Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution

Abstract

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.

The divided visual world paradigm: Eye tracking reveals hemispheric asymmetries in lexical ambiguity resolution

“…This is not a pattern predicted by any extant model of lexical ambiguity resolution, since models that incorporate context sensitivity generally assume that context-based selection will reduce, rather than enhance, activation of the alternative meaning (e.g., Swinney and Hakes, 1976;Vu et al, 1998). However, the pattern is consistent with the predictions of the coarse coding hypothesis (Beeman et al, 1994;Jung-Beeman, 2005), which postulates that meaning activation in the RH is diffuse, and thus more likely to encompass multiple, disparate senses of an ambiguous word.…”

“…1981; Swinney and Hakes, 1976;Tabossi, 1988;Vu et al, 1998) have presented homonyms in a biasing context in order to explore the possible effects of non-lexical sources of information on lexical access (e.g., the semantic context in a sentence like "The office walls were so thin that they could hear the ring …"; Onifer & Swinney, 1981). Several classes of models have developed out of this research: exhaustive models (Swinney, 1979), which argue that multiple meanings of an ambiguous word are automatically activated; selective models (Swinney & Hakes, 1976), which suggest that only the contextually-consistent meaning is initially activated; and hybrid models, which argue that context interacts with meaning frequency (e.g., Duffy et al, 1988;Tabossi, 1988).…”

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

“…In contrast, Simpson and Krueger (1991) have demonstrated that a strongly biased context could lead to the activation of only the contextually appropriate meaning of an ambiguous word. Finally, Kellas and colleagues (e.g., Martin, Vu, Kellas, & Metcalf, 1999;Vu, Kellas, Metcalf, & Herman, 2000;Vu, Kellas, & Paul, 1998) have established that ambiguity resolution depends on a complex interaction among meaning frequency, context type, and strength of the biased context. Critically, it was found that although meaning frequency does play an important role, its effect can be eliminated, depending on context strength.…”

“…3 Perhaps a more productive approach is to identify the factors that will influence the resolution of lexical ambiguity. In addition to the factors of meaning frequency, type of context, and strength of context, Vu et al (1998) have found that the lexical entries in a simple subject-verb-object sentence can provide unique sources of constraint on ambiguity resolution. For example, 2a.…”

“…By manipulating the specificity of the subject noun, Vu et al (1998) demonstrated that strong biasing contexts immediately activated the contextually appropriate meaning of an ambiguous word (i.e., wood and flying for Sentences 2b and 2c, respectively), whereas ambiguous contexts activated both meanings (Sentence 2a). Intralexical priming was excluded as a possible explanation for the data, on the basis of the results of four control experiments (see Vu et al, 1998, as well as the General Discussion section below).…”