A connectivity model for semantic processing

SummaryA connectivity model for semantic processing, based on two major assumptions, is proposed and tested. The representation assumption states that semantically related features are represented by an interconnected structure of features. A network is termed interconnected if each node is linked to at least two other nodes. According to the processing assumption, indirect activation becomes increasingly effective as the number of interconnected nodes increases. The connectivity model thus predicts that more complex concepts will be processed faster than less complex concepts. Experiment 1 was performed to determine the number of features for a set of 72 words and to show that subordinate concepts share common features with their natural superordinate concept. In Experiments 2 and 3 subjects had to judge whether or not a word belonged to a previously defined natural superordinate concept. The results confirm the connectivity model and show that concepts with many features can be classified faster than concepts with only a few features.

[1]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Focused memory search in fact retrieval , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[2]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Mental models of word meaning , 1983 .

[3]  D. Gentner.  Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[5]  R. J. Gonsalves.  For definitions: A reply to Fodor, Garrett, Walker, and Parkes , 1988, Cognition.

[6]  Shannon Dawn Moeser.  The Role of Experimental Design in Investigations of the Fan Effect. , 1979 .

[7]  Shannon Dawn Moeser,et al.  Recognition processes in episodic memory. , 1977 .

[8]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Memory search without interference: The role of integration , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  W. F. Battig,et al.  Handbook of semantic word norms , 1978 .

[10]  Wolfgang Klimesch.  Encoding Concepts On The Basis Of Feature Structures , 1981 .

[11]  E. Rosch.  Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[12]  L. Reder,et al.  Integrated knowledge in different tasks: The role of retrieval strategy on fan effects , 1983 .

[13]  David C. Rubin,et al.  51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior , 1980 .

[14]  August Ponschab.  DIE WELT DER BEGRIFFE , 1973 .

[15]  D. Gentner.  Evidence for the psychological reality of semantic components: The verbs of possession , 1975 .

[16]  John R. Anderson.  Effects of prior knowledge on memory for new information , 1981 .

[17]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Alternative conceptions of semantic theory , 1975, Cognition.

[18]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  John R. Anderson.  Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory , 1974 .

[20]  John R. Anderson.  A spreading activation theory of memory. , 1983 .

[21]  A. Collins,et al.  Does category size affect categorization time , 1970 .

[22]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Fact retrieval and the paradox of interference , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

[24]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[25]  W. Kintsch,et al.  The representation of meaning in memory , 1974 .

[26]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. , 1974 .