NUMBERS OF experiments have indicated learning of nonsense material to be less efficient than learning of meaningful material. Marks and 01 lie (7) used second, third, fourth, and fifth order approximations of sentences as compared with reg ular textual material. They found that as material became more meaningful, the ability of college stu dents to learn the material was markedly increased. Meaning, or at least degree of familiarity, seems then to be a variable in learning to repeat written material. Meaning as considered in terms of com munication is not a simple variable. There are basically three points of view on the relation between the referent or signif?cate of a symbol, and difficulty in the communication proc ess. The first of these positions, multi-ordinality, is concerned with the accuracy of meaning. In es sence it indicates that a word does not communicate well if the symbol does not have a specific signifi cate. Thus in so far as the symbol will represent a greater number of significates the probability of confusion, and hence error, in communication is in creased. In essence this view espoused by Korzybski (4) and Johnson (3) says that each word is a homonym of itself and the greater the number of homonyms that any given sign represents, the more likely there is to be confusion concerning its meaning. Zipf's argument (14) that the number of meanings of a word increase as a function of the frequency of use of the word mitigates against a similar conclusion for learning to read or spell words. These functions are based upon repetitions, and as the number of indi vidual repetitions approximates the number of rep etitions in the population of words, the greater the number of meanings the easier the word should be to learn. The second position, concreteness or its inverse abstraction, indicates that the difficulty in commu nication lies in the tangibility of the signif?cate. Thus, the lowest level of difficulty or abstraction, is a concrete signif?cate which can be contacted by the senses. Words which are contacted by a smaller number of senses, or are defined only in terms of other words, are less concrete, and hence repre sent greater communication difficulty. Lorge (5) used a five point scale measuring the child's familiarity with the signif?cate and found that this predicted the readability of a passage. This conclusion, drawn from the area of communication, might be applied to learning language materials where specific meanings are required for compre hension of the language. The third position is that familiarity with the symbol implies familiarity with the signif?cate. Thus, those words which occur most frequently in the language will tend, all things being equal, to communicate more specifically than those words which do not occur in the language. There has been considerable work done with frequency of occurrence, particularly in relation to the organization of children's material. The most significant work was perhaps done by Thorndike (10) (11) and Lorge and Thorndike (6) in the Teachers Word Books. Thorndike is basically responsible for the notion that generalized familiarity makes for ease in learning. Whether this notion was originally true or not cannot be tested within public school pop ulations, for these children have been exposed to words in relation to their frequency of occurrence, and hence, because they have had greater learning exposure, to more frequent words. The work of Noble (8) seems to answer this question for adults. His sample tended to know the meanings of words which were familiar to them when meaning was measured in word associations.
Read more