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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Chaffin, R. (1997). Associations to unfamiliar words: Learning the meanings of new words. Memory and Cognition, 25, 203-226.
Chaffin, R., Morris, R., and Seely, R. (2001). Learning new meanings from context: A study of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 225-235.
Curtis, M. E. (1987). Vocabulary testing and vocabulary instruction. In M. G. McKeown and M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 37-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 42, 395-401.
Durso, F. T., and Shore, W. J. (1991). Partial knowledge of word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 190-202.
Folk, J. R. (1999). Phonological codes are used to access the lexicon during silent reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 892-906.
Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K. S., Hartman, E., and Pappas, A. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63, 1-148.
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., and Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21, 125-155.
Ince, E., and Christman, S. D. (2002). Semantic representations of word meanings by the cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language, 80, 393-420.
Landau, B., Smith, L., and Jones, S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 1-27.
Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plat';s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
Lund, K., and Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior, Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203-208.
Madole, K. L., and Oakes, L. M. (1999). Making sense of infant categorization: Stable processes and changing representations. Developmental Review, 19, 263-296.
Mandler, J. M. (2000). Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy. Journal of Cognition & Development, 1, 3-36.
Markman, E. M., and Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 1-27.
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in Cognition: Emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Brien, R. G., and Kaiser, M. K. (1985). MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 316-333.
O'Connor, J. (1940). Unsolved Business Problems. Boston, MA: Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation.
Shore, W. J., and Durso, F. T. (1990). Partial knowledge in vocabulary acquisition: General constraints and specific detail. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 315-318.
Shore, W. J., and Kempe, V. (1999). The role of sentence context in accessing partial knowledge of word meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 145-163.
Smiley, S. S., and Brown, A. L. (1979). Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 249-257.
Sommers, F. (1959). The ordinary language tree. Mind, 68, 160-185.
Sommers, F. (1965). Predicability. In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Trembly, D. (1966). Laws of learning general and specialized vocabulary. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1, 229-230.
Waxman, S. R., and Hall, G. D. (1993). The development of a linkage between count nouns and object categories: Evidence from fifteen-to twenty-one-month old infants. Child Development, 64, 1224-1241.
Waxman, S. R., and Namy, L. L. (1996). Challenging the notion of a thematic preference in young children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 555-567.
Whitmore, J. M., and Shore, W. J. (1997). The ontological nature of partial knowledge of word meanings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Whitmore, J.M., Shore, W.J. & Smith, P.H. Partial Knowledge of Word Meanings: Thematic and Taxonomic Representations. J Psycholinguist Res 33, 137–164 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000017224.21951.0e
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000017224.21951.0e