Psychological Bulletin 1978, Vol. 85, No.

3, 490-512

An Old Problem for the New Psychosemantics: Synonymity

Douglas J. Herrmann Hamilton College Although synonymity has long been an important problem in semantics, recent reviews on psychosemantics have had little or nothing to say about the topic, probably because the relevant research has been buried in the literature of many diverse areas. The present article reviews most of the psychological studies that have used synonyms and relates the findings to current data and theory in psychosemantics. The results indicate that comprehension of synonymity between words is similar to comprehension of other semantic relationships. Moreover, synonym relationships are covertly elicited in a multitude of different situations. Finally, it is shown that, psychologically, synonymity may depend on more factors than have been considered by traditional semantics. Interest in synonymity 1 dates back at least to ancient Greece (Aristotle, c. 380 B.C./19S2). In modern times this interest continues. Major semanticists invariably include an understanding of synonymity among the primary goals of investigation in the science of meaning (Bierwisch, 1970; Katz, 1972; Quine, 1960; Ullmann, 1962); moreover, three authors have recently devoted complete books to the subject (Harris, 1973; Jones, 1964; Naess, 19S3). Because of the perennial attention given to synonymity it seems surprising that recent reviews of psycholinguistics or psychosemantic research have had little or nothing to say on the psychological study of synonyms (cf. Cairns & Cairns, 1976; Clark & Clark, 1977; Deese, 1970; Ervin-Tripp & Slobin, 1966; Fillenbaum, 1971; Fodor, Bever, & Garrett, 1974; Glucksberg & Banks, 1975; Hormann, 1971; Johnson-Laird, 1974; Perfetti, 1972; Slobin, 1971; Smith, 1977). This lack of psychosemantic attention to synonymity is probably not due to a lack of interest in
The author is indebted to William P. Banks, John B. Carroll, Roger J. S. Chaffin, Herbert H. Clark, George A. Geseheider, Edward E. Smith, Douglas Raybeck, and several other colleagues and students far valuable advice on substantive issues and on earlier drafts of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Douglas J. Herrmann, Department of Psychology, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323.

the topic. Many areas of psychological research have employed synonyms in numerous investigations to determine the effect of meaning on a particular process, for example, learning. Since synonyms have been used so frequently in many research areas, a thorough review of the literature dealing with the effects of synonyms should be useful to future investigators who also wish to vary similarity in meaning. Commonalities in findings involving synonyms, discovered by a literature review, may also help in the development of a psychological theory of meaning. It is the purpose of this article to provide such a review. Conceptions of Synonymity The English language is rich in synonyms (Cherry, 1957; Partridge, 1939). Layman and scholar alike know intuitively what constitutes synonymity in that they possess the competence to recognize when words are synonymous. Nevertheless, this semantic relationship has been conceptualized by various experts in
1 Although synonymy and synonymity are often regarded as being synonymous, the former refers to "the study . . . of words which may be 'Confused in meaning," whereas the latter refers to "the quality of ... being synonymous" (Webster's Third, p. 2321). Since this article deals almost exclusively with the synonymous quality, the topic of the article is synonymity.

Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0033-2909/78/8503-0490$00.75

490

SYNONYMITY

491

at least five ways, which can be ordered in increasing complexity. First, synonyms are most commonly denned as different word forms (or constructions, phrases, clauses, sentences) that have the same meaning (Clark & Clark, 1977; Lyons, 1967; Mates, 19SO; Searle, 1969). This definition has been challenged by Bloomfield (1933), who argued that different forms presumably convey different meanings, and therefore actual synonyms cannot exist. It is questionable, though, whether language functions quite so logically and perfectly as Bloomfield assumed. For example, different synonymous forms may come into existence by originating in different subgroups of the speech community or from contact with foreign cultures. However, it should be noted that many philosophers have also spent considerable effort attempting to deny the existence of synonyms (Goodman, 1949; Putnam, 1954; Rollins, 19SO; Rudner, 1950; Thomson, 1952; White, 1958; see Harris, 1973, for refutations of this position). Second, synonyms have been viewed by philosophers and semanticists as being of two kinds, those that are identical in meaning, absolute, exact, or total synonyms, and those that are similar in meaning, partial or approximate synonyms (Abraham & Keifer, 1966; Duchacek, 1964; Goodman, 1949; Partridge, 1939; Skinner, 1957; Jones, 1964; Ullmann, 1962; Ziff, 1960). Some theorists (e.g., Ziff, 1960) have denied the existence of absolute synonyms, regardless of whether synonymity exists between two words that each represent a single meaning or two words that each represent several meanings with one meaning in common. This denial is based on the assertion that even for so-called absolute synonyms, careful examination will reveal different shades of meaning, however subtle. Some semanticists, though, feel that such differences in absolute synonyms are really due to nondefinitional, associative characteristics of a word's meaning, which should not be considered as criteria for synonymity (Lyons, 1968; Quine, 1953; Trubetzkoy, 1939). Alternatively, others assert that absolute synonyms do exist, although the number of such words is presumably very few (Fowler, 1926/1965; Partridge, 1939).

A third way in which synonymity has been conceived is in terms of the interchangeability of words in sentences (Lyons, 1968; Mates, 1950; Putnam, 1954; Quine, 1953). Thus, synonyms may be defined operationally as_ being words that can substitute for one another in all relevant sentences without changing sentence meaning (cf. Ogden & Richards, 1923). However, if one accepts the proposition that some words may be synonymous in certain sentences but not in others, then substitutability cannot serve as a sufficient criterion of synonymity (Linsky, 1967; Naess, 1957). The interchangeability criterion suffers from another critical defect: Some sentences can accept two words in substitution that are clearly not synonymous. As Clark (1968) has pointed out, synonyms and antonyms are equally interchangeable in some sentences. Thus, just as lack of substitutability in some sentences does not rule out partial synonymity between words, the fulfillment of substitutability in some sentences does not necessarily confirm synonymity between words. The interchangeability test is only useful in evaluating the relationship between a pair of words if applied to a large number of sentences with varying semantic content. Across sentences, the number of acceptable substitutions would be expected to increase with increases in partial synonymity, and of course, at the limit, synonyms should be substitutable more often than nonsynonyms (cf. Brewer, 1975; Jones, 1964, 1965). A fourth conception of synonyms requires that the words be identical in reference (cf. Olson, 1970) or, more commonly, in denotation (Stern, 1931; Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms, 1973) or, finally, in evoking the same or similar images (Bower, 1972). Although the referential requirement may work with concrete words, what about abstract words? Also many philosophers have argued that reference cannot be a sufficient criterion for synonymity because two terms may have the same referent but different meaning (Quine, 1953). The President and the swimmer can both be accurate in reference in the sentence, "X crossed the White House pool." But the meanings of President and swimmer are clearly different and certainly not synony-

492

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

mous. Lyons (1968) argued that instead of reference, synonyms should be denned as words with the same sense, that is, the relation the word has with other words in the Jexicon. Although synonymity cannot be based solely on reference, it also seems obvious that in many situations reference can serve as a criterion of whether words are partial or exact synonyms. All four-door cars are sedans but not all are jalopies. Similarly not all jalopies are sedans. Thus, sedan and jalopy must be partial synonyms. A fifth perspective on synonymity postulates that synonyms are subsumed under the terminal nodes of a hierarchical structure that defines the meaning relationships of all words in the language. Each node represents a unique denotative meaning, and the word attached to a node is the symbol for that node's meaning. Synonyms are defined as different words that are attached to the same node. Roget (1962) is best known for proposing a classification scheme for synonyms, purportedly based on a superordinate conceptual structure of word meanings. Others have also followed this approach to synonymy, for example, Hartrampf (1937). Although such hierarchical systems seem plausible, their logical organization is not rigorously defined and does not in the end specify each and every set of synonymous words. Therefore, the hierarchy does not in actuality explicate the basis of synonymity but is merely a hypothesis of how synonymity might fit into a complete and organized semantic memory. The preceding conceptions of synonymity are related to each other, but they refer to different linguistic phenomena. As Naess (1953) pointed out, there may not be one true conception of synonymity but several kinds of synonymity that depend on the situation of use. Thus, no single account of synonymity has emerged as the best from a theoretical viewpoint. Of the five conceptions, psychologists have generally conceived of synonyms as simply words with the same meaning. Nevertheless, many psychologists have used the concept of partial synonymity, and a few have invoked the remaining conceptions of interchangeability, reference, and the hierarchical knowledge base. No psychological work however, has concerned itself with all of

these conceptions of synonymity, and most articles have not indicated an awareness of these conceptions other than similarity in meaning. The research below in part evaluates the adequacy of the above conceptions from a psychosemantic standpoint (as compared with a logical, philosophical, or semantic one). Structure of Word Meaning and Synonymity In order to understand research on synonyms, the representation of word meaning in semantic memory is discussed before findings from synonym research are covered. Philosophers, linguists, semanticists, and psychologists have discussed several kinds of word meaning that enter into the processing and use of synonyms. First, there is denotative meaning, defined as the generic meaning of the objects and situations to which a word refers (Glucksberg & Banks, 197S).2 Denotative meaning, as is shown below, must be further divided into general meaning
2 Semantics has traditionally defined denotation as extensional, 'that is, the reference of a word, and connotation as intensional, that is, the attributes that characterize the meaning of a word. Although intensional meaning must depend in part on the extension of a word, semanticists, philosophers, and logicians have preferred to keep the two aspects of word meaning separate (Ogden & Richards, 1923). In contrast, psychology has used denotation not only extensionally but also intensionally. For example, Glucksberg and Danks (1975) defined denotation as the generic concept to which a word refers. Similarly, Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1975) .discussed denotation in terms of the attributes of a word that apply to a ward's referent. Thus, like semantics, psychology has often used denotation extensionally, but unlike semantics, psychology has 'also used the term intensionally. Connotation has generally been used by psychologists to indicate other aspects of meaning not directly relevant to reference, particularly attitudinal or affective characteristics of a word (e.g., Osgood, 1959; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). Thus, like semantics, psychology has treated connotation as intensional, but unlike semantics, psychology has used connotation iratensionally only insofar as connotative attributes bear on nonreferential details of meaning (cf. Stebbing, 1966; Weinreich, 1958, 1959). The present article uses denotation and connotation in the sense in which psychology has employed these terms. If the semantic references cited here, are consulted by the reader, please be aware that the source is likely to use denotation and connotation somewhat differently from 'psychologists.

SYNONYMITY and specific meaning in order to deal with synonymity. Philosophers and writers through the ages have discussed the difference between the general or broad sense of a word, derived from the core of a word's meaning, and the specific or narrow sense of a word stemming from restrictions on the use of a word for precise communication (Adler & Gorman, 19S2; Goodenough, 1956; Lounsbury, 1964; K. Nelson, 1974; Nida, 1958; Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974). Synonyms can be used interchangeably in many situations, that is, the broad meaning, but on occasion, a speaker or writer will find only one or two words applicable in a set of synonyms. The term synonym set (Weinreich, 1962) is used below to refer to those words that have the same general meaning (cf. Ohman, 1953; Scur, 1973; Trier, 1934; Weisgerber, 1962). For example, while talking about a stock car derby, one may use the word sedan, but for certain sedan entries in the race, jalopy may seem particularly appropriate. Sedan and jalopy share the same general meaning of car,

493

but jalopy also carries the additional specific meaning of beat-up, old, and run-down. Specific meaning does not destroy synonymity, since sedan and jalopy are often interchangeable. The distinction between general and specific features, as is shown below, is necessary to account for various psychological findings, reviewed in this article, concerning synonyms. Therefore, this distinction is one of the most important psychosemantic constructs suggested by the field of synonym research. The next kind of meaning is connotative, which is comprised of nondenotative ideas related to the denotative meaning. Connotative meaning is often equated with affective meaning (Glucksberg & Banks, 1975; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Snider & Osgood, 1969). Although the words in a synonym set probably agree closely on connotative meaning, in some cases connotative features of a word may restrict usage in the same way as do specific, denotative features. Finally, some synonyms in the language are marked for certain social situations, although they have the

Table 1 Some Relationships Between Words, Based on Different Kinds of Meaning, Which Semantically and Psychologically May Underlie Synonymity
B D W4
WS W6

Kind of meaning Sociolinguistic Connotative Affective Other Denotative Specific

Wl

W2

W3

W7

W8

W9

General

Note. W = word. Each kind of meaning is composed of various attributes (unspecified in the table). The presence of a + sign in the column under a word indicates that the word is defined on that attribute in semantic memory. Panels A, B, C, and D represent four ways in which synonymous relationships may originate from words possessing similar profiles of semantic features.

494

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

same denotative meaning. For example, when in polite company one will ask for the bathroom rather than the John. Thus, sociolinguistic meaning can also affect use of synonyms. The different kinds of meaning, as represented by a feature model of meaning (cf. Katz & Fodor, 1963), are illustrated in Table 1 (cf. Leech, 1974; Smith et al., 1974). In the table, Wl through W9 represent the words of a synonym set, and panels A, B, C, and D represent four subsets that illustrate various aspects of synonymity. Panel A presents Wl and W2, which are exact synonyms because of agreement on general denotative features and, according to Lyons (1968), are also complete synonyms because of agreement on connotative features. W3 and W4 in panel B are also exact synonyms, but in this case agreement is on specific as well as on general denotative features. Since exactness is highly idiosyncratic (if exact synonyms exist at all), widely accepted examples of exact synonyms, represented in panels A and B, are impossible to find. Nevertheless, the reader can consult Fowler (1926/1965), who claimed that furze and gorse are exact synonyms. Panel C, which consists of WS and W6, illustrates the traditional conception of synonymity, words agreeing on all denotative features, such as bathroom and John. W7, W8, and W9 in panel D are partial synonyms of one another due to varying degrees of agreement on specific features. If people were asked to judge the similarity in meaning of these three words, W7 and W8 or W8 and W9 would be evaluated as more similar than W7 and W9. For example, W7 might be disturb; W8, bother; and W9, annoy. All three words share the general meaning of disruption; bother and annoy, particularly the latter, also indicate the specific meaning of irritation. Table 1 also illustrates one of the major conclusions to be drawn from the following literature review: Synonymity appears to involve not only denotative meaning but also all other kinds of meaning. Scope of Review Basically, two kinds of responses have been required by experiments involving synonyms.

The many and varied articles reviewed here are discussed according to the two kinds of responses. One kind of response required of a subject has been to indicate overtly comprehension of synonymity, hereafter referred to as an overt synonym response (OSR). An example of an OSR is a subject deciding that a pair of words are or are not synonyms. Another example of an OSR is a subject producing on request a synonym of a stimulus word. In contrast with studies requiring OSRs, much research has had subjects make responses that have nothing to do directly with comprehension, for example, recognizing a word as belonging to a previously presented list. Such tasks do not require processing of synonymity, but the goal of this research has been to examine the effect of synonymity on a dependent variable, for example, recognition accuracy. In such experimentation, if synonyms produce an effect, it can be inferred that the subject responded covertly to synonymity, that is, the subject made a covert synonym response (CSR). CSRs do not necessarily indicate conscious comprehension of synonymity. The review below first covers research dealing with OSRs, then, investigations with CSRs, and a discussion of issues common to both areas. Sentence synonymity, and developmental differences on synonym comprehension are outside of the scope of the present article.3 The review reveals a remarkably consistent pattern of results across many different procedures and tasks. Overt Synonym Comprehension Many experiments have required an overt response indicating comprehension of synonymity. Much of this research has been concerned with ratings of the similarity between words and OSRs. In the following sections, it is seen that research on OSRs has supported all of the five conceptions of synonymity dis3 Additional bibliographies on synonym theory and research are available from the author: (a) semantic and philosophical references on synonymy supplementary .to those listed here, (b) investigations concerned with development of synonym comprehension in children, and (c) references on synonymity of sentences.

SYNONYMITY

495

cussed above. Additionally, OSR results shed light on the relationships between synonymity and other word-similarity classifications, both sensory (e.g., homonyms) and semantic (e.g., hyponyms). Simttarity-in-Meaning Scales The second conception of synonymity posits the existence of absolute synonyms and partial synonyms. From such a distinction it is a short step to the proposition that synonymity varies along a continuum of similarity in meaning. Although it is not clear if psychologists were aware of the semanticists' conception of absolute and partial synonymity, several psychologists have investigated people's judgments of similarity in meaning. The similarity in meaning between two words, synonymous or otherwise, can be rated by subjects on a Likert-type scale ranging from Unrelated to Identical in Meaning. Typical ratings for various synonyms have been provided by similarity-in-meaning norms (Haagen, 1949; Rocklyn, Hessert, & Braun, 1957; Umemoto, Morikawa, & Ibuki, 19SS; Melton & Safier, Note 1). Similarity-in-meaning ratings have been shown to exhibit a high degree of agreement between subjects and across different testing sessions (Rubenstein & Goodenough, 196S). However, when one or two words in a synonym pair possess multiple meanings, similarity in meaning is somewhat lower if synonymity involves a less frequent meaning of a word or words in a synonym pair (cf. Rubenstein & Goodenough, cited in Rubenstein, 1974; Papperman & Herrmann, Note 2). Similarity in meaning was found in one study to correlate very highly (.9) with ratings of closeness in associative connections (Haagen, 1949). Subsequent research, however, has suggested that this relationship is not nearly as high as was originally indicated. Associative overlap for two synonyms has been found in two separate studies to have increased as similarity-in-meaning ratings increased in the lower and upper segments of the range for the ratings. In the intermediate portion of the range, associative overlap remained constant. For example, Cofer (19S7) had subjects produce free associations for

each word in many synonym pairs and then computed the percentage of common associates out of all associates given for the words in a pair. He found that, as described above, associative overlap in a synonym pair covaried directly with similarity only at the extremes of similarity. Likewise, Rubenstein and Goodenough (1965) had one group of subjects rate similarity of meaning and another group produce sentences for a list of synonyms, associates, and unrelated words. The aforementioned relationship was again found between similarity in meaning and associative overlap, measured in this case by the overlap in words used in sentences. There is other evidence that also indicates that the correlation between similarity in meaning and associative connections is not as high as was reported by Haagen (1949). Flavell and Flavell (1959) required subjects to choose between two pairs of words on the basis of (a) closeness in meaning and then (b) degree of associative relationship. Essentially, four kinds of stimuli were presented: synonyms with exactly or almost exactly the same referent, for example, sofa-couch; synonyms or near synonyms differing on some dimension, for example, damp-wet; a variety of associative relationship, for example, hotdog; and antonyms, for example, hot-cold. A rank ordering of meaningful similarity choices, from most to least similar, was exact synonyms, partial synonyms, associated words, and antonyms (see Benedetti, 1958; WeissShed, 1973). Moreover, when subjects chose the pair with the strongest associative overlap, synonyms were approximately the middle of the rank order of associative choices. Synonyms are clearly not the highest form of association, and degree of association is not an unequivocal indicator of synonymity or degree of partial synonymity. In addition to reflecting associative relationships, similarity-in-meaning ratings appear also to indicate similarity in connotative meaning. Rowan (1954) and Flavell (1961) found ratings of similarity in meaning to be correlated with semantic-differential measures. Wimer (1963) concluded from a comprehensive study of various rating measures that "connotative similarity between words ap-

496

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

peared to be part of the bases for their being judged similar" (p. 404). Although these studies suggest that connotative meaning is involved in comprehension of synonymity, their results are not conclusive on this point. Virtually all of the similarity studies (except see Haagen, 1949) did not specify synonymity as the criterion of the rating scale in directions to subjects. Thus, similarity-in-meaning scores do not distinguish synonyms from nonsynonyms and may confound other kinds of meaning with synonymity. In order to determine clearly the role of other kinds of meaning in synonymity with a rating measure, it is necessary to compare ratings obtained from instructions to judge synonymity with ratings obtained from instructions to judge similarity on each of the different kinds of meaning, namely denotation, connotation, and sociolinguistic meaning. The similarity-in-meaning measure has also been shown to covary with other measures that reflect the interchangeability criterion of synonymity. Goodenough (cited in Rubenstein, 1974) took sentences generated for each word in a pair of synonyms (from Rubenstein & Goodenough, 1965) and exchanged the synonyms in the sentences. Goodenough then computed the percentage of sentences in which the meaning was unchanged or changed in a "sensible and stylistic" way and correlated the percentage of substitutability per synonym pair with the similarity-in-meaning measure. The relationship between the variables was strong, r = .88, showing that the similarity measure predicts interchangeability. Consistent with this result, a measure of overlap in the context of words comprising dissertation titles was found by Lewis, Baxendale, and Bennett (1967) to discriminate synonyms from semantically related nonsynonyms and unrelated nonsynonyms. Theoretical arguments as to why overlap measures should be capable of distinguishing synonyms from nonsynonyms have been provided by Giuliano (Note 3), Jones (1964, 1965), and Lewis et al. (1967). Naess (1953) investigated the effect of different instructions on substitutability judgments. He concluded that variations in instructions had a negligible effect on the num-

ber of acceptable substitutions ascertained by judges. Naess also concluded that his data indicated that synonymity is symmetric; that is, if Wa and Wb are synonymous, Wft is as similar to Wb as Wb is similar to W8. However, Naess's evidence for this conclusion is extremely weak by current investigatory standards. First, he based his conclusions about synonyms in general on less than a dozen pairs of synonyms (cf. Clark, 1973). Second, 10% of his subjects' responses were ambiguous as to acceptable substitutability. Naess discarded these data as due to perturbations in the subject, not realizing that such ambiguity in responding may have been the product of asymmetry in his synonyms. Nevertheless, no one has explored the procedures for estimating substitutability more than Naess, and despite some statistical weaknesses, Naess's (1953) book, Interpretation and Preciseness, offers many valuable insights, procedural and theoretical. The referential criterion for synonymity also appears to be reflected by similarity-inmeaning ratings. Flavell (1961), besides obtaining similarity estimates, required subjects to rate co-occurrence probability of words in a pair, that is, the likelihood that the objects, events, or properties represented by the two words are found to co-occur in the environment. Co-occurrence probability, essentially an estimate of reference co-occurrence, correlated highly with meaning similarity (r-.91). Nevertheless, an objective measure of referential co-occurrence should also be studied before fully accepting the implication of Flavell's correlation, namely, that similarity-in-meaning ratings have a referential base. The hypothesis that synonymity is based on a massive hierarchical tree of knowledge is also supported by similarity-in-meaning ratings. Rubenstein and Goodenough (cited in Rubenstein, 1974) studied the distance between members of synonym pairs mapped on the tree-structure model devised by Roget. For their set of 65 such synonym pairs, they found a correlation of r = .85 between proximity in the tree and ratings of meaning similarity.

SYNONYMITY

497

Synonym-Comprehension Latency Research has shown that latency to recognize synonymity varies with semantic similarity between words in a synonym pair, that is, with degree of partial synonymity. Fillenbaum (1964), in an experiment on semantic satiation, investigated the time necessary to decide whether or not a pair of words were synonyms. (The results bearing on satiation are not described here.) The latency of the OSR was faster with close synonyms than with jar synonyms, where close and far synonymity were based on similarity-in-meaning ratings from Haagen's list. Nonsynonym responses took a longer amount of time than close synonym responses and less time than far synonym responses. Overall, synonym responses took longer than nonsynonym responses. This last result has also been shown in a bilingual context (Segalowitz & Lambert, 1969). Also, semantic similarity has been observed to affect the time needed to recall common attributes shared by synonyms (Flavell & Johnson, 1961). Conversely, the decision that two words are not synonymous was found by Sabol and DeRosa (1976) to be slower for words related in meaning due to being antonyms than for unrelated words. Fillenbaum's (1964) results, replicated by Esposito and Pelton (1969), are identical to the effect of semantic similarity on "yes" categorization latency. For example, Rips, Shoben, and Smith (1973) found that the latency to decide if two words belonged to the same category (e.g., birds) was faster for very similar exemplars (e.g., robin-sparrow) than for less similar exemplars (e.g., robinduck). Conversely Sabol and DeRosa's (1976) finding for the not-synonymous decision resembles the effect of semantic relatedness on "no" categorization latency. For example, Schaeffer and Wallace (1970) found that the latency to decide whether two words belonged to different categories was slower for related words, for example, parrotgiraffe (categories were birds and animals), than for unrelated words, for example, parrot-cedar (categories were birds and trees). Several models of the categorization process have been developed that account for similarity effects on categorization latency (Collins &

Loftus, 197S; Glass & Holyoak, 1975; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1976; Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974). Since semantic similarity appears to affect synonym comprehension and categorization in the same manner, models of categorization may also be generalizable, with minor modifications, to the comprehension of synonyms. Determination of which categorization model is most appropriate as a model of synonym comprehension, however, is presently not possible because all of the models mentioned above have been equally successful in accounting for similarity effects (cf. Smith, 1977). Thus, more research is necessary to ascertain which model best accounts for synonym comprehension. The latency of synonym comprehension also appears to be affected by the number of meanings possessed by stimulus words and the frequency or dominance of meanings for stimulus words with multiple meanings, for example, homographs (words that have different meanings but the same written form). Specifically, synonym-comprehension latency has been shown to be greater for two synonymous homographs than for two synonymous nonhomographs (Ryder, Note 4). Also, synonym-comprehension latency has been found to be greater for two words in which synonymity occurs for the second or less dominant sense of at least one word in the pair than for words synonymous in the first sense of each word (Papperman & Herrmann, Note 2; Ryder, Note 4; cf. Grober, Note 5). This last result was obtained even when similarityin-meaning ratings (cf. Rubenstein, 1974) were equated across pairs synonymous in the first sense or in a less dominant sense (Papperman & Herrmann, Note 2). Homographic relationships of words are clearly important to synonym comprehension. A number of studies have shown that the time needed to comprehend synonymity is greater than the time needed to perceive sensory identity between two words. The latency to judge sameness of meaning was found to be greater than that for judgments of sameness in visual characteristics by Cohen (1968), Shulman (1970, 1972), Raser (1972), and Leiber (1977) and in acoustic properties by Cohen (19,68), Leiber (1977), Shulman (1970), and Raser (1972). Syno-

498

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

nym comprehension seems to reflect a greater depth of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1973) than do sensory judgments. Accuracy oj Recognizing Synonymity

The first vocabulary test devoted solely to synonyms was developed by Lepley (19SS). The test was shown to correlate fairly well with first-semester freshman grades, r .4 (Lepley & Zeigler, 1956). Another synonym test, the Employee Aptitude Survey (Test 1), was found by Hunt, Lunneborg, and Lewis (1975), in a factor analysis of many measures, to load heavily on a "rapid reasoning" factor and moderately on a factor reflecting facility in accessing "overlearned codes" or names in (semantic) memory. Thus, synonym test scores not only reflect a knowledge of the general meaning of synonyms but also indicate academic potential, fluency in reasoning, and ease in retrieval of information from semantic memory. Recognition of synonymity between a test word and a word on a previously presented list was compared with recognition of the list words themselves by Buschke and Laza (1972). Recognition was more accurate for list words than for synonyms after only reading list words; however, when subjects generated synonyms during list presentation, recognition was equally accurate for synonyms and list words. Synonym generation either primed the synonym set for subsequent recognition (cf. Collins & Loftus, 1975; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1976) or led to a complete memory record for the features of list words so synonyms were more readily recognized in the test. Detection oj Specific Meaning in Synonyms As described above, accuracy in recognition of the general meaning of synonyms is measured by several standardized tests. Accuracy in recognizing the specific meaning of synonyms is also measured by at least one standardized test, the Synonym Differentiation Test (Heinburg, 1959), which requires one to choose one of three synonyms called for in a particular context, for example, "In that country the disease has not been com-

pletely (eradicated) (exterminated) (annihilated)" (p. 304). The scores on this test were shown to correlate with ratings of a student's diction (word usage) in a brief speech. Recognition of specific denotative features was probably involved in a study by Rosenberg and Cohen (1966). These investigators presented a synonym pair and a stimulus word to a subject whose task was to determine which word in the synonym pair was referred to by the stimulus word. Rosenberg and Cohen found that the probability of the correct word being chosen depended on whether the stimulus word was a "high" or "low" associate of the correct word. Although associates to the word could be strictly arbitrary, for example, pink to cue lady from woman, they could also be denotative in the specific sense, for example, proper for lady. Of course, an associate could be denotative in the general sense, for example, female, but such a word would be useless in cuing the correct word. Rosenberg and Cohen's paradigm might prove useful in determining the effectiveness of different kinds of meaning (general, specific, connotative, and sociolinguistic) in choosing the appropriate synonym. Generation oj Synonyms If asked to do so, people can provide a synonym for a word and, as with all associations, the responses can be ordered according to frequency in a hierarchy (Fijalkow, 1973; Stark, 1972; Riegel, Note 6). The frequency of a synonym response presumably reflects its similarity in meaning or overlap in features with the stimulus word, that is, overlap in specific features. The synonym-production frequency of a response to a stimulus tends to covary directly with the rated familiarity of the word (Fijalkow, 1973). Additionally, the number of synonyms generated by subjects appears to depend on the familiarity of a word; Lepley (1950) found that the number of synonyms generated without time limit covaried significantly with a subject's estimate of a stimulus word's familiarity. This result is consistent with the recent finding that OSR latency was inversely related to the printed frequency of the word first presented in a synonym pair (Sabol & DeRosa, 1976).

SYNONYMITY

499

Synonym Generation in Association In free association it has long been observed that subjects frequently produce synonyms (Woodworth, 1938). Synonym responses are generally more frequent than antonym responses but less frequent than other kinds of association (Karwoski & Berthold, 1945; Karwoski & Schachter, 1948). However, synonyms were less common than antonyms in association to prepositions (Clark, 1968) and were rare in general in association to compound stimuli (Deese & Hamilton, 1974). The tendency to give synonym associations has also been shown to vary with academic subcultures (Murphy, 1917) and national cultures (Moran, 1973). When subjects respond to a series of free-association stimuli, they tend to produce many responses of a certain type, for example, mostly synonyms or mostly antonyms (Karwoski & Berthold, 1945; Moran, 1966). These data have lead to the conclusion that subjects employ a strategy or set when associating and that the set to produce synonyms is distinct from the set to produce antonyms (Moran, 1966). However, data from restricted-association tasks (e.g., "Produce a synonym") indicate that the basis for generating synonyms is not completely different from the basis for generating antonyms or, also, the generation of exemplars for a category. For example, when subjects are given a variety of restricted-association tasks, the responses produced sometimes overlap across the three tasks of generating a synonym, an antonym, or a category exemplar (Perfetti, 1967; Riegel & Riegel, 1963). Synonym generation, therefore, appears to involve some of the same semantic factors that are relevant to generation of antonyms and category exemplars. Acquisition oj Synonymity Saltz (1971) proposed that people learn synonyms either by observing the words in the same context or by being instructed that Word x means the same as word y. Moreover, he assumed that synonyms learned by context have a different internal representation (z-context-;y) from synonyms learned by instruction (x-y). The only study compar-

ing synonyms learned by context with those learned by instruction found no differences between these two kinds of synonyms in accuracy of recognizing synonymity (D. M. Johnson & Stratton, 1966). However, since this is but one null finding, Saltz's proposal remains a viable hypothesis. We simply know nothing about acquisition of synonymy. Covert Synonym Responses Studies investigating covert responding to synonyms have generally had one of three purposes: to establish that meaning (via synonymity) was processed in a certain task, to compare the amount of processing required by synonymity with that required by sensory similarity, or to compare the amount of processing required by synonymity with that required by other semantic relationships. These investigations have originated from several different research areas: perception, verbal conditioning, verbal learning (acquisition, transfer), and memory (forgetting, cued recall, short- and long-term recognition). It is seen below that across all of the research areas, numerous investigations achieved their goal of showing that meaning, based on synonymity, was processed in a certain task. It should be pointed out, however, that several studies reviewed below possess a methodological weakness that raises difficulties for interpretation. These studies employed a popular design in which the effects of synonyms and other semantic classes (e.g., antonyms, hyponyms) have been compared in a particular task. Unfortunately, almost all of these studies failed to match the stimuli representing each class on some measure of semantic similarity. Since semantic similarity has been shown to vary across different semantic classes (Flavell & Flavell, 1959; Rubenstein & Goodenough, 1965), it is difficult to ascertain in these studies whether the results are due to differences in the class relationships or simply due to differences in semantic similarity of stimuli. Although many of these studies occurred before it was known that semantic similarity was a relevant variable and cannot be faulted for failing to control such similarity, the fact remains that the results of any study

500

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

without such control are ambiguous. All of the studies below that compared semantic classes can be presumed to suffer from this defect except when the use of an acceptable control is indicated. Perception Perceptual research indicates that mere presentation of a word elicits CSRs. The visualduration threshold for synonyms of words presented earlier in a series of threshold determinations was shown by Gofer and Shepp (1957) to be lower than the threshold for unrelated control words. Synonyms must have been implicitly activated or primed by the presentation of the earlier words. Synonyms have also been shown to affect perceptual processes in an attention task. When subjects repeat (shadow) a message presented in one ear, presentation in the other ear (the unattended channel) of synonyms of message words impedes the latency of shadowing relative to other semantic relationships (Lewis, 1970). The simultaneous elicitation of a synonym in the unattended channel apparently makes it difficult for the subject to decide which word he perceived in the shadowed channels. Alternatively, when two different words are presented, one to each ear, without the requirement of shadowing, recognition of the words was found to be as accurate for synonyms as that for two categorically related words and more accurate than recognition of two antonyms (Kadesh, Riese, & Anisfeld, 1976). Semantic Generalization Findings in this research area lead to the same conclusion implied by perceptual studies, that is, that a word's presentation activates the synonyms of the word. In a seminal experiment, Razran (1939) showed that after words were presented to a subject during eating, subsequent presentation of synonyms of these words produced more salivation than did homophones of these words. Since Razran's study, many investigations have observed semantic generalization across a wide range of stimuli and responses (for reviews of this work, see Cofer & Foley, 1942; Creelman,

1966; Feather, 1965). Peastrel, Wishner, and Kaplan (1968), though, showed that generalization was greatest to synonyms when subjects were set to process meaning during conditioning and was greatest to homophones when subjects were set to process acoustic properties of the conditioned stimulus, and no clear difference between synonyms and homophones emerged when the set was ambiguous. Finally, two studies have found generalization to antonyms, as well as to synonyms, but there were no significant differences in the effects of these two kinds of meaning (Korn, 1966; Lerner, 1968). Feather (1965) argued that generalization may not be occurring in these studies. He proposed that a word may covertly elicit its synonym during conditioning, and thus the synonym becomes conditioned, too. At the test for generalization, the observation of a conditioned response to a synonym does not prove generalization, for the response may be directly conditioned rather than generalized. Feather's contention is consistent with perceptual research on visual-duration thresholds, mentioned above, which indicated that synonyms are implicitly activated when a word is perceived (Cofer & Shepp, 1957). Association Association to a word in the presence of its synonym produces somewhat surprising effects, that is, until the constructs of general and specific meaning are taken into account. Esposito and Pelton (1969) found that associates to a word in the presence of the word's synonym were less common than associates to the word in the presence of an unrelated word. Similarly, Cofer and Ford (1957) observed free-association latency to be longer when a stimulus word was presented with its synonym than when the word was presented with an unrelated word. In both studies the presence of a synonym altered the associative response. One explanation of this effect is that the presence of a synonym induces a subject to avoid producing a response to the meaning held in common by the two words (cf. Cofer & Ford, 1957), that is, general meaning. Thus, when a synonym is pres-

SYNONYMITY

501

ent, a subject may respond just to specific features of the stimulus word, whereas in the context of an unrelated word the subject may respond to both general and specific features of the stimulus word. Associative responses made only to specific features would be expected to be more diverse than responses made to all of the features of a word because the limited number of specific features places few constraints on words that can be generated that are related to these features. The latency of associative responses to specific features should be longer than responses to a word's entire feature set because, in the former case, time must be spent on identifying the specific features before association can commence. Associations to the synonym of a previously satiated word, one that had lost meaning by being repeatedly pronounced, were found by Fillenbaum (1963) to be less diverse than associations to the satiated word itself but more diverse than associations to an unrelated word. Therefore, a word may become satiated indirectly by being synonymous with another word that has repeatedly been processed. Since most words are only partially synonymous, however, a word satiated by synonymity would be less satiated than the directly processed word. Thus, with fewer features satiated, associates to the synonym would be less diverse than those to the directly processed word. Alternatively, since some of the synonym's features have been satiated, associates to the synonym would be more diverse than to a non-satiated unrelated word (cf. Esposito & Pelton, 1969; Gumenik & Spencer, 1965). Verbal LearningAcquisition Synonym relationships can either facilitate or inhibit recall, depending on the learning paradigm. Generally synonymity facilitates acquisition unless different synonymous forms are likely either to elicit or to become competing responses (cf. Abramczyk, Thompson, Jordan & Weeks, 1976; Bousfield, Abramczyk, & Stein, 1971). The pattern of results seems consistent with hypothesized general and specific features. Underwood (19S3) and Ekstrand and Underwood (1963) found recall for a list composed of synonyms to be

superior to that for a list of unrelated words. A synonym list might be acquired quickly because, once synonymity is detected, general features are acquired for all items, and the remaining time can be spent acquiring the specific features identifying each list word. Unrelated words, in contrast, require the storage of different general features, as well as specific features for each word, and thus take longer to learn (cf. Richardson, 1960). In paired-associate learning, if response terms are synonyms of each other, learning of responses alone is facilitated (Higa, 1962; Underwood, Runquist, & Schulz, 1959). Synonymity among stimulus words (Runquist, 1968; Underwood, 1953) or among responses (Higa, 1962; Saltz, 1961; Underwood et al., 1959) impairs acquisition of the correct response to a particular stimulus. Higa (1962) found that this impairment in learning was greater for response synonymity than for response similarity based on association, antonymy, connotation, and categories, although the difference was only significant for connotation and categories. In contrast with these long-term memory studies, synonym commonality among stimuli and among responses has had no effect or a very small debilitating effect on learning and recall in most shortterm memory experiments (Baddeley, 1966, 1970). Consistent with this, synonym commonality in a list impeded probed recall of the early portion of a list, whereas homonym commonality impeded recall from late in the list (Kintsch & Buschke, 1969). Effects of stimulus or response synonymity can be heightened by instructions to use imagery. In a paired-associate learning task, Bower (1972) presented pairs whose stimuli (or responses) were either synonymous or not synonymous with other stimuli (or responses). Subjects using imagery did not acquire the synonym pairs as well as nonsynonym pairs, whereas subjects who used auditory rehearsals learned the synonym and nonsynonym pairs equally well. Consistent with the reference definition of synonymity, synonyms apparently elicited similar images, and subjects occasionally confused images with the corresponding stimulus or response term. Although intralist synonymity accelerates the learning of responses alone, synonymity

502

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

does not seem to provide a good basis for organization in free-recall learning (Cofer, 1965). For example, category words are clustered more than are synonyms. The reason for the weak clustering of synonyms is not clear, but it may be due to the amount of denotative features necessary to discover synonymity or category membership prior to clustering. A subject must process many features of a word's meaning to discover that it is synonymous with another word, whereas he or she must process fewer features to discover agreement in category meaning. Only one study has examined the effects of synonymity between stimulus and response on acquisition. Underwood (1974) presented, during acquisition and at a subsequent recognition test, word pairs that were synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, homonyms, and associates. Relative to a control condition, recognition performance improved across antonyms, homonyms, hyponyms, synonyms, and associates. Verbal LearningTransfer Research has consistently shown that a second list composed of synonyms of words from an earlier list is acquired faster than a control list of unrelated words. Foley and Cofer (1943) found positive transfer in recall of list items that were synonymous or homonymous with items from previously studied lists. Similarly, synonymity across lists in pairedassociate responses resulted in positive transfer for Barnes and Underwood (1959), Postman and Stark (1969), and Weiss-Shed (1973). Positive transfer for synonyms was marginally supported in research on mediated transfer (Cofer & Yarczower, 1957) and probability learning (Hanson, Schipper, & Brislin, 1969). Moreover, the amount of positive transfer has been shown to be directly related to degree of synonymity (Ellis, 1965; Morgan & Underwood, 1950; Underwood, 1951). These results are consistent with the conclusion that after first-list acquisition, the general meaning of first-list words is transferred to the second list, reducing the burden of second-list acquisition to learning only the specific features of the new synonyms. According to this interpretation, as the degree of syn-

onymity increases between lists, fewer new features must be learned, leading transfer to be quicker. Transfer for synonyms was found to be inferior to that for associated words in three studies (Bastian, 1961; Sassenrath & Yongue, 1967, 1973). On the other hand, synonyms yielded more positive transfer than antonyms in two experiments but had the reverse effect in another experiment (Kanungo, 1967; Wickens & Cermak, 1967). Connotative similarity based on semantic-differential scores produced positive transfer but only when the words were denotatively similar (Dicken, 1957). MemoryInterference and Forgetting

For nearly three quarters of a century, memory researchers have examined the effects of prior learning on the recall of material acquired later, proactive interference (PI), and the reverse relationship, the effects of later learning on the recall of material acquired earlier, retroactive interference (RI). PI has been shown to be diminished by synonymity between material learned earlier and that learned later. Synonyms produced less PI than did unrelated words in studies by Morgan and Underwood (1951), Young (1955), and Dallett (1962). Synonymity may attenuate PI because synonymity produces positive transfer that offsets the effects of interference. In contrast with PI findings, RI results conflict greatly. This is particularly disturbing, since some RI investigators seemed unaware that their results contradicted some of the earlier findings. In both serial learning and paired-associate learning, synonymity between lists led to poorer recall of original-list words than of unrelated control words (i.e., RI) in seven studies (Baddeley & Dale, 1966; Deese & Marder, 1957; L. M. Johnson, 1933; McGeogh & McDonald, 1931; McGeogh & McGeogh, 1936, 1937; Postman & Stark, 1969). In contrast, synonymity had the opposite effect in four studies, that is, synonymity facilitated original-word recall (Barnes & Underwood, 1959; Bastian, 1961; Kanungo, 1967; Weiss-Shed, 1973). One study found neither RI nor facilitation with borderline synonyms (Osgood, 1946; cf. Young, 1955),

SYNONYMITY

503

and short-term memory studies have also been unable to produce RI with synonyms (Baddeley & Dale, 1966; Dale, 1967). In sum, the results on synonymity and RI are in disarray. Systematic investigation of the variables uncontrolled across past experiments is needed to bring order to the present chaos. MemoryCued Recall Synonyms have been found to be effective cues in free recall (Light, 1972; D. L. Nelson & Brooks, 1974; D. L. Nelson, Wheeler, Borden, & Brooks, 1974). The degree of effectiveness increases with the similarity between synonyms (D. L. Nelson & Brooks, 1974; D. L. Nelson et al., 1974). When synonym cues were compared with cues acoustically similar to memorized words (homonyms for Light, rhyming words for Nelson and his colleagues), synonyms generally resulted in less recall than did acoustic cues. One reason for the superior recall for acoustic cues, suggested by Light (1972), is that the number of words similar to an acoustic cue are fewer than those similar to synonym cues. Thus, when a cue is presented, a subject must search a larger set of words for a synonym cue than for an acoustic cue in order to find the correct list item. MemoryShort-Term Recognition After a word has been briefly presented, a synonym of the word is more often falsely identified as having been presented previously than is an unrelated word (Anisfeld & Knapp, 1968; Bruder & Silverman, 1972; Elias & Perfetti, 1973). The increase in false recognitions in response to synonyms suggests either that an insufficient number of features were initially stored at presentation or that between presentation and test specific features were lost in memory, leading the subject to conclude erroneously that a synonymous distractor had been presented earlier. When synonyms have been compared with other semantic classes for distractor effectiveness, synonyms have generally been the most seductive distractors. The proportion of false recognitions for synonyms was found to be greater than that for antonyms in one case

(Grossman & Eagle, 1970) but was equivalent to that for antonyms in another (Fillenbaum, 1969). Synonyms produced more recognition errors than did nonsynonyms associatively matched with synonyms in two cases (Fillenbaum, 1969; Grossman & Eagle, 1970) but the same proportion of errors in one case (Kausler & Settle, 1973; cf. Kurz, 1964). In a verbal-discrimination experiment that used a variant of the recognition paradigm, synonyms were no more effective as distractors than were antonyms and associates (Lovelace &Schulz, 1971). Synonyms have also been compared with homonyms for effectiveness in yielding false recognitions. Synonyms were more effective as distractors than were homonyms in two recognition experiments and two verbal-discrimination experiments (Bruder & Silverman, 1972), but synonyms and homonyms were equally effective in two recognition and two discrimination experiments (Bruder and Silverman, 1972; Buschke & Lenon, 1969). Thus, synonyms are at least as strong or stronger than homonyms as lures for false-recognition responses. MemoryLong-Term Recognition Like recognition based on a brief presentation, long-term recognition is also affected by synonymity between distractors and the memorized material, although in a somewhat different fashion. In several studies, accuracy of long-term recognition was essentially unaffected by synonym distractors at an immediate test (Handler, 1970, 1972; Mandler, Pearlstone, & Koopmans, 1969) but was affected at a delayed test (Mandler, 1970, 1972; Edick, Note 7). In contrast, latency of correct recognition at an immediate test has been found to be longer in response to synonym distractors than to unrelated distractors (Juola, Fischler, Wood, & Atkinson, 1971; Kennedy, 1975), a difference that was increased at a delayed test (Edick, Note 7). The pattern of findings on synonym effects in short- and long-term recognition is quite consistent in terms of general and specific features. When acquisition is restricted to a low level, only a small proportion of a word's features may be stored. Consequently, in rec-

504

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

ognition, when a synonym is presented, more features match with list items than is the case for unrelated words, and the synonym is falsely recognized. When acquisition is at a high level, many features, general and specific, are stored, allowing the subject to discriminate synonyms from memorized words and not make errors in an immediate test. Discrimination consumes time, however, and so rejection of a synonym takes longer than rejection of an unrelated word. By the time of a delayed test, specific features have been lost, leading to more errors for synonyms; the discrimination problem is also aggravated by the loss of features, leading to even longer latencies for synonym rejection. Generalizations Drawn Across Research Areas Conceptions of Synonymity Undoubtedly, the semantic conceptions of synonymity developed by philosophers and linguists are evidenced in psychological data. Sameness of meaning (the first conception of synonymity) has affected performance in a variety of tasks involving OSRs or CSRs. No research has attempted to show if absolute synonyms exist, but degree of partial synonymity (the second conception) has also been shown to affect OSRs and CSRs and to covary with the degree of interchangeability (the third conception). This observed correlation between degree of synonymity and interchangeability is a relationship that most semanticists have not considered. No research has directly tested the referential basis of synonymity (the fourth conception). Nevertheless, some support for the referential basis of synonymity is found in Flavell's (1961) positive correlation between ratings of cooccurrence probability and similarity in meaning, as well as in Bower's (1972) results on imagery instructions and synonymity in transfer. The hierarchical approach to synonymity (the fifth conception) was supported in an analysis by Rubenstein and Goodenough (cited in Rubenstein, 1974) based on Roget's tree of knowledge. However, the theoretical relationship of the hierarchy to synonymity, as mentioned earlier, has yet to be truly developed.

Although all of the conceptions of synonymity have received support, none seems to have captured both the necessary and sufficient conditions of synonymity. The psychological data reviewed above suggest that rather than being describable by a logical definition, synonymity may be a matter of denotative, connotative, and sociolinguistic similarity exceeding a certain criterion. Conventional wisdom treats synonyms and nonsynonyms as mutually exclusive classes, but in actuality, there are word pairs that a subject finds difficult to classify in either one or the other semantic class. Thus, synonymity is a condition based on an underlying continuum that merges with heteronymy, and the boundary between synonymity and heteronymy is not clearly demarcated. Components of Meaning and Synonymity General and specific denotative meaning. The effects of general features of synonyms, that is, the meaning shared by all words in a synonym set, have of course been observed in all of the areas reviewed. The existence of specific features is consistent with findings in many areas. First, synonymity has been shown to vary in degree by ratings of similarity in meaning. Rating differences presumably reflect the amount of agreement in specific features such as those depicted in Table 1. Second, the reduction in commonality of associates when a stimulus is accompanied by its synonym in free association suggests that responding in this task is not to general features but to specific features. Third, synonym-comprehension tests have been developed that indicate knowledge of both specific meaning and general meaning. Fourth, Rosenberg and Cohen's (1966) study, in which a probe word elicited a choice between synonyms, is consistent with an internal representation of specific features. Fifth, synonymity among stimuli or among responses of a paired-associate list inhibits rate of acquisition, presumably because careful discrimination must be made on specific features in order to associate the correct response to the stimulus. Sixth, the increase in recognition accuracy for synonym distractors with degree of learning can be ex-

SYNONYMITY

505

plained by the acquisition of specific features lationships do, this conclusion rests on a tenuous foundation. Virtually all research with practice. Connotative and sociolinguistic meaning. comparing synonyms with other semantic Not much work has been done on this topic, classes has lacked rigorous controls. The most but the evidence reviewed above suggests that serious methodological weakness has been the denotative meaning is not the only kind of failure to equate different semantic classes on meaning involved in OSRs and CSRs. This similarity in meaning. As is explained above, conclusion is important within the history of when synonyms have been found to have synonymy, since almost all logical, philosophi- a greater effect than other semantic relationcal, and semantic positions base synonymity ships, it has generally been unclear whether on denotation only. This conclusion also has a this result was due to synonymity being apwider implication for psychosemantic research prehended more easily than the other relain general. The implication is that many se- tionships or because the synonyms used were mantic tasks may involve processing features inadvertently more similar in overall meaning other than those essential to the task. For ex- than were the other stimuli. A second reason ample, might connotative similarity affect the for exercising caution in accepting previous decision to classify a word as a member or findings is that it is unlikely that the effects nonmember of a category? Irrelevant attri- were large enough to survive the current rigor butes have been shown to affect processing in of psychosemantic statistical analysis (Clark, concept-formation tasks, so it may not be sur- 1973). More and better work is needed on prising if irrelevant semantic attributes affect psychological comparisons between the difprocessing of relevant semantic features. ferent semantic relationships and synonymity. Synonymity and Other Semantic Relationships Logically, synonymity should be the closest relationship of meaning; i.e., two synonyms might be expected generally to overlap more in meaning than would a word pair representing another semantic relationship. This should be true at least for synonyms that are absolute or for highly partial synonyms. The research above is somewhat mixed on this point. FlavelPs work on ratings generally showed synonyms to be the most similar in meaning out of various kinds of associations and antonyms. However, semantic-generalization studies have failed to find differences between synonyms and antonyms. Higa (1962) found that synonymity within responses on a pairedassociate list interfered with learning more than did any other kind of relationship. Transfer findings are conflicting, since synonyms have led to more positive transfer than antonyms in two studies but less transfer in one study using unmixed lists. Recognition is generally less disturbed by antonyms than by synonyms, but synonyms are in some cases no stronger as distractors than are words matched for associative overlap. Although it appears that synonymity affects performance on psychological tasks more than other semantic reDirections for Future Research The most obvious goal for new investigations is to discover what kinds of meaning affect the judgment of synonymity. In the introduction to this article, it is noted that most semanticists and philosophers define synonymity in terms of denotative features. Although experiments on similarity-in-meaning judgments and on transfer of learning indicate that connotative meaning is involved in synonymity, no one has shown that comprehension of synonymity, specifically, is affected by connotative meaning. Thus, research is needed on the role of connotative meaning in synonym comprehension. In addition to denotation and connotation, many synonym sets may also have words marked for sociolinguistic factors. What might these factors be? Collinson (1939) and Ullmann (1962) cited examples of synonyms that differ in formality (deceased-dead) or politeness (pass away - die - kick the bucket). Pittenger and Smith (1969), Leech (1974), and Farb (1973) also pointed out that social factors may dictate the choice of a synonym. Whether or not the sociolinguistic factor of formality affects the decision of synonymity is an open question, but it is almost certain that

506

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN

formality does affect choice of a synonym in speech production. Another sociolinguistic factor involved with synonym use, which overlaps with connotation, might be called impressibility. Some words will be uttered or written to impress the receiver of the message. Thus steed is calculated to impress (Paivio, 1968) or to inspire in place of its synonym horse (Farb, 1973). Moral sensibilities are intended to be aroused when one uses thrifty instead of economical (Collinson, 1939). Indeed, as Vance Packard's (1959) The Status Seekers demonstrated, the advertising industry thrives on using certain synonyms rather than others that are more neutral in order to impress and inspire buying. After terms of address (cf. Brown, 1962), synonym selection may be the most prominent case of social factors influencing semantic choices in production of language. Nevertheless, the influence of sociolinguistic meaning on synonym comprehension has not been observed in the laboratory. Thus, the importance of sociolinguistic meaning to synonym comprehension, postulated here, should be tested experimentally. Another direction for new research is to replicate, with proper controls for similarity in denotative, connotative, and sociolinguistic meaning, the many studies comparing synonymity with other semantic relationships. Replication is needed because, as discussed above, almost all of these studies did not attempt to control similarity in kinds of meaning across semantic relationships. Future work comparing synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and associations of various kinds should use proper controls that will permit sound conclusions. The final topic that demands attention is the acquisition of synonymity for a pair of words. We know absolutely nothing about the conditions affecting the acquisition and retention of synonymity. Synonymity and Individuality In coming to grips with the problem of synonymity, it is necessary to acknowledge the role of individual differences. Naess (1953) pointed out that the sameness in meaning can be identified within the individual (intraindi-

vidual synonymity) and between individuals (interindividual synonymity). Some effects of synonymity may not be detected in an interindividual paradigm (i.e., testing all subjects with the same materials and analyzing across subjects) that may be confirmed with an intraindividual paradigm (i.e., testing and analyzing each subject individually). For example, if exact synonymity is ever to be demonstrated, it will have to be with an intraindividual paradigm. Why Are There Synonyms? In discussing synonymity with colleagues and students, the point is often made that synonyms are redundant. Then, many people go on to deduce that in actuality there can be no real synonyms, since redundancy is inefficient (and humans are perfect), or that if there are synonyms, they represent a flaw in the human information-processing mechanism, namely, having redundancy where none is necessary. (For arguments as to why synonymic redundancy enhances a language's efficiency see Jones, 1964, chap. 4). Regardless of the logical merits or demerits of synonymity, there are at least four reasons for synonymity from a psychological standpoint. Within a stylistic framework (Ogden & Richards, 1923; Stern, 1931; Ullmann, 1962) synonyms are recommended to make prose interesting. The many synonym dictionaries exist to permit writers a better means of expression. Synonyms are stylistically useful in part because they allow the writer to avoid excessive repetition of a particular word. Repetition is to be avoided not for logical reasons but apparently for psychological reasons. But what psychological factors might account for the reader's aversion to repetition and the author's use of synonyms? First, repetition of the same response has long been known to induce fatigue. Lepley (1950), extending Hull's concept of reactive inhibition, proposed that synonyms exist as a means of changing a response to avoid repetition and repetition's consequence of reactive inhibition, namely, fatigue. Second, repetition of a verbal response is known to lead to a loss in subjective apprehension of meaning (Lambert & Jakobo-

SYNONYMITY

507

vits, 1960). Switching to a synonym of a satiated word may attenuate such semantic satiation (cf. Fillenbaum, 1963) and allow the speaker to stay in touch with the meaning of a key concept or term. Third, partial synonyms are stylistically useful because they facilitate communication. In choosing the synonym or synonyms called for in a certain situation, a writer or speaker may attend to specific features and delineate what information is to be imparted even better than if a particular word were used repeatedly. Finally, when one word in a synonym set is presented, all other words in the set become primed (Cofer & Shepp, 1957). Priming prepares the listener or reader to receive other words from the set and process these words faster. Thus, contrary to the position that synonyms impair language processing (Skinner, 1957), synonymity serves at least four adaptive psychosemantic functions. Reference Notes
1. Melton, A. W., & Safier, D. E. Meaningful similarity of pairs of two-syllable adjectives. In Materials for use in experimental studies of the learning and retention of verbal habits. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri, 1936. 2. Papperman, T. J., & Herrmann, D. J. Synonym comprehension for word pairs composed of homographs and nonhomographs. Unpublished manuscript, Hamilton College, 1976. 3. Giuliano, V. E. The interpretation of wo,rd associations. In M. E. Stevens, V. E. Giuliano, & L. B. Hedprin (Eds.), Statistical association methods for mechanized documentation (Miscellaneous Publication 269). Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, 1965. 4. Ryder, J. M. Context-contingent lexical access. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, April 1977. 5. Grober, E. H. Verifying the meanings of polysemous words. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, April 1976. 6. Riegel, K. F. The Michigan restricted association norms (Report 3; United States Public Health Service Grant MH 07619). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Psychology, 1965. 7. Edi'ck, P. R. The effects of semantic similarity between targets and distractors and a long delay on recognition. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, April 1976.

References
Abraham, S., & Kiefer, F. A theory of structural semantics. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton, 1966. Abramczyk, R. R., Thompson, W. D., Jordan, D. E., & weeks, R. A. Interaction effects of synonymity, intralist synonym cohesiveness, and test length in multitrial free recall. Psychological Reports, 1976, 38, 507-521. Adler, M. J., & Gorman, W. (Eds.). The great ideas: A syntopicon of great books of the western world. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952. Anisfeld, M., & Knapp, M. Association, synonymity, and directionality in false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 171-179. Aristotle. The works of Aristotle (Vol. 2; W. D. Ross, Ed.). Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952. Baddeley, A. D. Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic, and formal similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,18, 362-365. Baddeley, A. D. Effects of acoustic and semantic similarity in short-term paired associate learning. British Journal of Psychology, 1970, 61, 335-343. Baddeley, A. D., & Dale, H. C. A. The effect of semantic similarity on retroactive interference in long and short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, S, 417-420. Barnes, J. M., & Underwood, B. J. "Fate" of flrstlist associations in transfer theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 97-105. Bastian, J. Associative factors in verbal transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 62, 70-79. Benedetti, D. T. The stratification of wo,rds in cognitive organization. Journal of General Psychology, 1958, 58, 249-258. Bierwisch, M. Semantics. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmonidsworth, England: Pelican Books, 1970. Bloomfleld, L. Language. New York: Holt, 1933. Bousfield, W. A., Abramczyk, R. R., & Stein, D. K. The effects of synonymity on item recall and sequential ordering in multitrial free recall. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 173-175. Bower, G. H. Mental imagery and associative learning. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition in learning and memory. New York: Wiley, 1972. Brewer, W. F. Memory for ideas: Synonym substitution. Memory & Cognition, 1975, 3, 453-464. Brown, R. W. The language of social relationships. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Psychology. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1962. Bruder, G., & Silverman, W. Effects of semantic and phonetic similarity on verbal recognition and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 94, 314-320. Buschke, H., & Laza, G. Wo.rd feature encoding: Synonym and antonym discrimination after generating synonyms and antonyms. Psychonomic Science, 1972,29,241-243.

508

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN tional effects in associations to compounds. American Journal of Psychology, 1974, 87, 1-15. Deese, J. & Marder, V. J. The pattern of errors in delayed recall of serial learning after interpolation. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 594-599. Dicken, C. F. Connotative meaning as a determinant of stimulus generalization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1957. Duchacek, 0. Differents types de synonymes. Orbis: Bulletin International de Documentation Linquistique, 1964, 8, 35-49. Ekstrand, B. R., & Underwood, B. J. Paced versus unpaced recall in free learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 288-290. Elias, C. S., & Perfetti, C. A. Encoding task and recognition memory: The importance of semantic coding. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, oo, 151-156. Ellis, H. C. The transfer of learning. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Ervin-Tripp, S. M., & Slobin, D. I. Psycholinguistics. In P. R. Farnsworth, 0. McNemar, & Q. McNemar (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 17). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1966. Esposito, N. J., & Pelton, L. H. A test of two measures of semantic satiation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 637-644. Farb, P. Word play: What happens when people talk. New York: Bantam Books, 1973. Feather, B. W. Semantic generalization of classically conditioned responses: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63, 425-441. Fijalkow, J. Recherche lexicale en memoire a long term: Antonymie, synonymic et frequence. Bulletin de Psychologie, 1973, 27, 601-605. Fillenbaum, S. Verbal satiation and changes in meaning of related items. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 263-271. Fillenbaum, S. Semantic satiation 'and decision latency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 240-244. Fillenbaum, S. Words 'as feature complexes: False recognition of antonyms and synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 82, 400-402. Fillenbaum, S. Psycholinguistics. In P. H. Mussen & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 22). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1971. Flavell, J. H. Meaning and meaning similarity: II. The semantic differential and co-occurrence as predictors of judged similarity in meaning. Journal of General Psychology, 1961, 64, 321-335. Flavell, J. H., & Flavell, E. R. One determinant of judged semantic and associative connection between words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 159-165. Flavell, J. H., & Johnson, B. A. Meaning and meaning similarity: III. Latency and number of similarities as predictors of judged similarity in meaning. Journal of General Psychology, 1961, 64, 337-348. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. The psy-

Buschke, H., & Lenon, R. Encoding homophones and synonyms for verbal discrimination and recognition. Psychonomic Science, 1969,14, 269-270. Cairns, H. S., & Cairns, C. F. Psyche/linguistics: A cognitive view of language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976. Cherry, C. On human communication. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 19S7. Clark, H. H. On the use and meaning of prepositions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 421-431. Clark, H. H. The language as a fixed effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973,12, 33S-3S9. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcou-rt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. Cofer, C. N. Associative commonality and rated similarity of certain wowis from Haagen's list. Psychological Reports, 1957, 3, 603-606. Cofer, C. N. Organizational characteristics of free recall. American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 261-272. Cofer, C. N., & Foley, J. P., Jr. Mediated generalization and the interpretation of verbal behavior: I. Prolegomena. Psychological Review, 1942, 49, 513540. Cofer, C. N., & Ford, T. J. Verbal context and free association time. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 606-610. Cofer, C. N., & Shepp, B. E. Verbal context and perceptual recognition time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1957,7,215-218. Cofer, C. N., & Yarczower, M. Further study of implicit verbal chaining in paired-associate learning. Psychological Reports, 1957, 3, 453-456. Cohen, G. A comparison of semantic, acoustic, and visual criteria for matching of word .pairs. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 203-204. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 407-428. Collinson, W. E. Comparative synomics: Some principles and illustrations. Transactions in the Philological Society, 1939, ,pp. 54-77. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 599-607. Creelman, M. B. The experimental investigation of meaning: A review of the literature. New York: Springer, 1966. Dale, H. C. A. Semantic similarity and the A-B, C-D paradigm in STM. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9, 79-80. Dallett, K. M. The role of response similarity in proactive inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 364-372. Deese, J. Psycholinguistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1970. Deese, J., & Hamilton, H. W. Marking and preposi-

SYNONYMITY

509

chology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill, R. C. Recognition time for information stored hi 1974. long-term memory. Perception & Psychophysics, Foley, J. P., Jr., & Cofer, C. N. Mediated generaliza1971,10, 8-14. tion and the interpretation of verbal behavior: II. Jones, K. S. Synonymy and semantic classification. Experimental study of certain homophone and Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge Unisynonym gradients. Journal of Experimental Psyversity, Cambridge, England, 1964. chology, 1943, 32, 168-175. Jones, K. S. Experiments in semantic classification. Fowler, H. W. A dictionary of modern English usage. Mechanical Translation and Computational LinNew York: Oxford University Press, 1965. (Origiguistics, 1965,5,97-112. nally published, 1926.) Kadesh, I., Riese, M., & Anisfeld, M. Dichotic listenGlass, A. L., & Holyoak, K. J. Alternative conceping in the study of semantic relations. Journal of tions of semantic memory. Cognition, 1975, 3, Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, IS, 313-339. 213-225. Glucksberg, S., & Danks, J. H. Experimental psycho- Kanungo, R. Meaning mediation in verbal transfer. linguistics: An introduction. Hillsdale, N.J.: ErlBritish Journal of Psychology, 1967, SS, 205-212. baum, 1975. Karwoski, T. F., & Berthold, F., Jr. Psychological Goodenough, W. H. Componential analysis and the studies in semantics: II. Reliability of free associastudy of meaning. Language, 1956, 32, 195-216. tion tests. Journal of Social Psychology, 1945, 22, Goodman, N. On likeness of meaning. Analysis, 1949, 87-102. 10, 1-7. Karwoski, T. F., & Schachter, J. Psychological studies Grossman, L., & Eagle, M. Synonymity, antonymity, in semantics: III. Reaction times for similarity and and association in false recognition responses. difference. Journal of Social Psychology, 1948, 28, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, S3, 103-120. 244-248. Katz, J. J. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Gumenik, W. E., & Spencer, T. Verbal repetition and Row, 1972. changes in meaning of synonyms: Satiation or set? Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. The structure of a semantic Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, theory. Language, 1963, 39, 170-210. 1965, 4, 286-290. Kausler, D. H., & Settle, A. V. Associative relatedness Haagen, C. H. Synonymity, vividness, familiarity, vs. synonymity in the false-recognition effect. Buland association: Value ratings of 400 pairs of letin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 129-131. common adjectives. Journal of Psychology, 1949, Kennedy, A. Contextual effects in reading and recog27, 453-463. nition. In A. Kennedy & A. Wilkes '(Eds.), Studies Hanson, B. L., Schipper, L. M., & Brislin, R. W. in long-term memory, New York: Wiley, 1975. Probability learning with words. Psychonomic Sci- Kintsch, W., & Buschke, H. Homophones and synence, 1969, 16, 300-301. onyms in short-term memory. Journal of ExperiHarris, R. Synonymy and linguistic analysis. Tomental Psychology, 1969, 80, 403-407. ronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1973. Korn, S. J. "Relatedness" and semantic generalization Hartrampf, G. A. Hartrampj's vocabularies. New (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1937. 1959). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1966, Heinburg, P. An experimental investigation of mea27, 1305B-1306B. (University Microfilms No. 66suring diction. Journal of Educational Research, 970,768). 1959, 52, 303-306. Kurz, I. Semantic and phonetographic generalization Higa, M. An experimental comparison of six bases of a voluntary response. Journal of Verbal Learnfor assessing intralist similarity in verbal learning. ing and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 261-268. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Uni- Lambert, W. E., & Jakobovits, L. L. Verbal satiation versity, 1962. and changes in the intensity of meaning. Journal Hermann, H. Psycholinguistics: An introduction to of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 376-383. research and theory (H. H. Stern, Trans.). New Leech, G. Semantics. Middlesex, England: Penguin York: Springer, 1971. Books, 1974. Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C., & Lewis, J. What does it Leiber, L. P. Visual, acoustic, and semantic processmean to be high verbal? Cognitive Psychology, ing of word pairs, Neuropsychologia, 1977, 15, 1975, 7, 194-227. 217-229. Johnson, D. M., & Stratton, R. P. Evaluation of five Lepley, W. M. An hypothesis concerning the generamethods of teaching concepts. Journal of Education and use of synonyms. Journal of Experimental tional Psychology, 1966, 57, 48-53. Psychology, 1950, 40, 527-530. Johnson, L. M. Similarity of meaning as a factor in Lepley, W. M. The rational construction and preretroactive inhibition. Journal of General Psycholliminary try-out of the Synonym Vocabulary Test. ogy, 1933, 9, 377-389. Journal of Psychology, 1955, 39, 215-225. Johnson-Laird, P. N. Experimental psycholinguistics. Lepley, W. M., & Zeigler, M. L. Synonym Vocabulary Test: Standardization and validation. Journal In M. P..Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 25). Palo Alto, of Psychology, 1956, 41, 419-425. Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1974. Lerner, R. M. Semantic conditioning and generalization. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 1257-1260. Juola, J. F., Fischler, I., Wood, C. T., & Atkinson,

510

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN hibition as a function of response similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 40, 592-603. Murphy, G. An experimental study of literary vs. scientific types. American Journal of Psychology, 1917, ,2, 238-262. Naess, A. Interpretation and preciseness: A contribution to the theory of communication. Oslo, Norway: Jacob Dybwad, 1953. Naess, A. Synonymity as revealed by intuition. Philosophical Review, 1957, 66, 87-93. Nelson, D. L., & Brooks, D. H. Relative effectiveness of rhymes and synonyms as retrieval cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 503-507. Nelson, D. L., Wheeler, J. W., Jr., Borden, R. C., & Brooks, D. H. Levels of processing and cuing: Sensory versus meaning features. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 971-977. Nelson, K. Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review, 1974, SI, 267-285. Nida, E. A. Analysis of meaning and dictionary making. International Journal of American Linguistics, 1958, 24, 279-292. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. The meaning o.f meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1923. Ohman, S. Theories of the linguistic field. Word, 1953, o, 123-134. Olson, D. R. Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 2 57-273. Osgood, C. E. Meaningful similarity and interference in learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1946, 36, 277-301. Osgood, C. E. Semantic space revisited. Word, 1959, 15, 192-200. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Packard, V. The status seekers. New York: McKay, 1959. Paivio, A. A factor-analytic study of word attributes and verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 41-49. Partridge, E. The world of words. New York: Scribner's, 1939. Peastrel, A. L., Wishner, J., & Kaplan, B. E. Set, stress, and efficiency of semantic generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 116-124. Perfetti, C. A. A study of denotative similarity with restricted word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 788-795. Perfetti, C. A. Psychosemantics: Some cognitive aspects of structural meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 78, 241-259. Pittenger, R. W., & Smith, H. L., Jr. Fundamentals of English structure. In N. N. Markel (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: An introduction to the study of speech and personality. Hoinewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, 1969.

Lewis, J. L. Semantic processing of unattended messages using dichotic listening. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 85, 225-22%. Lewis, P. A. W., Baxendale, P. B., & Bennett, J. L. Statistical discrimination of the synonymy/antonymy relationship between words. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1967, 14, 20-44-. Light, L. L. Homonyms and synonyms as retrieval cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 96, 2 55-262. Linsky, L. Synonymity. In P. Edwards et al. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 8). New York: Macmillan, 1967. Lounsbury, F. G. The structural analysis of kinship semantics. In H. G. Hunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistks, The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton, 1964. Lovelace, E., & Schulz, L. S. Intrapair associations in verbal discrimination learning. Psychonomic Science, 1911,24, 157-158. Lyons, J. Structural semantics: An analysis of part of the vocabulary of Plato. Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1967. Lyons, J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Handler, G. Words, lists, and categories: An experimental view of organized memory references. In J. L. Cowan (Ed.), Studies in thought and language. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1970. Mandler, G. Organization and .recognition. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Mandler, G., Pearlstone, Z., & Koopinans, H. S. Effect of organization and semantic similarity on recall and recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 410-^12. Mates, B. Synonymity. University of California Publications in Philosophy, 1950, 25, 201-226. McGeogh, J. A., & McDonald, W. T. Meaningful relations and retroactive inhibition. American Journal o.f Psychology, 1931, 43, 579-588. McGeogh, J. A., & McGeogh, G. O. Studies in retroactive inhibition: VI. The influence of the relative serial positions of interpolated synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1936,19, 1-23. McGeogh, J. A., & McGeogh, G. O. Studies in retroactive inhibition: X. The influence of similarity of meaning between lists of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1937, 21, 320-329. Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes. In C. N. Cofer (Ed.), The structure of human memory. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976. Mo.ran, L. J. Generality of word association response sets. Psychological Monographs, 1966, *0(4, Whole No. 612). Moran, L. J. Comparative growth of Japanese and North American cognitive dictionaries. Child Development, 1973, 44, 862-865. Morgan, R. L., & Underwood, B. J. Proactive in-

SYNONYMITY Postman, L., & Stark, K. Role of response availability in transfer and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 168-177. Putnam, H. Synonymity, and the analysis of belief sentences. Analysis, 1954,14, 114-122. Quine, W. V. 0. From a logical point of view: 9 logico-philosophical essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953. Quine, W. V. 0. Word and object. New York: Wiley, 1960. Raser, G. A. Recalling of semantic and acoustic information in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 692-697. Razran, G. A quantitative study of meaning by a conditioned salivary technique (semantic conditioning) . Science, 1939, 00, 89-90. Richardson, J. Association among stimuli and the learning of verbal concept lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology, I960, 60, 290-298. Riegel, K. F., & Riegel, R. M. An investigation into denotative aspects of word meaning. Language and Speech, 1963, 6, 5-21. Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. Semantic distance and the verification of semantk relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973,12, 1-20. Rocklyn, E. H., Hessert, R. B., & Braun, H. W. Calibrated materials fo,r verbal learning with middle and old-aged subjects. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 628-630. Roget, International thesaurus (Rev. by C. O. S. Mawson). New York: Crowell, 1962. Rollins, C. D. The philosophical denial of sameness of meaning. Analysis, 1950,11, 38-45. Rosenberg, S., & Cohen, B. D. Referenda! processes of speakers and listeners. Psychological Review, 1966,73, 208-231. Rowan, T. C. Some developments in multidimensional scaling applied to semantics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1954. Rubenstein, H. Some problems of meaning in natural languages. In I. de S. Pool & W. Schram (Eds.), Handbook of communication. New York: Rand McNally, 1974. Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. B. Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1965, *, 627633. Rudner, R. A note on the likeness of meaning. Analysis, 1950,10, 115-118. Runquist, W. N. Functions relating intralist stimulus similarity to acquisition performance with a variety of materials. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 549-553. Sabol, M. A., & DeRosa, D. V. Semantic encoding of isolated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976, 2, 58-68. Saltz, E. Response pretraining: Differentiation or availability? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 62, 583-587. Saltz, E. The cognitive bases of human learning. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, 1971. Sassenrath, J. M., & Yonge, G. D. Meaning and trans-

511

fer of verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 365-372. Sassenrath, J. M., & Yonge, G. D. Context, meaning, and transfer of verbal behavior. Psychological Reports, 1973, 32, 1151-1157. Schaeffer, B., & Wallace R. The comparison of word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 86, 144-152. SCUT, G. S. Some thoughts on synonymy in language. Orbis: Bulletin International de Documentation Linquistique, 1973, 22, 177-183. Searle, J. R. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Segalowitz, N., & Lambert, W. E. Semantic generalization in bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 559-566. Shuhnan, H. G. Encoding and retention of semantic and phonemic information in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 499-508. Shulman, H. G. Semantic confusion errors in shortterm memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 220-227. Skinner, B. F. Verbal behavior. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1957. Slobin, D. I. Psycholinguistks. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1971. 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. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 1974, SI, 214-241. Snider, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. Semantic differential technique: A sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Stark, K. Synonym responses to 100 free association stimuli. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1972, 4, 269-274. Stebbing, S. A modern elementary logic. New York: University Paperbacks, 1966. Stern, G. Meaning and change of meaning. Blooming ton: Indiana University Press, 1931. Thomson, J. F. Some remarks on synonymy. Analysis, 1952,12, 73-76. Trier, J. Das sprachliohe Feld. Neue Jahrbucher fur Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 1934,10, 428-449. Trubetzkoy, N. S. Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague, Czechoslovakia: Gottingen, 1939. Ullmann, S. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford, England: Blackwell & Mott, 1962. Uinemoto, T., Morikawa, Y., & Ibuki, M. Familiarity and similarity scales of Japanese adjectives. Kyoto University Research Studies in Education, 1955, 1, 85-116. Underwood, B. J. Associative transfer in verbal learning as a function of response similarity and degree of first-list learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 42, 44-53, Underwood, B. J. Studies of 'distributed .practice:

512

DOUGLAS J. HERRMANN Sprache. Grundziige der Inhaltbezogenen grammatik. Dusseldorf, West Germany: Schwann, 1962. Weiss-Shed, E. Synonyms, antonyms and retroactive inhibition with meaningful material. Psychological Reports, 1973, 32, 459-465. White, A. R. Synonymous expressions. Philosophical Quarterly, 1958, 8, 193-207. Wickens, D. D., & Cermack, L. S. Transfer effects of synonyms and antonyms in a mixed and unmixed list design. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 832-839. Wimer, C. An analysis of semantic stimulus factors in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 1, 397-407. Woodworth, R. S. Experimental psychology, New York: Holt, 1938. Young, R. K. Retroactive and proactive effects under varying conditions of response similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 50, 113-119. Ziff, P. Semantic analysis. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1960. Received March 10, 1977

VIII. Learning and retention of paired adjectives as a function of intralist similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 45, 143-149. Underwood, B. J. The role of the association in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 917-939. (Monograph) Underwood, B. J., Runquist, W. N., & Sehulz, R. W. Response learning in paired-associate lists as a function of intralist similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 55, 70-78. Webster's new dictionary of synonyms (P. B. Gove, Ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1973. Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language: Unabridged (P. B. Gove, Ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1961. Weinreich, U. Travel through semantic space. Word, 19S8,14, 346-366. Weinreich, U. A rejoinder. Word, 19S9, IS, 200-201. Weinreich, U. Lexicographic definition in descriptive semantics. In F. W. Householder & S. Saporta (Eds.), Problems in lexicography. International Journal of American Linguistks, 1962, 28, 25-43. Weisgerber, L. Von den Kraften der Deutschen

Editorial Consultants for This Issue Mary D. Alnsworth John R. Anderson Mark I. Appelbaum Dalvd J. Armor Justin Aronfreed Henry B. Blller R. Darrell Bock P. L. Broadhurst Anthony Bryk C. Richard Chapman S. F. Checkosky Russell M. Church Norman Cliff Jacob Cohen Llndon Eaves Robert L. Ebel Donald W. Flske Joseph L. Flelss Sol L. Garfleld M. S. Gazzanlga Leo Goldberger Harrison Gough William T. Greenough Norman Guttman Kenneth M. Hellman Edwin P. Hollander Lloyd Kaufman Peter R. Kllleen R. E. Lana Edward E. Lawler III C. C. LI Ronald Llebman John C. Loehlln Geoffrey R. Loftus Eleanor E. Maccoby John T. Macnamara Lawrence E. Marks Ethel Matin Katherlne Nelson Chester L. Olson Allan Palvlo Lyman W. Porter Howard Rachlln Michael Ross Aryeh Routtenberg William W. Rozeboom Herbert Rubensteln Irwln G. Sarason Marvin Slegelman Dan I. Slobln Donald P. Spence Leonard P. Ullmann William Vaughan John P. Wanous W. Dlxon Ward Charles E. Werts B. J. Winer Barry E. Wolfe