Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined the influence of situation-evoking stimuli on the resolution of lexical ambiguity. In Experiment 1, we examined situation-evoking stimuli at an early NP position. Readers were asked to establish whether specific entities were likely to participate as agents in contextually defined situations. Naming latencies demonstrated that defined situations headed by likely agents evoked a domain of reference that included only the situation-appropriate meaning of a targeted lexical ambiguity. In contrast, defined situations headed by unlikely agents evoked a domain of reference that did not include either meaning of the intended ambiguous word. In Experiment 2, we examined situation-evoking stimuli at a later direct object position. The specificity of the theme/patient role filler was manipulated, where the linguistic expressions were either specific or general with respect to a given contextual situation. The results showed that contexts with specific situation-evoking stimuli were rated as strongly biased and provided a domain of reference for the immediate resolution of lexical ambiguity, whereas contexts with nonspecific role fillers were rated as ambiguous and provided a domain of reference that was supportive of both meanings of an ambiguous word. The results were discussed within a contextual-feature-sensitive model of language processing.

A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns

“…This view is broadly consistent with those of researchers who have stressed the role of situation models in language comprehension (e.g., Potts, Keenan, & Golding, 1988;Vu, Kellas, Petersen, & Metcalf, 2003). The interaction of lexical and world knowledge also is consistent with the view of thematic roles developed recently by McRae and colleagues (Ferretti, McRae, & Hatherell, 2001;McRae et al, 1997), who proposed that thematic role assignment involves detailed experiential knowledge that is highly specific to events denoted by individual verbs.…”

Revisiting effects of contextual strength on the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye movements

“…In contrast to the eye movement studies on the subordinatebias effect, Kellas, Vu, and colleagues (Kellas, Martin, Yehling, Herman, & Vu, 1995;Martin, Vu, Kellas, & Metcalf, 1999;Vu, Kellas, Metcalf, Herman, 2000;Vu, Kellas, Petersen, & Metcalf, 2003) provided evidence in support of selective access to contextually appropriate meanings for ambiguous words. Using word-by-word self-paced reading and probe methodologies, they found that strong context could modulate the subordinate-bias effect; the effect was present when weak context was used, but was eliminated in the presence of strong context.…”

Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers

“…presence or absence of a biasing context), it was possible that our preceding disambiguating story context would influence the pattern of results. Biasing context has been found to influence the processing of ambiguous lexical items (Rayner et al, 1999;Vu et al, 2003). In their discussion of the 'reordered access model' of lexical access, Rayner et al (1999) hold that context can potentially boost the activation of the less frequent meaning of an ambiguous word such that it becomes available to interpretive processes before the more frequent meaning.…”