Abstract
College students rated 828 homophonic words (words with the same pronunciation but different spellings) in terms of subjective familiarity. High interrater reliability was obtained, and the ratings correlated well with other published familiarity measures (r=.85). The familiarity ratings also correlated highly with log transforms of Kučera and Francis’s (1967) printed frequency measures (r= 75). However, many words of equal log frequency varied widely in rated familiarity, and vice versa. To determine which of these two factors was the better predictor of verbal performance, we orthogonally varied the two in a lexical decision task and found that, for words of moderate frequency, rated familiarity was by far the better predictor. We conclude that even though printed frequency and rated familiarity generally covary, printed frequency is a less reliable index of the underlying psychological construct, word familiarity.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baron, J. (1973). Phonemic stage not necessary for reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 241–246.
Bradshaw, J. L. (1984). A guide to norms, ratings, and lists.Memory & Cognition,12, 202–206.
Brown, W. S., Lehmann, D., &Marsh, J. T. (1980). Linguistic meaning related differences in evoked potential topography: English, Swiss- German, and imagined.Brain & Language,11, 340–353.
Carroll, J. B. (1967). On sampling from a lognormal model of word frequency distribution. In H. Kučera & W. N. Francis,Computational analysis of present-day American English (pp. 406–424). Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1971). Measurement properties of subjective magnitude estimates of word frequency.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 722–729.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davelaar, E., Coltheart, M., Besner, D., &Jonasson, J. T. (1978). Phonological recoding and lexical access.Memory & Cognition,6, 391–402.
Doctor, E. A., &Coltheart, M. (1980). Children’s use of phonological encoding when reading for meaning.Memory & Cognition,8, 195–209.
Ellyson, L. W. (1977).A dictionary of homonyms. Mattituck, NY: Amereon House.
Espy, W. R. (1972).The game of words. New York: Bramhall House.
Fitts, P. M. (1966). Cognitive aspects of information processing: III Set for speed versus accuracy.Journal of Experimental Psychology,71, 849–857.
Forster, K. I., &Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustave search in lexical access.Memory & Cognition,4, 53–61.
Francis, W. N., &Kučera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English usage. Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Friedrich, F. J., Glenn, C. G., &Marin, O. S. (1984). Interruption of phonological coding m conduction aphasia.Brain & Language,22, 266–291
Galbraith, G. G., &Taschman, C. S. (1969). Homophone units: A normative and methodological investigation of the strength of component elements.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,8, 737–744.
Galbraith, R. B., &Underwood, B. J. (1973). Perceived frequency of concrete and abstract words.Memory & Cognition,1, 56–60.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1982).The experientialfarailiarity of low frequency words. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Auslan, Austin, TX.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1983, April).The experiential familiarity norms and their psychological reality. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, San Antonio, TX.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 256–281.
Gordon, B. (1985). Subjective frequency and the lexical decision latency function: Implications for mechanisms of lexical access.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 631–645.
Henderson, L. (1982).Orthography and word recognition in reading. New York: Academic Press.
Howes, D. (1954). On the interpretation of word frequency as a variable affecting speed of recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology,48, 106–112.
Kilpatrick, J. J. (1985).The ear is human: A handbook of homophones and other confusions. New York: Andrews, McMeel & Parker.
Kintsch, W., &Buschke, H. (1969). Homophones and synonyms m short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,80, 403–407.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Martin, M., Jones, G. V., Nelson, D. L., &Nelson, L. (1981). Heteronyms and polyphones: Categories of words with multiple phonemic representations.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,13, 299–307.
McCLoskey, M. (1981)). The stimulus familiarity problem in semantic memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 485–502.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review,76, 165–178.
Nelson, T. O., &Rothbart, R. (1972). Acoustic savings for items in long-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,93, 357–360.
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., &Davis, C. K. (1984).Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,O00 words (Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 10). Bloomington: University of Indiana, Speech Research Laboratory.
Oldfield, R. C., &Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,17, 273–281
Olson, G. A., &Kausler, D. H. (1971). Orthographic distinctiveness of homonyms.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,3, 298–299.
Pachella, R. G- (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pierce, J. (1963). Some sources of artifact in studies of the tachistoscopic perception of words.Journal of Experimental Psychology,66, 363–370.
Roberts, A. H. (1965).A statistical linguistic analysis of American English. The Hague: Mouton.
Rosenzweig, M. R., &McNeil, D. (1962). Inaccuracies m the semantic count of Lorge and Thorndike.American Journal of Psychology.75, 316–319.
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., &Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic receding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 645–657.
Shapiro, B. J. (1969). The subjective esttmation of relative word frequency.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,8, 248–251.
Shapiro, S. I., &Gordon, P. (1971) Contemporary norms of word and phonetic frequencies.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 92–94.
Shoben, E. J. (1982). Semantic and lexical decisions. In C. R. Puff (Ed.).Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition New York: Academic Press.
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the frequency effect.Memory & Cognition,7. 263–272
Temple, C. M. (1984) Surface dyslexia in a child with epilepsy.Neuropsychologta,22, 569–576.
Thorndike, E. L., &Lorge, I. (1944).The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College Press.
Toglia, M. P., &Battig, W. F. (1978).Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Webster’s new collegiate dictionary (1977). Springfield, MA: Merriam.
Whitford, H. C. (1966).A dictionary of American homophones and homographs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Winshel, S. A., & Glucksberg, S. (1985, November).Between ewe, me and the lambpost: Phonological recoding during reading. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, MA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant BNS 82-06461 to Princeton University, Sam Glucksberg, principal investigator.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kreuz, R.J. The subjective familiarity of English homophones. Memory & Cognition 15, 154–168 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197027
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197027