- Email: [email protected]
The effect of distance between related words on the identification of semantic relationships
Acta Psychologica 36 (1972) 275-279; 0 North-Holland Publishing Company Not to be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher
THE
EFFECT
ON THE
OF DISTANCE
IDENTIFICATION MICHAEL
BETWEEN
RELATED
OF SEMANTIC
WORDS
RELATIONSHIPS
M. GRUNEBERG
University College of Swansea, School of Social Studies, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales
ABSTRACT This study examines the extent to which a semantic relationship between incoming items can be identified by a subject. In particular the question is posed as to whether such relationships can be identified when the number of interpolated items exceeded the STS capacity of 7. Results indicate that even where subjects cannot recall a semantically related word there is an ability to identify semantic relationships with as many as 17 interpolated items. 1.
INTRODUCTION
In a recent paper GLANZER (1969, p. 107) suggests that the facilitative effect of a mnemonic relationship on retention does not occur if the first member of a pair of related items has left STS. His experiment involved showing that the recall probability of related words dropped as a function of the distance between the related words. The present experiment was designed to examine the extent to which a semantic relationship could be detected when the number of intervening items between related pairs of incoming items exceeded the 7 items which Glanzer employed. 2. 2.1.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Subjects for the experiment were 21 undergraduate at University College of Swansea. 2.2.
student
volunteers
Materials
These consisted of two lists of low frequency multi-syllabic (1 per million according to THORNDIKE-LORGE, 1944) English words. The presentation list consisted of 40 words recorded on a Brenell tape recorder at the rate of 1 word every 3 sec. Included in the list of 40 words were 5 pairs of words belonging to the same semantic category, i.e. python-cobra, tungsten-chromium, barnacle-periwinkle, haddock275
276
M. M. GRUNEBERG
mackerel and starling-jackdaw. Each pair of related words was separated by at least 13 items (see table 1). The test list consisted of 10 words which were drawn from the presentation list, 5 of the words were single words not in the same semantic category as any other word in the list, 5 of the words were in the same semantic category as other words appearing on the list (see table 2).
TABLE 1 Presentation 1.
Toxin Bagpipe Gaiter Koran Mantlepiece Python * Rayon Forceps Tungsten * Lavatory Conifer Barnacle * Tantrum Platoon Haddock * Acrobat Midwife Gladiator Dysentery Starling *
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. *
Semantically
2.3.
TABLE 2 list. 21. Bobbin 22. Tiara 23. Crocus 24. Cobra * 25. Nicotine 26. Haystack 27. Chromium * 28. Guffaw 29. Gangplank 30. Periwinkle * 3 1. Orphanage 32. Mackerel * 33. Concerto 34. Jackdaw * 35. Easel 36. Settee 37. Nutshell 38. Invoice 39. Beaker 40. Hexagon
Test list. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. *
Python * Forceps Tungsten * Lavatory Conifer Barnacle * Tantrum Haddock * Midwife Starling *
Semantically
related words.
related words.
Design and procedure
Subjects, who were tested in small groups of up to 7, were informed that they would be presented with a tape recording of 40 words presented at the rate of 1 word every 3 set, and that some of the words would be in the same semantic category, e.g. dog and cat. They were also informed that a retention test would follow the reading of the list. Following the presentation list, subjects were told that they would be presented with a list of words, all drawn from the presentation list. The retention test would take the form of their having to identify which
277
IDENTIFICATION OF SEMANTICRELATIONSHIPS
words were related to other words on the presentation list, and which words were unrelated. Subjects were required to state how confident they were of their judgement on the following scale. Y3
Y2
Yl
Nl
N2
N3
Certain related
Fairly certain related
Balance of probability related
Balance of probability unrelated
Fairly certain unrelated
Certain unrelated
For scoring purposes the scale was from I (N3) to 6 (Y3). In addition, after giving a confidence rating, where subjects knew what the related word was, they were required to write it down. Where an incorrect word was supplied as a related word a confidence rating of 1 was given no matter what confidence rating was given by the subject. 2.4.
Results
The ratings for ‘semantically related’ words on the test list were significantly higher than for non-related words. (p
Distribution
of confidence ratings for related (R) and unrelated words. No
Yes Word 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Python (R) Tungsten (R) Barnacle (R) Haddock (R) Starling (R) Forceps Lavatory Conifer Tantrum Midwife
18 11 18 15 7 2(2) 4(4) 3(l) 1 312)
5
4
3
2
1
0 3 2 3 1 1 l(1) 2 1 1
1 1 0 1 4 5 0 3 3 1
1 2 0 2 3 7 5 7 2 7
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 7 5
l(1) 4(2) 1 0 6(4) 4 10 4 7 4
No. of correct associates recalled 17 7 14 8 1
Words l-5, numbers in parentheses indicate number of wrong associates. Words 6-10, numbers in parentheses indicate number of idiosyncratic associates.
M.
278
M.
CiRUNEBERG
correctly recalled as being related to words on the test list is also given in table 3. In total 21 words were rated as ‘certainly related’ without the subject being able to supply a related word. Four non-related words were rated as ‘certainly related’ without any related word being supplied. Finally on seven occasions an incorrect word was supplied as a related word, but on three of these occasions there appears to have been an acoustic confusion in which the word robin, presumably confused with ‘bobbin’, was related to starling. 3.
DISCUSSION
The present experiment indicates that subjects can detect semantic relationship in incoming items separated by up to 17 unrelated items. In view of GLANZER’S (1969) claim that mnemonic facilitation takes place only when both related items are in STS, the question arises as to whether or not this lack of facilitation is due to the subjects’ failure to identify semantic relationships if one of the word pairs is not in STS. If one regards STS as being limited to some 7 items, and those ‘Primarily, the most recently presented words’ (GLANZER, p. 105), it is difficult to reconcile the present findings with the view that identification of semantic relationships must occur in STS. Thus the first time that an item related to a previously given item occurs is on word 24, when cobra is presented (relating to word 6 - python). In order to be able to identify this relationship, it would be necessary for the subject to carry the category ‘snake’ and all subsequent categories of items, i.e. 18 categories, because of course, the subject has no fore-knowledge of what word is going to be related to what. Fore-knowledge that there would be related pairs could not help the subject as far as the problem is concerned. It is possible to argue that in some cases the initial word of a pair is still in STS, and subsequent words have been displaced. As this argument would have to be employed with respect to all five related pairs, however, without any a priori justification for assuming that the initial word of a related pair should be retained in STS rather than any other word, this hypothesis is unparsimonious. Again it might be objected that semantic relationships may not be identified until the test list is presented. Thus given a prompt word, subjects might proceed through their memory search until they come to a semantically related word. Of the 14 Ss who were asked whether they were able to identify semantic pairings during the presentation of the
IDENTIFICATION OF SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
279
presentation list, all 14 claimed that they were able to identify such semantic pairings. * One subject described the phenomenon as ‘like a bell ringing’, another claimed she was certain of a relationship as soon as a related word had been presented, even though she could not recall the actual related word. As a result of this experiment then, it remains a strong possibility that semantic relationships can be identified even when separated by a large number of items (up to 17). It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume either that STS is not limited to 7 items, or that semantic relationships need not be identified during the period when both related words are in STS, assuming such a store exists. Indeed it is possible that the relation migth be identified when both items are in LTM. The question of whtther Glanzer’s findings on semantic processing can be used to distinguish between STS and LTS would still therefore, appear to be an open one, especially when it is considered that many dichotomous theorists (e.g. BADDELEY and LEVY, 1971) actively deny any role to semantic processing in primary memory. It must be pointed out, however, that Glanzer only claims that after one of the pair of related items has left STS ‘the facilitative effect of the mnemonic relations between words does not occur’. No evidence is presented in this paper that retention of the items is actually facilitated by the identification of a semantic relationship outwith STS. (Accepted February 8, 1972.)
REFERENCES BADDELEY, A. D.
Journal GLANZER, M.,
and B. A.
LEVY,
of Experimental
1971. Semantic coding and short-term Psychology
memory.
89, 132-136.
1969. Distance between related words in free recall: trace of the STS. of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8, 105-l 1 I.
Journal
SIEGEL, S., 1956. Non-parametric
statistics.
THORNDIKE, E. L. and I. LORGE, 1944.
New
York:
Teachers’
college
New York: The teachers’ Press.
McGraw-Hill. word book of 30.000
words.
* It was only in the middle of the experiment that it occurred to the experimenter to ask Ss whether or not they had identified semantic pairings at the time of presentation. There is no reason, however, to suppose that later Ss differed in any way from earlier ones.
THE
EFFECT
ON THE
OF DISTANCE
IDENTIFICATION MICHAEL
BETWEEN
RELATED
OF SEMANTIC
WORDS
RELATIONSHIPS
M. GRUNEBERG
University College of Swansea, School of Social Studies, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales
ABSTRACT This study examines the extent to which a semantic relationship between incoming items can be identified by a subject. In particular the question is posed as to whether such relationships can be identified when the number of interpolated items exceeded the STS capacity of 7. Results indicate that even where subjects cannot recall a semantically related word there is an ability to identify semantic relationships with as many as 17 interpolated items. 1.
INTRODUCTION
In a recent paper GLANZER (1969, p. 107) suggests that the facilitative effect of a mnemonic relationship on retention does not occur if the first member of a pair of related items has left STS. His experiment involved showing that the recall probability of related words dropped as a function of the distance between the related words. The present experiment was designed to examine the extent to which a semantic relationship could be detected when the number of intervening items between related pairs of incoming items exceeded the 7 items which Glanzer employed. 2. 2.1.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Subjects for the experiment were 21 undergraduate at University College of Swansea. 2.2.
student
volunteers
Materials
These consisted of two lists of low frequency multi-syllabic (1 per million according to THORNDIKE-LORGE, 1944) English words. The presentation list consisted of 40 words recorded on a Brenell tape recorder at the rate of 1 word every 3 sec. Included in the list of 40 words were 5 pairs of words belonging to the same semantic category, i.e. python-cobra, tungsten-chromium, barnacle-periwinkle, haddock275
276
M. M. GRUNEBERG
mackerel and starling-jackdaw. Each pair of related words was separated by at least 13 items (see table 1). The test list consisted of 10 words which were drawn from the presentation list, 5 of the words were single words not in the same semantic category as any other word in the list, 5 of the words were in the same semantic category as other words appearing on the list (see table 2).
TABLE 1 Presentation 1.
Toxin Bagpipe Gaiter Koran Mantlepiece Python * Rayon Forceps Tungsten * Lavatory Conifer Barnacle * Tantrum Platoon Haddock * Acrobat Midwife Gladiator Dysentery Starling *
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. *
Semantically
2.3.
TABLE 2 list. 21. Bobbin 22. Tiara 23. Crocus 24. Cobra * 25. Nicotine 26. Haystack 27. Chromium * 28. Guffaw 29. Gangplank 30. Periwinkle * 3 1. Orphanage 32. Mackerel * 33. Concerto 34. Jackdaw * 35. Easel 36. Settee 37. Nutshell 38. Invoice 39. Beaker 40. Hexagon
Test list. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. *
Python * Forceps Tungsten * Lavatory Conifer Barnacle * Tantrum Haddock * Midwife Starling *
Semantically
related words.
related words.
Design and procedure
Subjects, who were tested in small groups of up to 7, were informed that they would be presented with a tape recording of 40 words presented at the rate of 1 word every 3 set, and that some of the words would be in the same semantic category, e.g. dog and cat. They were also informed that a retention test would follow the reading of the list. Following the presentation list, subjects were told that they would be presented with a list of words, all drawn from the presentation list. The retention test would take the form of their having to identify which
277
IDENTIFICATION OF SEMANTICRELATIONSHIPS
words were related to other words on the presentation list, and which words were unrelated. Subjects were required to state how confident they were of their judgement on the following scale. Y3
Y2
Yl
Nl
N2
N3
Certain related
Fairly certain related
Balance of probability related
Balance of probability unrelated
Fairly certain unrelated
Certain unrelated
For scoring purposes the scale was from I (N3) to 6 (Y3). In addition, after giving a confidence rating, where subjects knew what the related word was, they were required to write it down. Where an incorrect word was supplied as a related word a confidence rating of 1 was given no matter what confidence rating was given by the subject. 2.4.
Results
The ratings for ‘semantically related’ words on the test list were significantly higher than for non-related words. (p
Distribution
of confidence ratings for related (R) and unrelated words. No
Yes Word 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Python (R) Tungsten (R) Barnacle (R) Haddock (R) Starling (R) Forceps Lavatory Conifer Tantrum Midwife
18 11 18 15 7 2(2) 4(4) 3(l) 1 312)
5
4
3
2
1
0 3 2 3 1 1 l(1) 2 1 1
1 1 0 1 4 5 0 3 3 1
1 2 0 2 3 7 5 7 2 7
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 7 5
l(1) 4(2) 1 0 6(4) 4 10 4 7 4
No. of correct associates recalled 17 7 14 8 1
Words l-5, numbers in parentheses indicate number of wrong associates. Words 6-10, numbers in parentheses indicate number of idiosyncratic associates.
M.
278
M.
CiRUNEBERG
correctly recalled as being related to words on the test list is also given in table 3. In total 21 words were rated as ‘certainly related’ without the subject being able to supply a related word. Four non-related words were rated as ‘certainly related’ without any related word being supplied. Finally on seven occasions an incorrect word was supplied as a related word, but on three of these occasions there appears to have been an acoustic confusion in which the word robin, presumably confused with ‘bobbin’, was related to starling. 3.
DISCUSSION
The present experiment indicates that subjects can detect semantic relationship in incoming items separated by up to 17 unrelated items. In view of GLANZER’S (1969) claim that mnemonic facilitation takes place only when both related items are in STS, the question arises as to whether or not this lack of facilitation is due to the subjects’ failure to identify semantic relationships if one of the word pairs is not in STS. If one regards STS as being limited to some 7 items, and those ‘Primarily, the most recently presented words’ (GLANZER, p. 105), it is difficult to reconcile the present findings with the view that identification of semantic relationships must occur in STS. Thus the first time that an item related to a previously given item occurs is on word 24, when cobra is presented (relating to word 6 - python). In order to be able to identify this relationship, it would be necessary for the subject to carry the category ‘snake’ and all subsequent categories of items, i.e. 18 categories, because of course, the subject has no fore-knowledge of what word is going to be related to what. Fore-knowledge that there would be related pairs could not help the subject as far as the problem is concerned. It is possible to argue that in some cases the initial word of a pair is still in STS, and subsequent words have been displaced. As this argument would have to be employed with respect to all five related pairs, however, without any a priori justification for assuming that the initial word of a related pair should be retained in STS rather than any other word, this hypothesis is unparsimonious. Again it might be objected that semantic relationships may not be identified until the test list is presented. Thus given a prompt word, subjects might proceed through their memory search until they come to a semantically related word. Of the 14 Ss who were asked whether they were able to identify semantic pairings during the presentation of the
IDENTIFICATION OF SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
279
presentation list, all 14 claimed that they were able to identify such semantic pairings. * One subject described the phenomenon as ‘like a bell ringing’, another claimed she was certain of a relationship as soon as a related word had been presented, even though she could not recall the actual related word. As a result of this experiment then, it remains a strong possibility that semantic relationships can be identified even when separated by a large number of items (up to 17). It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume either that STS is not limited to 7 items, or that semantic relationships need not be identified during the period when both related words are in STS, assuming such a store exists. Indeed it is possible that the relation migth be identified when both items are in LTM. The question of whtther Glanzer’s findings on semantic processing can be used to distinguish between STS and LTS would still therefore, appear to be an open one, especially when it is considered that many dichotomous theorists (e.g. BADDELEY and LEVY, 1971) actively deny any role to semantic processing in primary memory. It must be pointed out, however, that Glanzer only claims that after one of the pair of related items has left STS ‘the facilitative effect of the mnemonic relations between words does not occur’. No evidence is presented in this paper that retention of the items is actually facilitated by the identification of a semantic relationship outwith STS. (Accepted February 8, 1972.)
REFERENCES BADDELEY, A. D.
Journal GLANZER, M.,
and B. A.
LEVY,
of Experimental
1971. Semantic coding and short-term Psychology
memory.
89, 132-136.
1969. Distance between related words in free recall: trace of the STS. of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8, 105-l 1 I.
Journal
SIEGEL, S., 1956. Non-parametric
statistics.
THORNDIKE, E. L. and I. LORGE, 1944.
New
York:
Teachers’
college
New York: The teachers’ Press.
McGraw-Hill. word book of 30.000
words.
* It was only in the middle of the experiment that it occurred to the experimenter to ask Ss whether or not they had identified semantic pairings at the time of presentation. There is no reason, however, to suppose that later Ss differed in any way from earlier ones.