英語の複合動詞の現在形を刺激語,過去形を反応語とする対連合学習をさせる。そのさい複合動詞の過去形はその中に含まれている単純動詞の過去形と同じ変化をするというルールを与えて単純動詞の現在形と過去形の関係との間に等価を確立しやすくした場合と,ルールを与えず,等価の確立が困難な場合との比較,および単純動詞の過去形が既習でここで与えたルールを使って等価を確立しうる複合動詞と,未習で等価を確立しえない複合動詞との比較によって等価の確立が習得と保持に及ぼす効果を明らかにしようとした。単純動詞のリスト(リスト1)の学習をさせた後,ルールを実験群にのみ与え,統制群には与えない。その後複合動詞のリスト(リスト2)の学習とテスト,さらに新しい複合動詞のリスト(リスト3)の学習,リスト2と3と末出の動詞のリスト(リスト4)についてのテストを行なった。その結果リスト2と,リスト3の習得において実験群の方が統制群より有意にすぐれた成績を示した。リスト4の構成については,群間に有意な差はみられなかった。単純動詞既出の複合動詞についての方が,末出の複合動詞についてより,その習得と保持が有意に秀れていた。

The present study aimed at clarifying the effect of equivalence in verbatim memory. Experimental Ss (8th graders) learned past forms of composite English verbs after they had been given a general rule of change by tense of a composite verb, i.e., the past form of a composite verb can be constructed by transforming the basic verb into its past form without changing the prefix. They were expected to learn meaningfully, for they could establish equivalence by applying this rule to composite verbs, with the previously learned past form of basic verbs. Control Ss could not learn meaningfully unless they found the rule themselves. Paired-associate learning, with present form as stimulus word and past form as response word, was attempted (See TABLE 1). First both groups learned the same list of 12 basic verbs and were tested for acquisition. Next, the rule for changing the tense of a composite verb was taught to experimental Ss only. Now both groups were given List 2, consisting entirely of 12 composite verbs, six of which corresponded to elements in List 1 (interchange-change, enclose-close, etc.), followed by an acquisition test. Next came List 3 with its 22 composite verbs. The six basic verbs of List 1 not represented in List 2 were each represented by two composite verbs ("appear" by "disappear" and "reappear", "come" by "become" and "overcome", etc.). Two more verbs from List 1 and___- 2 each had one "sister" verb on List 3 ("change"-"interchange", "exchange" and "stand"-"understand", "withstand"). The remaining eight verbs on List 3 were "new". Finally, a 42-word test was given consisting of Lists 2 and 3 along with eight previously untaught verbs (four basic, four composite) designated as List 4, all presented in random order. This gave us measures of retention for List 2 (See TABLE 3) and acquisition for List 3. Experimental Ss showed significantly superior performance to control Ss on acquisition and retention tests of List 2 and acquisition test of List 3 (See TABLE 4∼7). However, there was no marked difference regarding performance on guessing of past form of List 4 verbs (See TABLE 8). These findings imply that explicit presentation of the transformation rule facilitates establishment of equivalence. When errors made by both groups are counted separately for "new" verbs, of which corresponding basic verbs didn't appear in List 1, and for "familiar" verbs having basic verbs presented in List 1, the former significantly outnumbers the latter. This suggests that Ss cannot learn new materials (paired associates of composite verbs) easily when direct standards (paired associates of basic verbs) with which equivalence is established are lacking. (See TABLE 4 & 7)