The complex interactions of context availability, polysemy, word frequency, and orthographic variables during lexical processing

In this study we examined the interactions of context availability, polysemy, word frequency, and orthographic neighborhood variables during lexical processing. Context availability and polysemy interacted, in that words that were both lower in context availability and had fewer related senses were especially disadvantaged, as was originally reported by Tokowicz and Kroll (2007). Word frequency interacted with both polysemy and context availability, in that the effects of polysemy and context availability were stronger for lower-frequency words. Finally, orthographic neighborhood size and frequency both interacted with polysemy: the effect of polysemy was greater for words with smaller orthographic neighborhoods and a greater number of higher-frequency neighbors. These findings provide support for the context availability hypothesis (Schwanenflugel & Shoben, 1983). Specifically, the feedback activation account (Hino & Lupker, 1996) offers a mechanistic explanation of our findings that is rooted in feedback from semantic to orthographic representations.

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

[2]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

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

[4]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[5]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Subtlex-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[8]  Broadbent De.  Word-frequency effect and response bias. , 1967 .

[9]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  Jacob Cohen.  The Cost of Dichotomization , 1983 .

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

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

[13]  Allan Paivio,et al.  A factor-analytic study of word attributes and verbal learning. , 1968 .

[14]  T. Shallice,et al.  Deep Dyslexia: A Case Study of , 1993 .

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

[16]  F. Ferraro,et al.  Orthographic neighborhood size, number of word meanings, and number of higher frequency neighbors , 2002, Brain and Language.

[17]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.

[18]  A. Paivio.  Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[19]  Jamie Reilly,et al.  Formal Distinctiveness of High- and Low-Imageability Nouns: Analyses and Theoretical Implications , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  D. Samson,et al.  Orthographic neighborhood and concreteness effects in the lexical decision task , 2004, Brain and Language.

[21]  R. Logie,et al.  Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words , 1980 .

[22]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[23]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  Effect of Representational Distance Between Meanings on Recognition of Ambiguous Spoken Words , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  I. Bernstein,et al.  Item Variances and Median Splits: Some Discouraging and Disquieting Findings , 1990 .

[25]  J. Richardson,et al.  Imagery, Concreteness, and Lexical Complexity , 1975 .

[26]  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.

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

[28]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[29]  C. T. James.  The Role of Semantic Information in Lexical Decisions. , 1975 .

[30]  Rudolph W. Schulz,et al.  Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronunciability for 329 nouns , 1966 .

[31]  P. Schwanenflugel,et al.  Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words , 1992, Memory & cognition.

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

[33]  K. Rayner,et al.  Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. , 1998 .

[34]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[35]  Blair C Armstrong,et al.  eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[36]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  A comparison of homonym meaning frequency estimates derived from movie and television subtitles, free association, and explicit ratings , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[37]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical Access and Naming Time. , 1973 .

[38]  S. Cappa,et al.  The neural representation of abstract words: the role of emotion. , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[39]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R, 1st Edition , 2008 .

[40]  A. D. Groot,et al.  Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association , 1989 .

[41]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[43]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[44]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[45]  Natasha Tokowicz,et al.  Quantification and Statistics , 2009 .

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

[47]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[48]  G. Vigliocco,et al.  The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[50]  Natasha Tokowicz,et al.  Are pumpkins better than heaven? An ERP investigation of order effects in the concrete-word advantage , 2009, Brain and Language.

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

[52]  Per B. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models , 2017 .

[53]  Paula J. Schwanenflugel,et al.  Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. , 1989 .

[54]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[55]  Chelsea M. Eddington,et al.  How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: the current state of the literature , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[56]  A. D. Groot,et al.  Disentangling Context Availability and Concreteness in Lexical Decision and W ord Translation , 1998 .

[57]  S. Lupker,et al.  Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[58]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Polysemy Advantage with Abstract But Not Concrete Words , 2014, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

[59]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[60]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness and imagery in sentence meaning. , 1969 .

[61]  A. D. Groot,et al.  Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association , 1998, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[62]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence , 2008 .

[63]  Judith F. Kroll,et al.  Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. , 1986 .

[64]  S. Maxwell,et al.  Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. , 1993 .

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

[66]  Judith F. Kroll,et al.  The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation , 2004, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[67]  E. Shoben,et al.  Differential Context Effects in the Comprehension of Abstract and Concrete Verbal Materials , 1983 .

[68]  Janet G. van Hell,et al.  Disentangling Context Availability and Concreteness in Lexical Decision and Word Translation , 1998 .