Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy

Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate the time-course of meaning activation of different types of ambiguous words. Unbalanced homonymous ("pen"), balanced homonymous ("panel"), metaphorically polysemous ("lip"), and metonymically polysemous words ("rabbit") were used in a visual single-word priming delayed lexical decision task. The theoretical distinction between homonymy and polysemy was reflected in the N400 component. Homonymous words (balanced and unbalanced) showed effects of dominance/frequency with reduced N400 effects predominantly observed for dominant meanings. Polysemous words (metaphors and metonymies) showed effects of core meaning representation with both dominant and subordinate meanings showing reduced N400 effects. Furthermore, the division within polysemy, into metaphor and metonymy, was supported. Differences emerged in meaning activation patterns with the subordinate meanings of metaphor inducing differentially reduced N400 effects moving from left hemisphere electrode sites to right hemisphere electrode sites, potentially suggesting increased involvement of the right hemisphere in the processing of figurative meaning.

[1]  P. Dixon,et al.  University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Jurij D. Apresjan.  REGULAR POLYSEMY , 1974 .

[3]  H. Kolk,et al.  Event-related potential and reaction time evidence for inhibition between alternative meanings of ambiguous words , 2003, Brain and Language.

[4]  D. Titone,et al.  Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  W. Nelson Francis,et al.  FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH USAGE: LEXICON AND GRAMMAR , 1983 .

[6]  M. Faust,et al.  Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphorsfn2 fn2 This research was part of the M.A. thesis of the first author at Bar-Ilan University under the supervision of the second author. , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[8]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[9]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words , 1980 .

[10]  Shari R. Baum,et al.  Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[11]  Ekaterini Klepousniotou.  The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon , 2002, Brain and Language.

[12]  D. Salisbury,et al.  Contextual modulation of N400 amplitude to lexically ambiguous words , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[13]  M. Kutas,et al.  Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation ☆ ☆☆ , 1987 .

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

[15]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution , 2003, Brain and Language.

[16]  M. Pickering,et al.  Processing ambiguous verbs: evidence from eye movements. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  D. Nelson,et al.  The University of South Florida homograph norms , 1980 .

[18]  R. Burchfield.  Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. By W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera with the assistance of Andrew W. Mackie. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1982. x + 561 , 1985 .

[19]  John N. Williams.  Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings , 1992 .

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

[21]  Mark Beeman,et al.  Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. , 1998 .

[22]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

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

[24]  Todd C. Handy,et al.  Event-related potentials : a methods handbook , 2005 .

[25]  Shari R. Baum,et al.  Unilateral brain damage effects on processing homonymous and polysemous words , 2005, Brain and Language.

[26]  Uriel Weinreich,et al.  Webster's Third: A Critique of Its Semantics , 1964, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[27]  C. Chiarello,et al.  Initial right hemisphere activation of subordinate word meanings is not due to homotopic callosal inhibition , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  H. Brownell.  Appreciation of Metaphoric and Connotative Word Meaning by Brain-Damaged Patients , 1988 .

[29]  R. Nebes,et al.  Patterns of Hand Preference in a Student Population , 1975, Cortex.

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

[31]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Representation of Polysemous Words , 2001 .

[32]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  Paul Portner,et al.  Syntax, concepts, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

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

[35]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[36]  R. Atchley,et al.  Using event-related potentials to examine hemispheric differences in semantic processing , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[37]  C. Burgess,et al.  Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings , 1988, Brain and Language.

[38]  G. Murphy,et al.  Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses , 2002 .

[39]  Shari R. Baum,et al.  Processing homonymy and polysemy: Effects of sentential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage , 2005, Brain and Language.

[40]  Vanessa Taler,et al.  Comprehension of lexical ambiguity in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment, and mild Alzheimer's disease , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[41]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.