Concepts and their surface representations

Abstract

Pictures versus the words that name them and words in one language versus their translations in another represent pairs of different surface forms of presumably identical concepts. A controversy common to both the picture—word and bilingualism literature is whether the two different surface forms access the same conceptual representation—the common-code view of memory—or whether they access different conceptual representations—the dual-code view of memory. Some of the criteria which have been proposed to support each hypothesis when response time in an on-line semantic memory task is used as the dependent variable are reviewed. These criteria include equality of reaction times for each surface form and the absence of an interaction in reaction times to the two surface forms when either a facilitating or interfering manipulation is employed. The results of the remaining four papers in this series, previewed here, are consistent in showing similar results across the pairs of surface forms, but differ about whether the evidence supports a unitary or dual code model. In particular, the papers are generally consistent in showing equality of facilitation effects across the two surface forms (no interaction) but inequality of interference effects. The inconsistency of evidence for either model is tentatively resolved by assuming that subjects can operate at different levels of processing, such that a common meaning can be accessed from either surface form if it is in the subject's interest to do so, thereby producing equal facilitating effects, but that the meaning of one surface form can be ignored when the task demands it, leading to unequal interference effects (and, in most cases, to the lack of any interference effects from a meaningful stimulus in the to-be-rejected surface form). A model for picture—word-processing is presented as a working framework for understanding the results of the on-line semantic task and for reconciling the often-observed dissociation between on-line processing times and the strength of the episodic memory trace left by such processing.