Find the homographs with the help of the given clues.
1 .to prevent from being seen
skin of a large animal
2. a small sticker on a letter
to bring down your foot hard
3. a group with members
one of the four suits of cards
4. to teach
a mode of transport
5. a long-legged bird
to stretch your neck to see something
6.a game ending in a tie
to attract or pull
Answers
Explanation:
onsensus was achieved. The semantic categories were
chosen to reflect the origin of each meaning of the word
according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the
American Language (1973). When two closely related
meanings came from the same source, they were treated
as a single category. If separating two related meanings
resulted in many responses that could be assigned to
either category, the meanings were combined (e.g., the
"dollar" and "statement" meanings of BILL were
combined under "money"). Words referring to both
an object and an action involving that object (e.g.,
DRILL) were included in a single category. Furthermore,
a response that could not be classified with any of the
meanings or that was obviously the result of a misin-
terpretation was placed in the questionable (?) category.
Finally, since all responses are reported, anyone wishing
to disagree with our judgments can readily recategorize
the items.
Pearson product-moment correlations were calcu-
lated between our norms and others using homographs
common to both sets. Before calculating these correla-
tions, meanings were combined when necessary to
coordinate categories in different norms, and, there-
fore, these correlations need to be regarded as approxi-
mate. All values were converted to proportions and
averaged over sex of the subject. Both dominant and
nondominant meanings were included. Thus 106 pairs of
HOMOGRAPH NORMS 17
proportions were used in calculating the r with the
Cramer (1970) norms. Similarly, 60, 83,186, and 148
pairings were used in calculating the respective rs for the
Geis and Winograd (1974), Kausler and Kollasch (1970),
Perfetti et al. (1971), and Wollen et al. (1980) norms.
The results of this correlational analysis are shown in
Table 1. All of the values appear to be fairly high and
agree quite well with those reported by Wollen et al.
(I980). This agreement is obtained despite differences in
subjects, sample size, evaluating judges, geographic
region, and, finally, despite differences in procedure.
Our norms and those of Cramer (1970) both employed
the "first response" technique and correlated .79.
Wollen et al. used short phrases and careful control of
the timing arrangements, and, despite these differences,
our values correlated .79 with theirs. Apparently,
greater control does not substantially alter the pro-
portions of responses allocated to the various meanings.
Table 2 presents each homograph listed in alphabetical
order. The meanings, or senses, of each item are listed
directly under it, and, in parentheses, the number of
subjects providing responses with that meaning is given.
As indicated, the ? category was used only when no
other possible meaning could be determined. The N/R
category represents "no responses," or omissions.
Note that the individual responses (and their frequencies)
are shown to the right of each meaning.