stimulus words in published word associationnorms necessitated the standardization of additional homographs. For this purpose 14 additional homographs were embedded in a list of 40 stimulus words that was administered as a group word-associationtest to 200 students (100 men and 100 women) in general psychology classes at St. Louis University. The procedure followedwas identical

81

FREE RECALL OF HOMOGRAPHS to that of Palermo and Jenkins (1964). Six of these newly standardized homographs were then selected for inclusion as stimulus items in the free-recall lists. The three groups differed only in the nature of the D items paired with the TBR words. For Group E each D item paired with a homograph was a word related to the homograph's alternate meaning. For Group CI each homographic distractor employed for Group E was replaced by a neutral word matched for length, initial letter, and, as closely as possible, word frequency. For both Groups E and CI the D words paired with primary associates were neutral words selected from the word norms. For Group C2 the D words employed for Groups E and CI were replaced by two single digits that were randomly assigned to each of the 16 stimulus items from the numbers 1 to 9. The Ss in Group

two trials (and vice versa for the paired D items). The pairs were presented in a different serial order for each trial. However, the serial orders were identical for the three groups. Following the test phase of Trial 5, the Ss in Groups E and C1 were given a 90-second written recall test of the D words that had been paired with the TBR words. The time limit was sufficient for all Ss. The Ss were informed in advance that the experiment was an attempt to determine the effects of distraction on memory. The nature of the distraction (that is, words for Groups E and CI, and digits for Group C2) was explained to each S, but no information was given regarding the presence of homographs and related words in the list. Two trials on a two pair (pairs selected from the alternate form of the list) practice list preceded practice on the experimental list for each S.

TABLE 1 REPRESENTATIVE ITEMS ON THE FREE-RECALL LISTS

Homographs Group

Primary associates

List form TBR word

Ditem

TBR word

D item

E

A B

Bark Pool

Tree Hall

Dog Water

Nail Apple

CI

A B

Bark Pool

Town Hill

Dog Water

Nail Apple

C2

A B

Bark Pool

1-9 6-2

Dog Water

6-5 5-7

C2 were required to pronounce the digits successively, rather than as a two-digit number. For further clarification, additional examples of items in the two forms of the list are given ia Table 1. Procedure. Pairs of items (TBR w o r d - - D item) were presented at a 2-second rate by means of a Lafayette memory drum. The Ss in each group were instructed to pronounce, in left-right sequence, both members of the pair as they appeared together in the aperture, but to remember only the underlined member of each pair (that is, the TBR word). Each S received five study-test trials, with each test consisting of a 90-second written recall period during which S was instructed to write down as many of the TBR words as he could remember and in whatever order they came to mind. For any one study trial, eight TBR words appeared spatially on the left and eight on the right (and vice versa for the paired D items). Across the five trials, eight TBR words appeared spatially on the left for three trials and on the right for two trials; the remaining eight TBR words appeared on the left for three trials and on the right for

RESULTS

Summary statistics for TBR word recall scores are given in Table 2 for Trials 1-5 and for total recall across trials. A 3 x 5 mixed analysis of variance, with distraction condition as the between-group vairable and trials as the within-group variable, yielded significant main effects for both conditions, F(2, 39) = 33.33, p < .001, and trials, F(4, 156) = 216.14, p < .001, and a significant Condition × Trials interaction effect, F(8, 156)= 3.06, p < .01. Duncan's test indicated further that all between group-differences in total recall were significant, p's < .0l. That is, total recall was significantly lower for Group E than for either control group, and total recall was significantly lower for Group C1 than for Group C2. In addition, an ancillary analysis

82

KAUSLER AND KAMICHOFF

TABLE 2

their Formula II for estimating expected number). Summary statistics for these scores 1-5 across Trials 1-5 are given in Table 3. As is apparent from Table 3, Group E Trial displayed markedly less clustering than either Group 1 2 3 4 5 Total recall control group on each trial. In fact, the amount of clustering for Group E did not exceed chance expectancy until Trial 5, t(13) = 2.25, p < .05. E Mean 4.21 6.71 8.64 9.29 9 . 8 6 38.71 On the other hand, even on Trial 1, both SD .89 2.05 1.98 1.86 1.66 7.24 Group C1 and Group C2 displayed statistically C1 significant amounts of clustered recall, t(13) = Mean 5.79 8.43 10.57 12.36 14.00 51.14 3.29, p < .01 and t(13) = 2.19, p < .05, respecSD 1.89 2.53 1.92 1.28 1.24 6.48 tively. The presence of heterogeneity of C2 variance between groups and the generally Mean 7.50 10.43 12.07 13.79 15.21 59.00 nonnormal distribution of the scores on most SD 1.65 2.06 2.13 1.37 .89 6.13 of the trials prohibited an overall mixed analysis of variance with trials as the withinrevealed that these between-groups differences group variable. Nevertheless, it is obvious that applied to both homographs and the primary regular increments in clustering occurred over associates when considered separately as trials for each group. An analysis of variance T B R words. As is apparent from Table 2, the for total clustering scores (that is, summated significant interaction reflects the smaller over trials) yielded a significant between-groups increments in recall across trials for Group E effect, F(2, 39) = 21.89, p < .001. Duncan's than for either Group C1 or G r o u p C2. test indicated that all comparisons between Clustering was analyzed in terms of the means were significant, p ' s < . 0 1 . That is, successive recall of homograph-primary asso- clustering was significantly lower for Group E ciate pairs of TBR words. The score computed than for either control group, and clustering for each S on each trial was the difference was significantly lower for Group C1 than for between the observed and the expected number Group C2. of pairs recalled (Bousfield & Bousfield, 1966; SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR RECALL SCORES ON TRIALS

DISCUSSION TABLE 3 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR CLUSTERING SCORES ON TRIALS 1-5

Trial Group 1

2

3

4

5

- .01 .29

- .28 .36

.27 1.04

.44 .87

.54 .90

.46 .54

.92 1.27

.96 1.23

1.68 1.63

3.52 2.21

.59 1.00

1.40 1.19

2.86 1.80

3.87 2.05

4.89 2.14

E Mean SD C1 Mean SD C2 Mean SD

Priming of alternate meanings effectively reduced clustered recall between homographs and their primary associates. Especially convincing is the fact that the mean clustering score of Group E on Trial 5 was no greater than that of both control groups on Trial 1 (see Table 3). Although the processes underlying clustered recall between words and their associations are largely unknown (TuNing, 1968), it seems likely that one component process is the initial elicitation of implicit associative responses (IARs; Bousfield, Whirmarsh, & Danick, 1958) to the stimulus words. The elicitation of IARs is, at least partially, contingent up on additional factors. With words

FREE RECALLOF HOMOGRAPHS in general one such factor is instructions to learn (Wallace & Calderone, 1969). With homographs an added factor is the context within which the word is presented. When the context is neutral, as in the case of Groups C1 and C2, instructions to learn assure, at least for most Ss, the elicitation of I A R s related to the primary meaning of the homograph. When the context refers to the alternate meaning, as in the case of G r o u p E, IARs to the primary meaning are markedly reduced. More generally, the present results suggest that homographs provide an important word population for investigating the mediating attributes of I A R s in various verbal learning tasks. The results concerning recall per se are considerably more ambiguous. It seems likely that at least part of the decrement in recall displayed by G r o u p E across trials stems from the reduction of list organization revealed by clustering scores. However, an additional source of recall decrement stems from intrapair interference generated during retrieval. Discriminations between T B R words and their distractors are likely to be more difficult when the distractors are related words than when they are unrelated words or digits. Evidence for this source of interference may be found in the significantly greater Number of intrusion errors (i.e., D words recalled as T B R words) for G r o u p E than for Group C1. The means for total intrusions summated across trials were 6.07 (4.87) and 1.64 (2.31) for Groups E and C1, respectively, t(13)=3.08, p < . 0 1 , with heterogeneity of variance. More generally, the lower clustering and recall scores for G r o u p C1 than for G r o u p C2 suggests that intrapair interference is generated even when neutral words serve as distractors, although the amount of interference manifested overtly as intrusion errors by G r o u p C1 is slight. On the other hand, relatedness of distractors to T B R words should enhance the recall of the D words via their elicitation as I A R s to the T B R words, Although the difference in means between Groups E and C1 (3.29 and 2.43,

83

respectively) for the recall of those D words that were paired with homographs was n o t statistically significant, t(26) = 1.28, p > . 10, the difference was in the expected direction. Greater intrapair interference during retrieval of D words is likely to occur when the T B R items are related to the D items than when they are unrelated. This differential interference, in turn, attenuated the difference in D recall scores between Groups E and C1. REFERENCES

BOUSFIELD,A. K., & BOUSFtELD,W. A. Measurement of clustering and of sequential constancies in repeated free recall. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 935-942. BOUSFIELD,W. A., COHEN,B. H., WHITMARSH,G. A., & KINCAID,W. D. The Connecticut free association norms. Technical Report No. 35, 1961,

University of Connecticut, Contract Nonr-631 (00), Office of Naval Research. BOUSFIELD, W. A., WHITMARSH,G. A., & DANICK,

J. J. Partial response identities in verbal generalization. Psychological Reports, 1958, 4, 703-713. GOFER, C. N., SEGAL, E., STEIN, J., • WALKER, H. Studies on free recall of nouns following presentation under adjectival modification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 254-264. CRAMER,P. Mediated priming of polysemous stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 78, 137-144. GONZALEZ,R. C., & COVER,C. N. Exploratory studies of verbal context by means of clustering in free recall. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1959, 95, 293-320. JENKINS,J. J., & RUSSELL,W. A. Associative clustering during recall. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 818-821. KATZ,J. J., & FODOR,J. A. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 1963, 39, 170-210. PALERMO, D. S., & JENKINS, J. J. Word association norms: Grade school through college. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 1964. TULVtN6, E. Theoretical issues in free recall. In T. R. Dixon and D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968. WALLACE, W. P., & CALDERONE, R. N. Implicit responses in incidental learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 136-142. (Received July 18, 1969)