Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words.

Simpson, Greg B.; Burgess, Curt

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28

Cited by 217 publications

(294 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

239

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Not only did the combination of three lexical associates fail to replicate the results of Experiment 3, when the syntactic structure and semantic representation of a sentence were eliminated, a pattern of frequencyordered activation emerged. Our finding that dominant targets received more activation than did subordinate targets was expected, due to the polarity of our homonyms, and is similar to results found for the processing of polarized homonyms in isolation (cf Simpson & Burgess, 1985). Consequently, both Experiments 4 and 5 provided evidence that word-based priming cannot be a viable explanation ofour previous results.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 30%

“…We predicted that the homonym would prime both related target words across nominally dominant and subordinate scrambled conditions but that the dominant meaning would receive more activation, due to the polarity ofthe homonyms (i.e., frequency-ordered activation). Our assumption is derived from Simpson and Burgess (1985), where it was demonstrated that the dominant meaning of a polarized homonym becomes available sooner than the subordinate meaning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, most homonyms are polarized, in which there is usually one frequently used (dominant) meaning, and one or more less frequently used (subordinate) meanings. The frequency with which a homonym's meanings are used has been shown to affect lexical processing (see, e.g., Dopkins et aI., 1992;Duffy et aI., 1988;Hogaboam & Perfetti, 1975;Rayner & Duffy, 1986;Simpson & Burgess, 1985;Tabossi & Zardon, 1993). For example, Hogaboam and Perfetti and Simpson 979 Copyright 1998 Psychonomic Society, Inc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution

Kellas

Paul

1998

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results from a series of naming experiments demonstrated that major lexical categories of simple sentences can provide sources of constraint on the interpretation of ambiguous words (homonyms). Manipulation of verb (Experiment 1) or subject noun (Experiment 2) specificity produced contexts that were empirically rated as being strongly biased or ambiguous. Priming was demonstrated for target words related to both senses of a homonym following ambiguous sentences, but only contextually appropriate target words were primed following strongly biased dominant or subordinate sentences. Experiment 3 showed an increase in the magnitude of priming when multiple constraints on activation converged. Experiments 4 and 5 eliminated combinatorial intralexical priming as an alternative explanation. Instead, it was demonstrated that each constraint was influential only insofar as it contributed to the overall semantic representation of the sentence. When the multiple sources of constraint were retained but the sentence-level representation was changed (Experiment 4) or eliminated (Experiment 5), the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 and were not replicated. Experiment 6 examined the issue of homonym exposure duration by using an 80-msec stimulus onset asynchrony. The results replicated the previous experiments. The overall evidence indicates that a sentence context can be made strongly and immediately constraining by the inclusion of specific fillers for salient lexical categories. The results are discussed within a constraint-based, context-sensitive model of lexical ambiguity resolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 30%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution

Kellas

Paul

1998

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one such study, which focused on homonyms, participants made lexical decisions to target words that were related to dominant or subordinate meanings of ambiguous prime words, or were unrelated (Simpson & Burgess, 1985). The delay between prime and target (stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA) was varied (16 ms -750 ms).…”

Section: The Time Course Of Meaning Activation Of Ambiguous Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustained meaning activation for polysemous but not homonymous words: Evidence from EEG

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretical linguistic accounts of lexical ambiguity distinguish between homonymy, where words that share a lexical form have unrelated meanings, and polysemy, where the meanings are related. The present study explored the psychological reality of this theoretical assumption by asking whether there is evidence that homonyms and polysemes are represented and processed differently in the brain. We investigated the time-course of meaning activation of different types of ambiguous words using EEG. Homonyms and polysemes were each further subdivided into two: unbalanced homonyms (e.g., "coach") and balanced homonyms (e.g., "match"); metaphorical polysemes (e.g., "mouth") and metonymic polysemes (e.g., "rabbit"). These four types of ambiguous words were presented as primes in a visual single-word priming delayed lexical decision task employing a long ISI (750 ms).Targets were related to one of the meanings of the primes, or were unrelated. ERPs formed relative to the target onset indicated that the theoretical distinction between homonymy and polysemy was reflected in the N400 brain response. For targets following homonymous primes (both unbalanced and balanced), no effects survived at this long ISI indicating that both meanings of the prime had already decayed. On the other hand, for polysemous primes (both metaphorical and metonymic), activation was observed for both dominant and subordinate senses. The observed processing differences between homonymy and polysemy provide evidence in support of differential neuro-cognitive representations for the two types of ambiguity. We argue that the polysemous senses act collaboratively to strengthen the representation, facilitating maintenance, while the competitive nature of homonymous meanings leads to decay.

show abstract

“…But investigations in which primes are presented in typical reading conditions can yield different results (Fassbinder & Tompkins, 2006). For instance, when primes are presented in the centre of the visual fields, in standard reading conditions, subordinate meanings are no longer active at a long interval postprime presentation, even for adults without brain damage (Hino, Lupker & Sears, 1997;Simpson & Burgess, 1985). Weakly related meanings remain active, however (Becker, 1980;McRae & Boisvert, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Activation and maintenance of peripheral semantic features of unambiguous words after right hemisphere brain damage in adults

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The right cerebral hemisphere (RH) sustains activation of subordinate, secondary, less common, and/or distantly related meanings of words. Much of the pertinent data come from studies of homonyms, but some evidence also suggests that the RH has a unique maintenance function in relation to unambiguous nouns. In a divided visual field priming study, Atchley, Burgess, and Keeney (1999) reported that only left visual field/RH presentation yielded evidence of continuing activation of peripheral semantic features that were incompatible with the most common image or representation of their corresponding nouns (e.g., rotten for "apple"). Activation for weakly related features that were compatible with the dominant representation (e.g., crunchy) was sustained over time regardless of the visual field/hemisphere of initial stimulus input. Several studies report that unilateral right hemisphere brain damage (RHD) in adults affects the RH's meaning maintenance function, but this work also has centred on homonyms, and/or more recently metonymic and metaphoric polysemous words.

show abstract

Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words.

Cited by 217 publications

References 31 publications

Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution

Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution

Sustained meaning activation for polysemous but not homonymous words: Evidence from EEG

Activation and maintenance of peripheral semantic features of unambiguous words after right hemisphere brain damage in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About