Mental models of word meaning

Abstract

Four experiments compared five alternative mental models of word meaning: a defining-attributes model, two characteristic-attribute models, and two mixed models. The two characteristic-attribute models (and the two mixed models) differed from each other in terms of whether weights of attributes were summed or averaged. In Experiment 1, 11 subjects provided lists of attributes for 24 different nouns. Subjects also rated the necessity, sufficiency, and importance of each attribute to a given word's definition. Results showed that both defining (necessary and sufficient) and characteristic attributes could be identified from subjects' ratings for most nouns, but that the role of defining attributes was especially pronounced for proper names. In Experiment 2, the same subjects later rated the extent to which given lists of attributes successfully described referents of each given word. Mathematical modeling of results supported a mixed model of reference based on defining attributes plus the weighted sum of all attributes (defining and characteristic). Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiment 1 with 25 new subjects and slightly modified procedures. In Experiment 4, 32 subjects were presented with two alternative attribute lists for each given word, and were to select the better referent of the word as quickly as possible. The preferred mixed model from Experiment 2 was shown best to account for both the mental representation and real-time processing of word meanings.