Abstract
A corpus of 576 words and orthographically legal pseudowords was rated by 150 undergraduates to obtain a subjective estimate of the number of meanings possessed by the stimuli. The information contained in this corpus may be used to supplement current, sources of word-meaning information (e.g., total number of dictionary entries). Experimental evidence is presented that supports the reliability of the normative data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Balota, D. A.,Ferraro, F. R., &Connor, L. T. (in press). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferraro, F. R. (1986).Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation during word recognition. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
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.
Glanzer, M., &Bowles, N. (1976). Analysis of the word frequency effect in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 21–31.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon.Cognitive Psychology,13, 278–305.
Juola, J. F., Ward, N. J., &McNamara, T. (1982). Visual search and reading rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words, and text.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 208–227.
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., &Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 601–609.
Kellas, G., Simpson, G. B., &Ferraro, F. R. (1988). Aging and performance: A mental wordload analysis. In P. Whitney & R. Ochsman (Eds.),Psychology & productivity (pp. 35–49). NY: Plenum.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Massaro, D., Taylor, G., Venezky, R., Jastrzembski, J., &Lucas, P. (1980).Letter and word perception: The role of orthographic structure and visual processing in reading. Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
Millis, M. L., &Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t.Memory & Cognition,17, 141–147.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., &Wheeler, J. W., Jr. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 16–37.
Random House Collegiate Dictionary (1976). NY: Random House.
Roget’s II New Thesaurus (1976). NY: Houghton.
Simpson, G. B. (1979).Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976). NY: Merriam-Webster.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983). NY: Merriam-Webster.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The number of meanings metric detailed in this article was originally used by Ferraro (1986); the data presented in the Appendix were collected during the 1987 academic year. The authors thank David A. Balota, N. John Castellan, Dominic Massaro, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferraro, F.R., Kellas, G. Normative data for number of word meanings. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 22, 491–498 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204432
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204432