Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 198–211 | Cite as

Semantic context influences memory for verbs more than memory for nouns

  • Alan W. KerstenEmail author
  • Julie L. Earles
Article

Abstract

Three experiments revealed that memory for verbs is more dependent on semantic context than is memory for nouns. The participants in Experiment 1 were asked to remember either nouns or verbs from intransitive sentences. A recognition test included verbatim sentences, sentences with an old noun and a new verb, sentences with an old verb and a new noun, and entirely new sentences. Memory for verbs was significantly better when the verb was presented with the same noun at encoding and at retrieval. This contextual effect was much smaller for nouns. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated this effect and provided evidence that context effects reflect facilitation from bringing to mind the same meaning of a verb at encoding and at retrieval. Memory for verbs may be more dependent on semantic context because the meanings of verbs are more variable across semantic contexts than are the meanings of nouns.

Keywords

False Alarm Target Word Word Type Semantic Context Noun Pair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Kersten-MC-2004.zip (11 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Brown, R. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,55, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chafe, W. L. (1970).Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, H. H. (1966). The prediction of recall patterns in simple active sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,5, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Earles, J. L., &Kersten, A. W. (2000). Adult age differences in memory for verbs and nouns.Aging, Neuroscience, & Cognition,7, 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Earles, J. L., Kersten, A. W., Turner, J. M., &McMullen, J. (1999). Influences of age, performance, and item relatedness on verbatim and gist recall of verb-noun pairs.Journal of General Psychology,126, 97–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Earles, J. L., Smith, A. D., &Park, D. C. (1994). Age differences in the effects of facilitating and distracting context on memory performance.Aging & Cognition,2, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engelkamp, J., &Zimmer, H. D. (1995). Similarity of movement in recognition of self-performed tasks and of verbal tasks.British Journal of Psychology,86, 241–249.Google Scholar
  8. Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., &Mohr, G. (1990). Differential memory effects of concrete nouns and action verbs.Zeitschrift für Psychologie,198, 189–216.Google Scholar
  9. Francis, W. N., &Kucčera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Gentner, D. (1981). Some interesting differences between verbs and nouns.Cognition & Brain Theory,4, 161–178.Google Scholar
  11. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.),Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought, and culture (pp. 301–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Gentner, D., &Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.),Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gentner, D., &France, I. M. (1988). The verb mutability effect: Studies of the combinatorial semantics of nouns and verbs. In S. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.),Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 343–382). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  14. Horowitz, L. M., &Prytulak, L. S. (1969). Redintegrative memory.Psychological Review,76, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kersten, A. W. (1998). A division of labor between nouns and verbs in the representation of motion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kersten, A. W. (2003). Verbs and nouns convey different types of motion in event descriptions.Linguistics,41, 917–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kersten, A. W., &Billman, D. O. (1997). Event category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 638–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kersten, A. W., &Smith, L. B. (2002). Attention to novel objects during verb learning.Child Development,73, 93–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication.Cognitive Science,25, 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., Rehder, B., &Schreiner, M. E. (1997). How well can passage meaning be derived without using word order? A comparison of latent semantic analysis and humans. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.),Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 412–417). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Light, L. L., &Carter-Sobell, L. (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maratsos, M. P. (1990). Are actions to verbs as objects are to nouns? On the differential semantic bases of form, class, category.Linguistics,28, 1351–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maratsos, M. P., &Chalkley, M. A. (1980). The internal language of children’s syntax: The ontogenesis and representation of syntactic categories. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.),Children’s language (Vol. 2, pp. 127–214). New York: Gardner.Google Scholar
  24. Mohr, G. (1992). Retrieval of action phrases: The efficacy of verb cues and noun cues.Zeitschrift für Psychologie,200, 363–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohr, G., Engelkamp, J., &Zimmer, H. D. (1989). Recall and recognition of self-performed acts.Psychological Research,51, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park, D. C., Puglisi, J. T., Smith, A. D., &Dudley, W. N. (1987). Cue utilization and encoding specificity in picture recognition by older adults.Journal of Gerontology,42, 423–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Puglisi, J. T., Park, D. C., Smith, A. D., &Dudley, W. N. (1988). Age differences in encoding specificity.Journal of Gerontology,43, 145–150.Google Scholar
  28. Rae, G. (1976). Table of Á.Perceptual & Motor Skills,42, 98.Google Scholar
  29. Reynolds, A. G., &Flagg, P. W. (1976). Recognition memory for elements of sentences.Memory & Cognition,4, 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rumelhart, D. E., Lindsay, P. H., &Norman, D. A. (1972). A process model for long-term memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.),Organization of memory (pp. 197–246). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Thios, S. J. (1975). Memory for general and specific sentences.Memory & Cognition,3, 75–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca Raton
  2. 2.Wilkes Honors College at Florida Atlantic UniversityJupiter

Personalised recommendations