Abstract
Six groups of subjects rated word pairs for the degree to which they exemplified one of six semantic relationships. The relationships that subjects were instructed to rate were antonymy, synonymity, subordination, superordination, coordination, and similarity. Stimulus pairs represented antonyms, synonyms, subordinates, superordinates, and coordinates. The pairs representing each stimulus relationship varied across four levels of typicality, ranging from good examples of the relationship to unrelated pairs. The highest rating in each group was given to the stimulus relationship corresponding to the relationship being judged (e.g., antonyms received the highest rating under antonym judgment instructions). This interaction was strongest for high-typicality pairs and decreased across the levels of typicality. Semantic decision models cannot explain these results unless the models are modified so that decisions are based on relationship similarity, the degree to which a stimulus pair exemplifies the relationship subjects are instructed to judge.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References Note
Chaffin, R. Effects of denotative and connotative similarity in judgments of synonymity. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonornic Society, St. Louis, November 1980.
Chaffin, R., & Andrews, K. Part-whole relationships: Another look at class inclusion. Paper presented at the Hamilton College Conference for Research in Psychology, June 27, 1980.
References
Chaffin, R., Russo, A., & Herrmann, D. An effect of relationship similarity on categorization latency. Journal of General Psychology, in press.
Clark, H. H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 335–359.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.
Cohen, G. The psychology of cognition. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Danks, J. H., & Glucksberg, S. Experimental psycholinguistics. In M. P. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psvchology (Vol. 31). Palo Alto, Calif: Annual Reviews, 1980.
Herrmann, D. J., Chaffin, R. J. S., Conti, G., Peters, D., & Robbins, P. H. Comprehension of antonymy and the generality of categorization models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979, 5, 585–597.
Kintsch, J.Semantic memory: A tutorial. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1980.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, R. I: Brown University Press, 1967.
Lyons, J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Perfetti, C. A. A study of denotative similarity with restricted word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 788–795.
Riegel, K. F., & Reigel, R. M. An investigation into denotative aspects of word meaning. Language and Speech, 1963, 6, 5–21.
Smith, E. E. Theories of semantic memory. IN W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 5). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors would like to thank Mary Crawford and Ed Sarafino for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chaffin, R.J.S., Herrmann, D.J. Comprehension of semantic relationships and the generality of categorization models. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 17, 69–72 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333670
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333670