JorgThe Psychological Reality of Word Senses

8/10/2019 JorgThe Psychological Reality of Word Senses

1/24

Journal o f Psycholinguistic Research, Vo l. 19, No. 3, 1990

T h e s y c h o l o g i c a l R e a l i t y o f W o r d S e n se s

J u l i a C J o r g e n s e n I

Accepted November 22, 1989 -- Revised March 25, 1990

This pa pe r tests psychologists frequent assump tion that dictionaries are psychologically realistic

mod els of polysemy in the mental lexicon. Psychologists have not often explored the nature of

polysemy, and lexicographers' methods h ave not involved scientific samp ling of usages or inform-

ants. It is argued, however, that the lexicographic technique of citation sorting is an effective way

of diseovering sense differences. H ere this technique w as used in three tasks involving usage samples

fo r 24 high- and low-frequency nouns varying widely in degree of polysemy in the dictionary.

Analyses of agreement w ithin and between subjects showed that subjects consistently judged and

substantially agreed upon the ma jor senses of most nouns, but that fe w nouns in either frequency

group were perceived to have more than three significant senses. Additionally, the possibility that

larger usage samples w ill bias people to make m ore sense groupings was found not to be true,

suggesting that the larger num ber o f senses lexicographers create fo r high-frequency w ords are not

artifacts of larger usage samples.

P o l ys e m y i s a c e n t r a l p r ob l e m i n t he s t udy a nd de s c r i p t i on o f na t u r a l l a ngua ge .

A w o r d i s sa id t o b e p o l y s e m o u s i f i t h a r b o r s m o r e t h a n o n e s e n s e o r m e a n i n g .

W h e n e x a m i n i n g a d i c t io n a r y i n te n d e d f o r e v e r y d a y u s e ( s u ch a s Webster s N ew

Collegiate Dictionary,

1 9 7 5 ), o n e q u i c k l y d is c o v e r s t h at m a n y c o m m o n w o r d s

a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a l a r g e n u m b e r o f s e n s e s . F o r e x a m p l e , light i s g iven 15

s e ns e de f i n i t i ons a s a noun a nd 17 a s a n a d j e c t i ve , w h i l e

line

i s g iven 14 as a

n o u n . Z i p f ( 1 9 4 5 , 1 9 4 9 ) f o u n d a s t ro n g p o s i t i v e r e la t io n b e t w e e n a w o r d s

f r e que nc y o f u s a ge a nd t he num be r o f s e ns e s w h i c h c ha r a c t e r i z e i t i n t he d i c -

t io n a r y . S o , l e s s c o m m o n w o r d s s u c h a s p r o o f o r p u m p m a y b e f o u n d t o h a v e

his research was partially supported by grants from the Spencer and Sloan Foundations to George

A. Miller.

1 Correspondence should be addressed to the author at Psychology Department, Lehman College,

The City University of New York, Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, New York 10468.

167

0090-6905/9010500-0167506.00/0 9 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation


2/24

68 orgensen

seven or e ight sense def in i t ions , whi le even rarer words such as nepotism,

ecumenical,

o r

indemnity

m a y b e f o u n d to h a v e o n l y o n e o r t w o .

Ac cura t e ly i den t i fy ing and desc r ib ing t he s enses o f pa r t icu l a r words i s

impor tan t in severa l types of endeavor . F i rs t , l ex icographers hope that d ic t ion-

ar ies w i l l be helpfu l in teac hing w ord use , and teachers of ten be l ieve th is to be

t rue (Deese , 1967; M i l ler & G i ldea , 1987). The u l t ima te t es t of a ped ago gical ly

good d i c t i onary m ay be wh e the r t he s ense d i s t inc t ions and desc r ip t ions i t con -

t a in s fo r any g iven word can convey t he na t i ve ' s under s t and ing o f t ha t word ' s

m ean ing to a naive user , such as a ch i ld or a second- lang uage learner (Edw ards ,

i 9 8 3 ) .

Seco nd, psycho l inguis t s (e .g . , Z ipf , 1945; Joh nson-L ai rd and Quinn , 1976)

o f t en coun t o r i den t i fy wo rd s enses a s pa rt o f exper imen ta l p rocedure , and t hey

f requen t l y ob ta in t h is i n fo rmat ion f rom d i c ti onari es . Mi l l e r , F e l l baum, Ke g l , &

Mil ler (1988) have remarked, B y and large , ps ycho l inguis t i c exper im ents pre-

suppose the val id i ty of the g eneral s t ructures that linguis t s and lex icographers

have ide nt i f i ed and t ry ins tead to t es t hypothese s concern in g the w ay such s t ruc-

tures ari se or ho w they cont r ibute to o ther cogni t ive pro ce sses (p. 4) .

Thi rd . ar t i f i c ia lly in te l l igent program s to process natura l l anguag e mus t

i den t i fy and desc r i be word s enses , and resea rcher s a re beg inn ing t o u se m ach ine -

readable vers ions of ord inary d ic t ionar ies as the bas ic sources of informat ion

for the l arge , computer ized lex icons of such programs (Byrd e t a l . , 1987) .

Th erefore , the assu mp t ion that d ic t ionar ies are accurate descr ip t ions of our l ex-

i ca l knowledg e and o f the ex t en t o f po ly sem y in t he l anguage i s apparen t ly

widesp read and has im por t an t p rac ti ca l consequences .

However , t h i s a s sumpt ion begs t he impor t an t p sycho log i ca l ques t i ons o f

how one can accu ra t e ly iden t i fy t he s enses o f a pa r t icu l a r word , w ha t t he m en ta l

representa t ion of a sense i s ac tual ly l ike , and h ow a par t icu lar sense i s chosen

as the i n t ended m ean ing o f a word i n d i s ambigua t i ng a s en tence , po s s ib ly be -

cause these ques t ions have proven to be among the mos t in t rac t ib le in under-

s t and ing na tu ra l l anguage . The ma jo r d i f f i cu l t y i n s ay ing wha t a s ense i s i nvo lves

c l a r i fy ing the d i s ti nc t ion be tween t he am bigu i t y o f a w ord and t he d ive r s i ty o r

genera l i t y o f i ts u se : wh en a re pe rce ived d i f f e rences i n t he mea n ing o f a wo rd

in d i f f e ren t con t ex t s i nd i ca ti ve o f t r u e am bigu i t y o r s ense d if f e rence? At l east

three l evels of perceived m ean ing d i f ference have been d i scussed in the l it era ture

o n p o l y s e m y . T h e s e m a y b e c a l le d

homo nymy, ambiguity,

and

microdistinction

or

generality of use.

W hat has been ca l led hom on ym y occu rs w hen na t ive speakers can s ee no

obv ious s eman t i c r e l a t i on be tween two d i f f e ren t u ses o f a word ( even t hough

those uses ma y have de r i ved f rom a com m on ances to r ) (P anm an , 1982 ; Z gus t a ,

1 97 1) . C o m m o n e x a m p l e s o f h o m o n y m y a re t h e r e la t io n b e tw e e n

ball,

a dance ,

and

ball,

a round pro ject i l e ;

port,

a wine , and

port,

a docking area for boats ;


3/24


4/24

17 Jorgensen

Thi s l eve l o f pe rce ived d i f f e rence i n mean ing has been ca l l ed , i n add i t ion

to

m u l t ip l e a p p l ic a b i l it y : m i c r o d i s t in c t io n , d i v e r si ty o r g e n e r a l i ty o f u s e o r a p -

p l i c a t i o n , or i n d e f in i t e n e s s o f r e f e r e n c e . Exam ples o f mic rod i s t i nc ti on abound ,

and a re apparen t l y demons t ra t ed by exper imen t s on encod ing spe c i f ic i t y o r s e -

ma n t i c f l ex ib i li t y ( e . g . , A nderson & Or tony , 1975 ; Barc l ay , B rans fo rd , F ranks ,

M cCa rre l l , & Ni t sch , 1974; Red er , A nde rson , & Bjork , 1974; Schoe n, 1988;

Tu lv ing & Thomson , 1973) . F o r i n s t ance , acco rd ing t o Barc l ay , e t a l . , when

peop l e hea r a s en t ence such as T he m an li ft ed t he p i a no , t hey a re l i ke ly t o

r ec a ll it b e tt er w h e n c u e d b y h e a v y t ha n b y m u s i c a l , w h e r ea s m u s i c a l

is a be t te r cue fo r 'The ma n t uned t he p i a no . Thus , t he me an ing o f p i a n o

seems t o va r y i n i ts deg ree o f a s soc ia t ion t o ' p i ece o f fu rn i t u re v s . m us i ca l

i n s t ru m en t , depend ing on the con t ex t . In f ac t , it wo u ld be poss ib le t o de fi ne

the u l t ima t e deg ree o f mic rod i s t i nc t i on i n mean ing as any change i n t he t ru th

va lue o f t he word i n con t ex t . Examples c i t ed i n Qu ine (1960) and W ein re i ch

(1980) seem to offer suppor t for th i s idea . For ins tance , Quine notes that the

t ru th va lue o f a s en t ence such as T he door is op en changes wi th any change

in pos i tion of the par t i cu lar doo r , or each t im e

d o o r

is used to refer to a d i f ferent

door . W ein re i ch has no t ed t ha t t he ac t i v i ty symbo l i zed by e a t d i f fe r s depen d ing

on what i s ea ten : apples , peanuts , soup, or spaghet t i . He proposes that th i s

genera l i t y o f u se wo u ld no t be exper i enced as t rue am bigu i t y were

e a t

t o be

used in a neut ra l context such as I ' d l ike to _ _ s om e th in g (in con tras t

t o t he pe rce ived am bigu i t y o f l i g h t in T h e f u r w a s l ig h t ) . H o w e v e r , a s W e i n -

re ich notes , th i s t es t us ing neut ra l context does not ac tual ly demons t ra te an

abso lu te d i s ti nc ti on be tween t rue am bigu i t y and m ere genera l i t y o r i ndef in it enes s

o f r e fe rence . In add i t ion , t he no t i on o f a neu t ra l con t ex t ma y be im poss ib le t o

def ine .

An o ther t e s t fo r t he p resence o f am bigu i t y , sugges ted by Ku ry low i t z (1955)

and desc r ibed by W ein re i ch (1980) , i nvo lves f ind ing a one-word sy non ym fo r

o n e m e a n i n g o f a p a r ti c u la r w o r d w h i c h c a n n o t b e s y n o n y m o u s fo r a n o t h e r

m e a n i n g o f th a t w o r d . H o w e v e r , n o t f i n d in g s u c h a s y n o n y m c a n n o t b e t a k e n

as an i nd i ca t i on o f t he absence o f amb igu i t y .

The genera l p rob l em p l agu ing s em an t i c s tud i es is t ha t one pe r son ' s ambi -

gu i t y may be ano the r pe r son ' s m ic rod i s t i nc t i on o r genera l i t y o f u se , and v i ce

ver sa ; t h ey have p roven ha rd t o t e ll apa rt . Th i s p rob l em is one wh ich u nderm ines

the we l l -known e f fo r t o f Ka t z and F odor (1963) t o fo rmal i ze a mode l o f wo rd

senses t o exp l a in t he d i s ambigua t i on p roces s . Ka t z and F odor u se a me t a l an -

guage of necessary and suff ic ien t se lec t ion res t r i c t ions to descr ibe each of the

di f ferent senses a word can take in context , bu t they g ive no pr incip le for

d i s t i ngu i sh ing ambigu i t y f rom mic rod i s t i nc t i on o r genera l i t y o f u se . W i thou t

such a pr incip le , the i r meta language of se lec t ion res t r i c t ions cannot be pars i -

m on io us ly cons t r a ined . Th a t i s , w i t hou t a p r inc ip le by w h ich t o s ay wha t d i f-


5/24

s y c h o l o g ic a l R e a l i t y o f W o r d S e n s e s

7

f e rences i n u sage con t ex t m ake s i gn i fi can t d i f f e rences i n a word ' s m ean ing , t he

Ka tz and F o dor p rocedure u l t ima t e ly en t a il s the desc r i p ti on o f an un l imi t ed

number o f mean ings ( as many as t he re a re con t ex t s o f occu r rence o r t ru th

va lues ) , so t ha t t he number o f s e l ec t i on r es t r i c t i ons r equ i red may equa l t he

num ber o f d i s ti nc t ions they a re u sed to desc r i be . W ein re i ch (1980) , M acN am ara

(1971), K el ly & S tone (1975) , a nd Jacke nd off (1983) g ive mo re deta i led ac-

counts of th i s model and i t s fa i l ings .

MacNamara , Ke l l y and S tone , J ackendof f , and o the r s have sugges t ed t ha t

t he Ka t z -F odor pa r s imony p rob l em a r i s es f rom the ve ry na tu re o f l anguage :

t he re may be no d i f f e rences i n a word ' s u sage con t ex t s wh ich can be used t o

class i fy those contexts ( in to senses or ambigui t i es ) in a pars imonious way i f

t hose d i f f e rences in c on t ex t mus t be neces sa ry and su f f i c i en t fo r do ing so , a s

Ka t z and F odor sugges t t hey mus t . Th us , i f wo rd m ean ings a re r e l at ed to each

o the r in a fuz zy mann er (pe rhaps , a s W i t tgens t e in , 1958 , sugges t ed , i n te rms

of f am i ly r esemblances o r a s Rosch and M erv i s , 1975 , show ed fo r nam es o f

object s in natura l ca tegor ies ) , there ma y be no pr incip led w ay to d i s t inguish

am bigu i t y f rom mic rod i s t inc t i ons o r genera l it y o f u se , and , conco mi t an t l y , no

p r inc ip l ed li ne be twee n encyc loped i c ( w o r ld ) kn ow ledge and d i c ti onary i n -

format ion (Churchland, 1979; Edwards , 1983) . This i s not surpr i s ing when one

notices tha t microdistinctions in w ord m ea nin g seem to invo lve inferential processes

d r a w i ng o n w o r l d k n o w l e d g e .

H o w e v e r , f a m i l y r e s em b l a n c e m o d e l s c a n e x p l a in w h y s o m e u s e s o f a w o r d

seem mo re l i ke t ru e am bigu i t i e s , wh ich we charac t er i ze a s s ense d i f f e rences ,

t han do o the r s , by us ing t he n o t i on o f s eman t i c d is t ance o r s eman t i c r e la t ednes s

o f u ses (Caram azza , G rober , & Zur i f , 1974 ; J ack endo f f , 1983 ; R osch & M erv i s ,

1975) . In th is ve in , K el ly and S tone (1975) sugge s t that the d i s t inct ion betw een

ambigu i t y and genera l i t y i s based more on deg ree o f s eman t i c r e l a t ednes s o f

usages than i t i s on any es tab l i shed pr incip le , and that th i s accounts for the

t ang l ed , r ampan t d i s ag reem en t abou t the i s sue . F o r i n s tance , Q u ine apparen t l y

be l i eves t he word

hard

i s genera l ( cons i s t i ng o f one mean ing app l i ed t o many

d i f fe ren t t h ings ) r a t he r t han ambiguous , bu t two p roposed mean ings o f

hard

( u n y i e l d i n g , s o li d , b r i t t l e a s i n h a r d c a n d y a n d d i f f i c u l t , t r y i n g a s i n

hard p rob l ems ) do s eem qu i t e d i s t i nc t t o many peop l e . In f ac t , i t i s o f t en

poss ib le to cons t ruct contexts in which a word l ike

hard

which may a t f i r s t

s eem to pos ses s on ly ge ne ra l i t y , can be ambiguou s fo r a s i ng le u t t e rance .

The en t ir e appara tus o f punn ing depends on t h i s pos s ib i l it y . F o r i n s t ance , when

cons t ruc t ing a s t r a igh t , woo den cha i r i n woo dw ork ing c l as s , a s o the r s t uden ts

a re cons t ruc t ing s imp le r ob j ec t s, t he u t te rance T he cha i r is ha rd wo u ld s eem

t ru ly am biguous . (B i e rwi sch , 1981 , has g iven s imi l a r examples o f con t ex t con -

s t ruc t i on t o r evea l mu l t i p l e mean ings . ) Thus , two mean ings , wh ich a re o f t en

j u d g e d a s s e m a n t i c a ll y d i st a n t ( su c h a s h a r d i n h a r d p r o b l e m a n d h a r d


6/24

72 Jorgensen

c a n d y ) m a y c o e x i s t i n a l e x ic a l e n tr y w i t h m e a n i n g s w h i c h m a y b e j u d g e d a s

c l o se l y r el at ed ( su c h a s h a r d in h a r d m o n e y a n d h a r d c a n d y ) .

M a k ing a j udg m e n t a s t o wh e the r two r e l a t e d u sa ge s o f a wo r d c ons t i t u t e

two d i f fe ren t senses , o r , ins tead , two appl ica t ions of a s ing le sense , must then

r e s t on a j udg m e n t a s to whe th e r t he two usa ge s a r e s u f f i i e n t l y r e m o t e se-

ma n t i c a l ly r a the r t ha n on a ny se c u r e p r inc ip l e o r t e s t . Ke l ly a nd S tone be l i e ve

tha t th i s in tu i t ive c r i te r ion i s the only one poss ib le , tha t the l ine be tween poly-

se m y ( a nd thus t r u e a m bigu i ty i n Q u ine ' s s e nse ) a nd ge ne r a l i t y i s imposs ib l e

to d r a w in a ny p r inc ip l e d wa y .

P U R P O S E O F T H E S T U D Y

S inc e the r e i s no

p r i n i p l e d

w a y to d i s t ingu i sh d i f f e re n t s ense s o f wo r ds ,

t he on ly w a y to i de n t i f y d i f fe r e n t wo r d se nse s w i l l be by c o l l e c t ing c ons i s t e n t

judgm e n t s o f s e ma n t i c s im i l a ri t y a nd d i f f e r e nc e o f u se f r om spe a ke r s o f t he

l a ngua ge ( i . e . , i f two use s o f a wo r d a r e s e m a n t i c a l ly d i s ta n t e nough , t h e y w i ll

be judg e d to b e d i f f e r e n t me a n ings ) . B y do ing th is f o r a l a rge po r t i on o f the

v o c a b u l a r y an d u s i n g m a n y j u d g e s , o n e m a y c o l l e c t i n f o rm a t i o n t h at w i ll b e

r e le v a n t t o m o d e l in g l e x ic a l m e m o r y .

Th e ma jo r f oc us o f the s tudy r e po r t e d he r e wa s the a s se s sme n t o f the e x t e n t

o f p syc ho lo g ic a l ly r e a l po lyse m y in t he me n ta l l e x i c on fo r nouns . T h i s s tudy

a s se s se d pa t t e r n s o f s e nse d i s t r i bu t ion f o r a s e t o f nouns , ba se d on se ma n t i c

s imi l a r it y and d i s t a nc e judgm e n t s . S ub je c t s ma de suc h judgm e n t s by so r t i ng

usa ge c i t a t i ons f o r a g ive n wor d in to g r oups a c c o r d ing to s imi l a r i t y o f u se o r

m e a n ing o f t ha t wo r d in t he c it a t ions , m uc h a s l e x i c og r a phe r s do wh e n c om pi l ing

d e f in i ti o n s . T h e o u t c o m e o f t h e s t u d y p r o v id e d a w a y o f e v a l u a ti n g t h e m o d e l

o f the l a ngua ge p r e se n te d by the d i c t i ona r y , pa r ti c u l a r ly t he po lyse m y/ f r e qu e nc y

c o r r e l a ti on d i sc ove r e d by Z ip f . T h i s s tudy f oc u se d on whe the r pe op le do d i s t in -

gu i sh a g r e a t e r numbe r o f s e nse s f o r h igh ly f r e que n t nouns , a s t he d i c t i ona r y

wo u ld sugge s t , a nd , i f so , whe the r a l l t hose s e nse s a r e e qua l ly f r e que n t o r

impor t a n t .

Th i s s tudy a l so a s se s se d the pos s ib l e e f f e c t o f a c e r ta in k ind o f b i a s on the

resu l t s o f the c i ta t ion sor t ing ta sk desc r ibed above . I t may be tha t subjec ts a re

ve r y f l e x ib l e i n t he numbe r o f d i s t i nc t ions t he y a r e a b l e t o ma ke be twe e n d i f -

f e r e n t u se s o f a wor d ( pa r t ic u l a r ly i f c omp r e he ns ion o f a typ ic a l u se s i nvo lve s a

c e r t a in a m oun t o f e x t r ase n te n t ia l i n f e r e nc e ) ; i f t h is i s so , a nd i f sub jec t s be c o m e

m o t i v a t e d t o m a k e m o r e d i s t i n c t i o n s w h e n t h e y h a v e m o r e u s e s t o g r o u p , w e

wo u ld f i nd tha t m or e f r e que n t wor ds c o l l e c t m or e s e nse s (a s i n t he d ic t i ona r y )

a t leas t in pa r t a s a r e su l t o f th i s ta sk b ias . S ince i t i s p robab le tha t lex icograp hers

h a v e m o r e c i t a ti o n s t o g r o u p f o r h i g h - f r e q u e n c y w o r d s w h e n t h e y w r i te d e f t-


7/24

s y c h o l o g ic a l R e a l i ty o f W o r d S e n s e s

73

n i t ions , a f i nd ing o f such t a sk b ias fo r ou r sub jec t s cou ld imp ly t ha t some senses

wh ich appear i n d i c ti onar ies a re a p roduc t o f a b i as ing e f fec t o f s ample s i ze .

P as t s tud i es o f po ly sem y have been l im i t ed in one o f two w ays : E i t he r t hey

h a v e r e l ie d o n j u d g m e n t s o f o n l y o n e i n f o rm a n t o r t h e y h a v e l i m i te d ju d g m e n t s

to u ses o f on ly one word . Lex i cographer s , i n bu i l d ing d i c t i onar i es ( and as i n

the compu te r i zed d i s ambigua t i on sys t em o f Ke l l y and S tone , 1975), have es -

s en t i a l ly done s ample s t ud i es o f u ses o f t he en t i r e voca bu l a ry o f t he l angu age ,

bu t t he y have r e l ied on one i nd iv idua l ' s i n tu i t ions i n mos t j udgm en t s . In add i -

t i on , l ex icog rapher s have f a i l ed t o adop t sys t emat i c unb i ased p rocedures fo r

sampl ing t he l anguage .

P sycho log i s t s , on t he o the r hand , have poo l ed t he i n tu i t i ons o f many i n -

fo rman t s . However , t hey have genera l l y f a i l ed t o u se sys t emat i c s amples o f

voc abu lary . (W einre ich , 1980, and Clark , 1973, c om m ent on th i s fa i lure ; s tudies

by Caram azza e t a I . , 1974 , and Osg ood , S uc i , Tan nenba um , 1957 , exem pl i fy

this fai lure. )

The so r t i ng t a sks i nc luded he re s ample f rom a l a rge and rep resen t a t i ve

co rpus o f c i ta t ions f rom w r i tt en En g l i sh , co l l ec ted by Ku cera and F ranc i s (1967) ,

and m ul t ip l e i n fo rman t s we re used .

An advan t age o f ha v ing mul t i p l e j udge s l ay i n be ing ab l e t o eva lua t e i n -

t e rpe r sona l cons i s t ency . In add i t ion , hav ing sub j ec t s make j udgm en t s tw ice , fo r

l a rge s am ples o f c i t a t ions , a l l owed some eva lua t ion o f i n t r aper sona l cons i s t ency .

The s t ab i li ty o f j udg m en t s i n bo th t hese r ea lms ac t s a s a measu re o f con f idence

in subject s ' in tu i t ions about sense groupings .

M E T H O D O L O G I C L B C K G R O U N D

The me thod o f so r ti ng has been used by M i l le r (1969) and o the r s to s t udy

the o rgan i za t i on o f l ex i ca l i n fo rmat ion i n memory . Mi l l e r has a rgued t ha t a

sor t ing task us ing indiv idual nouns as i t ems resu l t s in c lus ters of words that

r e f l ec t t he i r common concep tua l f ea tu res wh i l e d i s coun t i ng t he i r i d io syncra t i c

fea tu res . S o r t i ng s en t ences acco rd ing t o t he mean ing o f some key word t ha t

appears i n t hem w ou ld s eem to be based on a s imi l a r p roces s . In f ac t , M i l l e r 's

sub j ec t s had s a id t ha t t hey so r ted t he words by t ry ing t o pu t t hem in to s en t ence

con t ex t s and t hen f i nd ing co mm ona l i t ie s in t he con t ex ts .

Lex i cographer s u se t he method o f so r t i ng s en t ence c i t a t i ons as t he means

o f d i s t i ngu i sh ing va r i ous word s enses fo r w h ich t o w r i te de f i n i ti ons . The ex -

per imen t s desc r i bed he re were des igned t o mimic t he method o f l ex i cog raphy ;

that i s , subject s were g iven sentences us ing a par t i cu lar word and asked to sor t

them in to groups , accord ing to the s imi lar i t i es that they perceived in the uses

o r mean ings o f t he word i n t hose s en t ences . S o , compar ing any two sen t ence


8/24

74 Jorgensen

c i t a ti ons t ha t u se d a g ive n w or d , t he sub je c t wa s r e qu i r e d to a sk h im se l f o r

he r se l f wh e the r t ha t w or d ha d the s a me m e a n ing in those two se n te nc e s . I n o r de r

to e limina t e pos s ib le e f f e c t s o f sho r t - te r m m e m or y l imi t a ti ons on the num be r o f

g r oup ings sub je c t s wo u ld m a ke , sub je c ts we r e a l l owe d to ke e p a l l g r oup e d s t a c ks

o f c i t at i ons be f o r e t he m a t a ll t ime s , a s we l l a s no t a t ions t he y de s i r ed to m a ke

c onc e r n ing the s e nse s r e p r e se n te d by the g r oup ings . I n a dd i t i on , no t im e l imi -

t a ti on on ta sk c om ple t ion wa s impo se d .

Th e th r e e so r t ing t a sks u se d he r e a r e a c tua l ly va r i a n t s o f t he s a me t a sk . I n

Ta sk 1 , sub je c t s so r t e d c i t a t i ons a nd wr o te de f in i t i ons f o r 12 h igh - f r e que nc y

nouns o f h igh o r l ow po ly se m y , u s ing c i ta t i on s a mple s o f va r y in g s i z e. I n Ta sk

2 , t he s a me sub je c ts so r t e d the se c i t a ti ons a ga in , b u t d i c t i ona r y de f in i ti ons we r e

a va i la b l e to t he m f o r u se a s gu ide s i n so r ti ng . I n Ta sk 3 , a ne w g r oup o f sub je ct s

so r t e d c it a t ions a nd wr o te de f in i t i ons f o r 12 low- f r e que nc y nouns . Us ing c om -

b ine d da t a f r om the se e xpe r im e n t s , a s se s sme n t s o f i nd iv idua l c ons i s t e nc y , a g r e e -

me n t be twe e n sub je c t s , a g r e e me n t be twe e n sub je c t a nd d i c t i ona r y e s t ima te s o f

po lyse my , a nd the b i a s ing e f f e c t s o f s a mple s i z e we r e c a r r i e d ou t .

M E T H O S

Ta s k 1

Subjects.

S e ve n g r a dua te s tude n t s a nd two unde r g r a dua te s s e r ve d a s sub -

j e c ts . T h e y w e r e c h o s e n b e c a u se t h e y w e r e n a t i v e E n g l is h s p e a k e r s w h o h a d

done we l l on ve r ba l a b i l i ty t e st s S A T o r GR E ve r ba l s e ct ions ) . The y we r e

v o l u n t e e rs w h o r e c e iv e d a s m a ll a m o u m o f m o n e y f o r p a r t ic i p at in g .

D es i g n a n d P r o ced u r e .

S e n t e n c e s u s in g 1 2 h i g h - f r e q u e n c y n o u n s w e r e

d r a wn f r om the Ku c e r a a nd F r a nc i s 1967) c o r pus o f one mi l l i on runn ing wor ds

o f wr i t t e n Eng l i sh . F o r e v e r y oc c u r r e nc e o f a g ive n nou n in t he c o r pus , a s ing le

s t imu lus s e n t e nc e wa s a va i l a b le . A l l suc h se n te nc e s f o r e a c h o f t he 12 nouns

we r e i nd iv idua l ly t ype d on th r e e - b y - f ive c a r ds , w i th t he no un i t s e lf unde r l i ne d

on e a c h c a r d . T he to t a l num be r o f c it a t ions e qua l t o t he f r e que nc y ) fo r e ac h

wor d i s g ive n in Ta b le I . Use s o f t he wor ds a s p r ope r nouns we r e e l imina t e d

f r om ou r s a mple a nd f r om the c oun t g ive n in t he t a b l e .

S i x o f t h e w o r d s w e r e c h o s e n b e c au s e t h e y a re h i g h ly p o t y s e m o u s 1 1 - 2 1

nona r c ha i c s e nse s ) , a c c o r d ing to

W ebs ter s N ew Col leg ia te D ic t ionary ,

1975,

a n d s ix w e r e c h o s e n fo r t h e ir c o m p a r a t i v e ly l o w d e g r e e o f p o l y s e m y 2 - 4 n o n -

a r c ha i c s ense s ) . Ta b le I a lso g ive s t he num be r o f se nse s f oun d in

W eb s t e r s

f o r

e a c h w o r d .

C a r d pa c ke t s f o r sub je c t s t o so r t we r e ma de in t h r e e s i z e s : t he y c on ta ine d

20 , 100 , o r 20 0 ci t a ti on c ar ds . C a r ds f o r e a c h pa c ke t we r e d r a wn a t r a ndom

f r om the e n t i re s e t o f c it a t ions f o r a g ive n wo r d , e xc e p t t hat c a r e wa s t a ke n to


9/24


T a b l e

I . Noun s Used in Tasks 1 and 2

175

Noun Frequency~ Num ber of sensesb

head 421 21

life 682 18

world 688 14

way 893 12

side 370 12

hand 422 11

fact 447 4

group 382 4

night 400 3

development 311 3

something 449 2

war 306 2

o Frequency refers to num ber of o ccurrences (excluding proper nou ns) in 1 million running words

of text (Kucera & Francis, 1967).

b Num ber of senses refers to sense divisions appearing in entries in Web ster 's New Collegiate

Dictionary

(1975 ), excluding senses labeled archaic or B ritish, and , in the case

of side,

one esoteric

sense that was a theatrical term.

s a m p l e e q u a l l y a c r o s s a ll o f t h e 1 5 g e n r e s r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c o r p u s ( s e e K u c e r a

a n d F r a n c i s , 1 9 6 7 , f o r a d e s c r i p t io n o f t h e g e n r e s ) . E a c h o f t h e n i n e s u b j e c t s

r e c e i v e d a p a c k e t f o r e a c h o f t h e 1 2 w o r d s ; f o u r p a c k e ts f o r e a c h s u b j e c t c o n -

t a i n e d 2 0 c a r d s e a c h , f o u r c o n t a i n e d 1 0 0 c a r d s e a c h , a n d f o u r c o n t a i n e d 2 0 0

c a r d s e a c h , s o t h a t o v e r t h e n i n e s u b j e c t s e a c h w o r d w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y e a c h

c i t a ti o n s a m p l e s i z e t h re e t im e s . N o t w o s u b j e c t s g o t e x a c t l y t h e s a m e s e t o f

c a r d s , a l t h o u g h s o m e o v e r l a p n e c e s s a r i l y e x is te d b e t w e e n s e ts f o r t h e s a m e

w o r d .

E a c h s u b j e c t w a s g i v e n h i s o r h e r 1 2 c a r d p a c k e t s i n a r a n d o m o r d e r . T h e

f o l l o w i n g w r i t t e n i n s t ru c t i o n s w e r e g i v e n : ( 1 ) S o r t t h e s e n t e n c e s i n t o g r o u p s

a c c o r d i n g t o s i m i l a ri ty i n m e a n i n g o r u s e o f t h e u n d e r li n e d w o r d . M a k e a s m a n y

( o r f e w ) g r o u p s a s y o u w i s h . ( 2 ) A s y o u w o r k , a t ta c h a w r i t t e n l a b e l to e a c h

c a r d p i l e t o h e l p y o u r e m e m b e r y o u r c r i t e r i a f o r g r o u p i n g t h o s e s e n t e n c e s t o -

g e t h e r . S t a r t l a b e l i n g a t t h e b e g i n n i n g , a n d m a k e n o t a t i o n s a s y o u n e e d t h e m .

( 3 ) A f t e r y o u f i n i s h s o r t i n g t h e c a r d s , g o b a c k t o y o u r n o t a t i o n s ( a n d l o o k a t

t h e c a r d s i f y o u w i s h ) a n d w r i t e a d e f i n i ti o n f o r e a c h g r o u p . T h i s d e f i n i ti o n

s h o u l d b e d e t ai le d e n o u g h t o a l l o w a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o w r i t e a m e a n i n g f u l s e n t e n c e

u s i n g t h e w o r d i n th a t p a rt ic u l a r w a y / s e n s e , e v e n i f t h e w o r d w e r e u n f a m i l i a r

t o h i m . ( 4 ) I f t h e r e a r e a n y s e n t e n c e s y o u c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d , s e t t h e m a s id e a n d

a s k t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r f o r s u b s t it u t e s. ( 5 ) A l l t h e k e y w o r d s i n t h is t a s k a r e n o u n s .

S o m e s e n t e n c e s m a y c o n t a i n a d j ec t iv a l u s e s o f t h e se w o r d s , h o w e v e r , s u c h a s

' n i g h t s k y o r ' g r o u p t h e r a p y . Y o u s h o u l d n o t n e e d t o c h a r a c te r iz e th e s e


10/24

76

orgensen

uses by form ( that i s , ad ject ive vs . noun) per se , s ince your t ask i s to sor t

acco rd ing t o s imi l a r it ie s i n mean ing . (6) P l ease do n ' t l ook up any o f these words

in a d ic t ionary or thesaurus unt i l you have f in i shed a l l exper imenta l t asks .

There was no t ime l imi t for the sor t ing task , and subject s completed par t s

o f i t on d i f f e ren t days , a s i t wa s ve r y t ime-consum ing (a lt hough any one packe t

had to be f in i shed a t one s i t t ing) . Jus t as subject s were a l lowed to add to or

change thei r l abel s for the groups as needed, they were a l so a l lowed to a l t er

thei r groupings of the c i t a t ions a t any poin t in the t ask . Fol lowing the sor t ing

task , subject s were asked to g ive wri t t en responses to a se t of ques t ions about

the sor t ing s t ra teg ies they used .

Task 2

Task 2 was used to determine how subject s wi l l change thei r s t ra teg ies and

group ings i n t he s ame so r t ing t a sk wh en g iven d i c t ionary de f i n it ions to u se as

guides .

Subjects.

The n ine subject s f rom Task 1 a l so par t i c ipated in Task 2 .

Design and Procedure.

The s t imul i were the same cards a l lo t ted to each

subject in Task 1 , organized in to the same packets . The order of presenta t ion

was changed , bo th fo r t he i nd iv idua l ca rds (wh ich were shu f f l ed ) and fo r t he

packe t s them se lves (wh ich were i n a new ran dom o rder ).

Each of the 12 packets a subject received was a t t ached to a se t of cards

that had indiv idual d ic t ionary def in i t ions ( f rom W ebster s Ne w Collegiate Dic-

tionary)

fo r t he key word t yped on t hem. These de f i n i t i ons co r responded t o

those coun t ed i n N um be r o f s en ses i n Tab l e I . Thu s , t he ca rd packe t s fo r

head were each acc om pan ied b y 21 de f i n i ti on ca rds , packe t s fo r group b y 4

def in i ti on ca rds , e t c . The de f i n i ti on ca rds t hemse lves were r andom ized be fo re

being a t tached to the c i t a t ion card packets .

A pe r iod o f a t l eas t 1 week , bu t l e s s t han 2 weeks , e l apsed be tween any

sub j ec t ' s com ple ti on o f Task 1 and beg inn ing o f Task 2 .

Ins t ruct ions were the same as those for Task 1 , except that the def in i t ion

cards were to be read pr ior to , and used in , the sor t ing task . Sub ject s we re to ld

to t ry to ca tegor ize a l l the c i t a t ion cards in a packet accord ing to the def in i t ion

cards ; fo r any c i t a t i ons t hey cou ld no t ca t ego r i ze t h i s way , t hey were t o ld t o

m ake t he ir ow n ca t ego r ies and de f i n i ti ons . S ub jec t s were adv i sed t ha t t hey cou ld

use as m any o r a s f ew o f t he g iven de f i n i t ion cards a s t hey chose t o , an d , aga in ,

t ha t they cou ld m ake as m an y o r f ew ca t ego r ies fo r t he c i ta t ions as t hey wi shed .

Subject s w ere a l so asked to repor t an y ambigui t i es the y not iced in the d ic t ionary

def in i t ions .

Af ter complet ing the sor t ing task , subject s were again asked to rep ly in

wri t ing to a ser ies o f ques t ions ab out thei r sor t ing s t ra teg ies .


11/24

sychological Reality of W ord Senses

177

Task 3

T h e p u r p o s e o f T a s k 3 w a s t o o b t a in a se t o f g r o u p i n g s a n d d e f in i ti o n s

w r i t te n b y s u b j e c t s fo r lo w - f r e q u e n c y w o r d s , w h i c h c o u l d b e c o m p a r e d t o th o s e

w r i t te n f o r h i g h - f r e q u e n c y w o r d s .

Subjects. A n e w g r o u p o f n i n e P r in c e t o n U n i v e r s i ty g r a d u a t e a n d u n d e r -

g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , c h o s e n b e c a u s e t h e y h a d d o n e w e l l o n v e r b a l a b i li ty t es ts

( v e rb a l s e c ti o n o f S A T o r G R E ) , s e r v e d a s s u b je c t s v o l u n t a r i l y , a n d w e r e p a i d

a s m a l l a m o u n t f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g .

De sign an d Procedure.

S e n t e n c e s u s i n g 1 2 l o w - f r e q u e n c y n o u n s w e r e d r a w n

f r o m K u c e r a a n d F r a n c i s ( 1 9 6 7 ) . T h e s e s e n t e n c e s w e r e t y p e d o n c a r d s , j u s t a s

i n T a s k 1 . T a b l e I I l is ts t h e s e 1 2 w o r d s , g i v i n g f r e q u e n c y a n d s e n s e c o u n t s .

S i x o f t h e w o r d s w e r e c h o s e n b e c a u s e t h e y a r e h i g h l y p o l y s e m o u s ( re la ti v e

t o o th e r w o r d s i n th is f r e q u e n c y r a n g e ) , h a v i n g 5 o r 6 n o n a r c h a i c s e n s e s i n

W ebs t er s . T h e o t h e r s ix w o r d s h a v e 1 o r 2 s en s e s e a c h .

C a r d p a c k e t s f o r s u b je c t s to s o r t c o n t a i n e d 2 0 c a r d s e a c h , c h o s e n r a n d o m l y

f o r e a c h s u b j e c t f r o m t h e t o t a l s e t o f c a r d s . S i n c e t h e s e w o r d s h a d o n l y 2 0 t o

2 6 c i ta t i o n s e a c h , s u b j e c t s i n f a c t s a w p r i m a r i l y t h e s a m e c a r d s . E a c h o f t h e

n i n e s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d a p a c k e t f o r e a c h o f t h e 1 2 w o r d s , a n d c a r d s w i t h i n t h e

p a c k e t s w e r e a l w a y s r e - r a n d o m i z e d f o r e a c h n e w s u b j e c t .

E a c h s u b j e c t w a s g i v e n h is o r h e r 1 2 c a r d p a c k e ts i n r a n d o m o r d e r . I n s t r u c -

t io n s w e r e t h e s a m e a s t h o s e f o r T a s k 1 , t h a t i s, s u b j e c t s w e r e t o so r t c a r d s i n to

T a b l e

I I . N o u n s U s e d i n T a s k 3

Noun Frequency~ Num ber of sensesb

storm 24 6

vein 24 6

compo sition 23 6

devil 20 6

settleme nt 24 5

prospect 24 5

ritual 24 2

promotion 24 2

disaster 26 1

pond 24 t

cigarette 24

exploration 22 1

Frequency refers to num ber of occurrences (excluding proper noun s) in 1 miIlion running words

of text (K ucera & Francis, 1967).

b Nu mb er of senses refers to sense divisions appearing in entries in W ebster s New Collegiate

Dictionary

(1975), excluding senses labeled archaic.


12/24

78 Jorgensen

categories according to the meaning or use of the underlined w ord , to keep no tes

during the process, and to write definitions after sorting.

R S U L T S

Num ber of C ategories Table III shows overall results for the three sorting

tasks in terms of the mean number of definit ion categories subjects made for

each wor d type and for each task type that is , with or witho ut dictionary

definitions as guides), as compared to the mean number of dictionary definitions

for each word type.

Exc ept for w ord s character ized by the greatest po lyse m y averaging abou t

14.6 dictionary sense s), subjec ts distinguished around three senses for any give n

w ord in the task witho ut d ict ionary definitions.

When provided with dictionary definitions to use in sorting, subjects ap-

peared to change their es t imates of the number of senses . For the words of

greatest polysemy dictionary average of 14.6 senses), subjects significantly

increased the num ber of sense categories p < .01, ma tched t- tes t), although

they did not adopt the even larger number of categories suggested by the dic-

T a b l e I I L T a s k s 1 , 2 , a n d 3 ; M e a n N u m b e r s o f S o r t i n g a n d D i c t i o n a r y S e n s e

C a t e g o r i e s w i t h S t a n d a rd D e v i a t i o n s f o r H i g h - an d L o w - F r e q u e n c y W o r d s H a v i n g

M a n y o r F e w S e n s e s i n t h e D i c t i o n a r y ~

High-frequency words

Ma ny dictionary senses Fe w dictionary senses

11-21) 2-4)

M S D b M S O b

Dictionary 14.6 3.98 3.0 0.89

Task 1 5.59 1.42 3.25 0.85

Task 2 9.14 1.05 2.73 0.52

Low-frequency words

Ma ny dictionary senses Few dictionary senses

5-6) 1-2)

M SD t M SD z

Dictionary 5.66 0.51 1.30 0.51

Task 3 3.50 0.36 2.47 0.73

W e b s t e r ' s N e w C o l le g i a te D i c t io n a r y

1975).

t, Standard deviations from experiments are between words; values for standard deviations between

subjects were v ery similar to those between words.


13/24


79

t i o n a ry . F o r w o r d s w h i c h h a v e f e w d i c t io n a r y s e n s e s ( a n a v e r a g e o f th r e e ) ,

s u b j e c t s m o d i f i e d t h e i r e s t i m a t e s t o b e m o r e i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e n u m b e r o f

c a t e g o r i e s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e d i c t i o n a r y i n a f e w c a s e s , b u t n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y . T h e

o v e r a ll d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s o r t in g r e s u l ts f o r th e l o w - p o l y s e m y w o r d s w i t h

a n d w i t h o u t d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s w a s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h e i n d e p e n d e n t e s t i m a t e s

o f o u r s u b j e c t s a n d th e d i c t i o n a r y b o t h c o n v e r g e d o n a n a v e r a g e o f th r e e s e n s e s

t o b e g i n w i t h .

Consistency of Categories S i n c e i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b le a b o u t w h i c h i n -

d i v i d u a l c i t a t i o n s w e r e g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r i n p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r i e s b y p a r t i c u l a r

s u b j e c t s i n t h e s o r t i n g s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o e x a m i n e t h e c o n s i s t e n c y i n g r o u p i n g

b e t w e e n t h e f i r s t s o r t i n g t a s k ( w i t h o u t d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s ) a n d t h e s e c o n d

s o r t i n g t a s k ( w i t h d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s ) .

A s a m e a s u r e o f s u c h c o n s is t e n c y , th e A g r e e m e n t - D i s a g r e e m e n t ( A - D )

r a ti o , d e v i s e d b y G e o r g e A . M i l le r , a n d u s e d a n d d e s c r i b e d b y S h i p s t o n e ( 1 9 6 0 ) ,

i s u s e f u l , a s i t w a s d e s i g n e d f o r s o r t i n g d a t a . T h i s r a t i o i s a s t a t i s t i c d e v i s e d t o

c a l c u la t e t h e a m o u n t o f a g re e m e n t b e t w e e n d i f fe r e n t s o rt in g s o f t h e s a m e m a -

t e r ia l b y t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n g r o u p i n g o f p a r t i c u l a r i t e m s ( in t h is

s t u d y , t h e s e n t e n c e c i t a t io n s ) . T h e r a t io i s a k i n d o f c o r r e l a t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e :

w h e n t w o g r o u p i n g s a r e i d e n t ic a l , i t y i e l d s a v a l u e o f + 1 . 0 , a n d w h e n t w o

g r o u p i n g s a r e c o m p l e t e l y d i v e r s e , i t y i e l d s a v a l u e o f - 1 . 0 . R o u g h l y s p e a k i n g ,

i t e x p r e s s e s t h e o b s e r v e d n u m b e r o f a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p i n g s a s d i -

v i d e d b y t h e to t a l n u m b e r o f p o s s i b l e a g r e e m e n t s . T h e a p p e n d i x a t th e e n d o f

t h is a r t i c le g i v e s d e t a i l s o f c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e r a t i o , a l o n g w i t h n o t e s r e g a r d i n g

p o s s i b l e b i a s i n t h e t e c h n i q u e .

T a b l e I V p r e s e n t s t h e A g r e e m e n t - D i s a g r e e m e n t r a t i o s b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p -

i n g s f o r i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s b y p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t s i n t h e f i r s t s o r t i n g t a s k a n d i n

t h e s e c o n d s o r t in g t a s k . A n a n a l y s is o f v a r i a n c e s h o w e d t h a t c o n s i s t e n c y v a l u e s

f o r i n d i v id u a l w o r d s w e r e s ig n i f ic a n t l y d i ff e r en t , w i t h F ( 1 1 , 8 8 ) = 6 . 9 8 , p

Documents

JorgThe Psychological Reality of Word Senses