Partial Knowledge of Word Meanings: Thematic and Taxonomic Representations

Abstract

The type of information (taxonomic or thematic) available at different levels of knowledge was investigated. Following extensive norming to identify taxonomic and thematic associates of low-frequency nouns, participants determined if taxonomic or thematic associates were meaningfully related to target words at three levels of knowledge: target words they correctly defined (known), recognized as familiar (frontier), or mistakenly denied as part of the language (unknown). In another experiment, participants reported which type of relationship (taxonomic or thematic) was preferred. Results indicated that both types of information were available at all levels of knowledge. However, accuracy and preference were greater for taxonomic associates across word levels. A differential increase in available thematic information relative to taxonomic information was found. Implications for the acquisition and representation of word meanings are discussed.

Anticipatory conditioning of spelling-to-sound translation

“…Averaging over all of the words chosen for the experiment, the mean length was 7.0 letters, the mean proportion of correct responses on the definition task was 50%, and the mean familiarity rating was 2.2. Thus, although participants said that they had not seen many of the words, they performed above the level expected by chance (33%) on the definition task, an outcome that is in line with previous reports (e.g., Whitmore, Shore, & Smith, 2004).…”

Partial word knowledge in the absence of recall

“…Related to this are findings that semantic features can be identified for words that participants cannot define, or assess to be unknown (Durso & Shore, 1991;Eysenck, 1979;Koriat et al, 2003;Nelson, Fehling, & Moore-Glascock, 1979;Shore & Durso, 1990;Shore & Kempe, 1999;Whitmore, Shore, & Smith, 2004;Yavuz & Bousfield, 1959). Shore and Durso had participants separate words into three groups: (1) known (could provide a definition), (2) frontier (had encountered before but did not know meaning), and (3) unknown (had no idea whether it was a word).…”

What do we know when we claim to know nothing? Partial knowledge of word meanings may be ontological, but not hierarchical

“…Eysenck 1979;Loewenthal 1971;Shore and Durso 1990). Shore and colleagues have investigated three levels of word knowledgeknown, frontier, and unknown (Durso and Shore 1991;Ince and Christman 2002;Lockett and Shore 2003;Shore and Durso 1990;Shore and Kempe 1999;Smith et al 1999;Whitmore et al 2004). Known words are words that enter into our expressive vocabulary; these are words that we actively use and comprehend, and for which we can provide an accurate definition or use in a novel context when asked to do so.…”