Pronunciation and the frequency-meaningfulness effect in children's frequency discrimination.

Ghatala, Elizabeth S.; Levin, Joel R.; Wilder, Larry

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.1.5.655

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are at least two other intrinsic item characteristics, namely "richness" of meaning and pronounceability, that can affect frequency estimation. Ghatala et al (1975) have demonstrated that when linguistic frequency is held constant, the more meaningful items are given more accurate estimates. Pronounceability can also be another determinant of frequency estimation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Underwood, Zimmerman, and Freund (1971) and Begg and Rowe (1972) concluded from their studies that linguistic frequency does not have appreciable effects on situational frequency estimation. However, Ghatala, Levin, and Wilder (1975), using children as subjects, found that at least under certain conditions LLF words are given more accurate estimates than are HLF words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Word frequency effect in situational frequency estimation.

Rao¹

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments are reported that examined the effect of linguistic frequency on situational frequency estimates. The outcomes of Experiments 1 and 2 indicate that linguistic low-frequency words are given more accurate estimates than are linguistic high-frequency words. These results parallel the common but paradoxical finding that linguistic low-frequency words are better recognized than are linguistic high-frequency words. Experiments 2 and 3 indicated that intrinsic item characteristics other than linguistic frequency, such as meaning and pronounceability, could affect frequency estimation. In agreement with current theorizing, I concluded that meaning is an important moderator of the word frequency effect.Linguistic frequency refers to the frequency with which words are encountered in everyday life. A general finding is that linguistic high-frequency (HLF) words are better recalled than are linguistic low-frequency (LLF) words (Sumby, 1963). On the other hand, in recognition memory, LLF words are better recognized than are HLF words (Gorman, 1961;McCormack & Swenson, 1972;Shepard, 1967). The finding that LLF words are better recognized whereas HLF words are better recalled is commonly referred to as the word frequency effect and is considered to be something of a paradox (Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1982).In recent years, a number of studies have focused on repetitions. Many have used frequency judgments. Several investigators (Proctor, 1977;Underwood & Freund, 1970) have pointed to the similarities involved in the testing of recognition memory and frequency judgments. Others (Harris, Begg, & Mitterer, 1980;Underwood, 1971) haveThe experiments reported in this article are based on part of a doctoral dissertation submitted by the author to Monash University, Australia.I would like to thank D. M. Thomson for his support and supervision and R. H. Day, K. I. Forster, and M. Taft for support and encouragement during various stages of progress of the dissertation. I would also like to thank Joel Freund, Kirk Smith, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier version of this article. I greatly appreciate the helpful comments of R. W. Proctor in the preparation of this article and an earlier version.Requests for reprints should be sent to K.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Word frequency effect in situational frequency estimation.

Rao¹

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have elaborated elsewhere (Ghatala & Levin, 1974;Ghatala et aI., 1975;Ghatala, Levin, & Wilder, 1975) the mechanism by which background frequency is believed to influence verbal discrimination learning. Briefly, the logic is that situational frequency inputs combine with preexperimental (background) frequency in a manner akin to Weber's law.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenomenal background frequency and the concreteness/imagery effect in verbal discrimination learning

Ghatala

Levin

1976

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

College students gave frequency ratings for concrete and abstract words which were equated on normative frequency. The results replicated the finding of Galbraith and Underwood (1973) that abstract words are perceived to be higher in frequency than concrete words. Different subjects then learned verbal discrimination lists consisting of both abstract and concrete pairs. While the usual concreteness effect was obtained when abstract and concrete items differed widely on phenomenal frequency, it disappeared when these items were equated on perceived frequency. The finding that appropriate frequency manipulations can eliminate the concreteness/imagery effect, coupled with similar findings for other stimulus characteristics, lends strong support to the frequency theory of discrimination learning.

show abstract

“…According to Ghatala and Levin (1974), items that are both low in background frequency and have meaning for the subjects "produce larger frequency 'units' and/or more stable 'units'" (p. 399) . Ghatala, Levin, and Wilder (1975) have further suggested that greater stability of frequency units is related to the depth of processing of items .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in a recognition memory task are a U-shaped function of word frequency

Zechmeister

Curt

Sebastian

1978

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

College students rated verbal items for either familiarity or meaningfulness and were then tested for their recognition memory of rated items from four critical classes: nonwords and words appearing less than 1 time, 1-10, and more than 40 times per million words of written text (Thorndike-Lorge, 1944). Following either rating task, recognition errors were found to be a Ll-shaped function of word frequency and nonwords were recognized least well. Although a Ll-shaped function was expected on the basis of what is known about word frequency effects in general, there is significant disagreement as to the mechanism(s) responsible for this relationship.Memory for low-frequency~LF) words is generally superior to that for high-frequency (HF) words when recognition is tested. This word frequency effect (WFE) is quite reliable, having been shown, for example , for both written and aural presentation , with paced and unpaced study, and in absolute-judgment as well as in forced-choice testing procedures (Schulman, 1967;Shepard, 1967; Underwood & Freund, 1970). However, notably missing among studies investigating the WFE is any systematic manipulation of word frequency across a wide range of frequencies, the WFE typically being reported when recognition for words of only two rather disparate levels of background frequency has been tested . Yet, there is speculation that probability of correct recognition is an "inverted-U-shaped" (Schulman , 1976, p. 307) or "curvilinear" (Gregg, 1976 function of frequency , were recognition to be examined over the complete range of word frequencies .Schulman (1976) reached this conclusion after observing college students' recognition memory for very rare words they previously had rated for familiarity . He found that probability of correct recognition increased with an item's rated familiarity , showing a "reversal" of the usual WFE. As noted, generally only two classes of words are used to show the typical WFE and, since these items almost always can be described as "very familiar" and "relatively unfamiliar" (but not totally unfamiliar), on the basis of his results Schulman reasonably predicted that probability of correct recognition should first increase and then decrease as familiarity (frequency) increased.Gregg (1976) also suggests a nonmonotonic relationship between recognition probability and background frequency. He points to the findings of Allen and Garton (1968), who "manipulated" word familiarityRequests for reprints should be addressed to Eugene B. Zechmeister, Department of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, l1linois 60626 .by having physics and arts students view both physics and common words. Overall, physics words were recognized better than common words, demonstrating the WFE. However, physics students recognized physics words better than did arts students, while there was little difference between the two groups of students when common words were tested. If we think of the arts student studying physics words as somehow similar...

show abstract

Pronunciation and the frequency-meaningfulness effect in children's frequency discrimination.

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Word frequency effect in situational frequency estimation.

Word frequency effect in situational frequency estimation.

Phenomenal background frequency and the concreteness/imagery effect in verbal discrimination learning

Errors in a recognition memory task are a U-shaped function of word frequency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About