Polysemy Advantage with Abstract But Not Concrete Words

It is a robust finding that ambiguous words are recognized faster than unambiguous words. More recent studies (e.g., Rodd et al. in J Mem Lang 46:245–266, 2002) now indicate that this ambiguity advantage may in reality be a polysemy advantage: caused by related senses (polysemy) rather than unrelated meanings (homonymy). We report two lexical decision studies that investigated the effects of polysemy with new word sets. In both studies, polysemy was factorially manipulated while homonymy was controlled for. In Experiment 1, where the stimulus set consisted solely of concrete nouns, there was no effect of polysemy. However, in Experiment 2, where the stimulus set consisted of a mix of abstract nouns, verbs, and adjectives, there was a significant polysemy advantage. Together, these two studies strongly suggest that polysemy affects abstract but not concrete nouns. In addition, they rule out several alternative explanations for these polysemy effects, e.g., sense dominance, age-of-acquisition, familiarity, and semantic diversity.

[1]  W. T. Farrar,et al.  When Two Meanings Are Better Than One : Modeling the Ambiguity Advantage Using a Recurrent Distributed Network , 1994 .

[2]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  P. Dixon.  Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs , 2008 .

[4]  S. Lupker,et al.  The effects of polysemy for Japanese katakana words , 1998 .

[5]  G Kellas,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  David Poeppel,et al.  The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[7]  J. Jastrzembski,et al.  Effects of Word Frequency and Number of Meanings for Fast and Slow Readers. , 1982 .

[8]  Robert F. Stanners,et al.  Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed , 1975 .

[9]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access , 2002 .

[10]  K. Ahrens,et al.  Ambiguity Advantage Revisited: Two Meanings are Better than One When Accessing Chinese Nouns , 2010, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[11]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[12]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Processing Semantic Ambiguity: Different Loci for Meanings and Senses , 2006 .

[13]  H. Rubenstein,et al.  Homographic entries in the internal lexicon , 1970 .

[14]  M. L. Millis,et al.  The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[16]  K. Forster,et al.  Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[17]  Judith F. Kroll,et al.  Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages , 2007 .

[18]  J. E.,et al.  Semantic Ambiguity Effects in Word Identification , 1996 .

[19]  J. Jastrzembski.  Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[21]  D. Balota,et al.  A word’s meaning affects the decision in lexical decision , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Tamiko Azuma,et al.  Why SAFE Is Better Than FAST: The Relatedness of a Word's Meanings Affects Lexical Decision Times , 1997 .

[23]  Herbert Rubenstein,et al.  Homographic entries in the internal lexicon: Effects of systematicity and relative frequency of meanings , 1971 .

[24]  T. Rogers,et al.  Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[25]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? , 2006 .

[26]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[28]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  Effects of Polysemy in Lexical Decision and Naming: An Alternative to Lexical Access Accounts , 1996 .

[29]  M. Gernsbacher.  Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[31]  Ian Cunnings,et al.  An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers , 2012 .

[32]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Max Coltheart,et al.  The MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 1981 .

[34]  R. W. Stowe,et al.  Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words , 1988 .