Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts

Tabossi, Patrizia

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(88)90058-7

Cited by 261 publications

(196 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This recovery process takes longer for the subordinate than for the dominant meaning (appearing in the 700-900 ms and 500-700 ms time windows, respectively). The more rapid recovery of the dominant meaning is consistent with hybrid models of lexical access that incorporate effects of both frequency and context (Duffy, Morris, and Rayner, 1988;Tabossi, 1988).The RH showed a different pattern of responses when the context word was unrelated (UR condition), as N400 amplitude decreases were found in Experiment 1, for the dominant associate, but not in Experiment 2, for the subordinate associate. Thus, in a non-biasing context the RH seems to be influenced by meaning frequency, initially activating only the dominant meaning of an ambiguous lexical item (cf.…”

supporting

confidence: 49%

The effects of context, meaning frequency, and associative strength on semantic selection: Distinct contributions from each cerebral hemisphere

Meyer

Federmeier

2007

Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual half-field procedure was used to examine hemispheric asymmetries in meaning selection. Event-related potentials were recorded as participants decided if a lateralized ambiguous or unambiguous prime was related in meaning to a centrally-presented target. Prime-target pairs were preceded by a related or unrelated centrally-presented context word. To separate the effects of meaning frequency and associative strength, unambiguous words were paired with concordant weakly-related context words and strongly-related targets (e.g., taste-sweet-candy) that were similar in associative strength to discordant subordinate-related context words and dominant-related targets (e.g., river-bank-deposit) in the ambiguous condition. Context words and targets were reversed in a second experiment. In an unrelated (neutral) context, N400 responses were more positive than baseline (facilitated) in all ambiguous conditions except when subordinate targets were presented on left visual field-right hemisphere (LVF-RH) trials. Thus, in the absence of biasing context information, the hemispheres seem to be differentially affected by meaning frequency, with the left maintaining multiple meanings and the right selecting the dominant meaning. In the presence of discordant context information, N400 facilitation was absent in both visual fields, indicating that the contextually-consistent meaning of the ambiguous word had been selected. In contrast, N400 facilitation occurred in all of the unambiguous conditions; however, the left hemisphere (LH) showed less facilitation for the weakly-related target when a strongly-related context was presented. These findings indicate that both hemispheres use context to guide meaning selection, but that the LH is more likely to focus activation on a single, contextually-relevant sense. KeywordsLexical Ambiguity; Cerebral Hemispheres; Context Effects; ERP; N400; LPC Based on evidence from studies using the visual half-field (VF) procedure with neurologicallyintact individuals (e.g., Burgess and Simpson, 1988), as well as studies involving participants with unilateral brain damage (e.g., Tompkins, Baumgartner, Lehman, and Fassbinder, 2000), it has been argued that the cerebral hemispheres differ in their processing of lexical semantics.Corresponding Author: Aaron M. Meyer, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois, 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, meyeram@uiuc.edu, (217) 244-9638. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptMore specifically, it has been...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 49%

The effects of context, meaning frequency, and associative strength on semantic selection: Distinct contributions from each cerebral hemisphere

Meyer

Federmeier

2007

Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results obtained with a cross-modal, semantic priming paradigm for homonyms in sentence contexts have shown access of the multiple meanings of the ambiguous words at short SOAs with selection of the contextually relevant meaning only at longer SOAs (Conrad, 1974;Neely, 1977;Swinney, 1979;Tanenhaus et al, 1979;Seidenberg et al, 1982;Frost and Bentin, 1992; but see Tabossi, 1988;Simpson, 1994). For example, Tanenhaus et al (1979) investigated the processing of noun-verb homonym forms in syntactic contexts which either biased the noun reading or the verb reading (e.g., I bought the watch; I will watch).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Chialant

Caramazza

1997

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Admittedly, even when knowing the meaning of the prime and the visual target, less proficient learners might have had difficulties with the interpretation of the L2 sentences preventing the observation of reliable associative priming effects. In fact, associative priming effects depend on the comprehension and interpretation of the experimental sentence (Blutner & Sommer, 1988;Braun & Tagliapietra, 2009;Norris, Cutler, McQueen, & Butterfield, 2006;Tabossi, 1988;Williams, 1988). Assessing proficiency on the basis of the recognition of the filler trials tests the recognition of a large number of words and nonwords and provides an independent estimate of the non-native lexicon and L2 understanding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On-line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2

Braun

Tagliapietra

2011

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their relatedness, Dutch and German differ in the interpretation of a particular intonation contour, the hat pattern. In the literature, this contour has been described as neutral for Dutch, and as contrastive for German. A recent study supports the idea that Dutch listeners interpret this contour neutrally, compared to the contrastive interpretation of a lexically identical utterance realised with a double peak pattern. In particular, this study showed shorter lexical decision latencies to visual targets (e.g., PELIKAAN, “pelican”) following a contrastively related prime (e.g., flamingo, “flamingo”) only when the primes were embedded in sentences with a contrastive double peak contour, not in sentences with a neutral hat pattern. The present study replicates Experiment 1a of Braun and Tagliapietra (2009) with German learners of Dutch. Highly proficient learners of Dutch differed from Dutch natives in that they showed reliable priming effects for both intonation contours. Thus, the interpretation of intonational meaning in L2 appears to be fast, automatic, and driven by the associations learned in the native language

show abstract

Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts

Cited by 261 publications

References 32 publications

The effects of context, meaning frequency, and associative strength on semantic selection: Distinct contributions from each cerebral hemisphere

The effects of context, meaning frequency, and associative strength on semantic selection: Distinct contributions from each cerebral hemisphere

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

On-line interpretation of intonational meaning in L2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About