Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity

Two experiments investigated whether lexical complexity increases a word’s processing time. Subjects read sentences, each containing a target word, while their eye movements were monitored. In experiment 1, mean fixation time on infrequent words was longer than on their more frequent controls, as was the first fixation after the Infrequent Target. Fixation Times on Causative, factive, and negative verbs and ambiguous nouns were no longer than on their controls. Further analyses on the ambiguous nouns, however, suggested that the likelihood of their various meanings affected fixation time. This factor was investigated in experiment 2. subjects spent a longer time fixating ambiguous words with two equally likely meanings than fixating ambiguous words with one highly likely meaning. The results suggest that verb complexity does not affect lexical access time, and that word frequency And the presence of two highly likely meanings may affect lexical access and/or postaccess integration.

[1]  E. H. Hutten,et al.  SEMANTICS , 1953, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[2]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations. , 1965 .

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

[4]  Karl Erich Heidolph,et al.  Progress in linguistics : a collection of papers , 1970 .

[5]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. , 1971 .

[6]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Some observations on factivity , 1971 .

[7]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding , 1972 .

[8]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  On the process of comparing sentences against pictures , 1972 .

[9]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Drawing inferences from the presuppositions and implications of affirmative and negative sentences , 1973 .

[10]  Mark A. Sherman,et al.  Bound to be easier? The negative prefix and sentence comprehension , 1973 .

[11]  Carol Conrad,et al.  Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[12]  W. Kintsch,et al.  The representation of meaning in memory , 1974 .

[13]  Eugene Winograd,et al.  Norms of semantic encoding variability for fifty homographs , 1974 .

[14]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension , 1975 .

[15]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. , 1975 .

[16]  K. Rayner.  The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Mark A. Sherman,et al.  Adjectival Negation and the Comprehension of Multiply Negated Sentences. , 1976 .

[19]  K. Rayner.  Visual attention in reading: Eye movements reflect cognitive processes , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[20]  H. H. Clark.  Psychology and language , 1977 .

[21]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Jean E. Newman,et al.  The phonological nature of phoneme monitoring: A critique of some ambiguity studies , 1978 .

[24]  J. Yates,et al.  Priming dominant and unusual senses of ambiguous words , 1978 .

[25]  J. Mehler,et al.  Tails of Words: Monitoring Ambiguity , 1978 .

[26]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Evidence for Multiple Stages in the Processing of Ambiguous Words in Syntactic Contexts. , 1979 .

[27]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[28]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[29]  J. A. Fodor,et al.  Against definitions , 1980, Cognition.

[30]  D. Swinney,et al.  Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias , 1981 .

[31]  V. M. Holmes,et al.  Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. , 1981 .

[32]  Janet D. Fodor,et al.  12. The Psychological Unreality of Semantic Representations , 1981 .

[33]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading , 1981 .

[34]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations , 1981 .

[35]  G. Simpson.  Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity , 1981 .

[36]  D. Gorfein,et al.  Norms as a tool for the study of homography , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[37]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  B. J. Davidson,et al.  Regression analyses as a tool for studying reading processes: Comment on Just and Carpenters eye fixation theory , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Lexical complexity and sentence processing , 1983 .

[41]  K. Rayner,et al.  Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: eye movements and immediacy of processing , 1983 .

[42]  J. H. Bertera,et al.  Latency of sequential eye movements: implications for reading. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences , 1983 .

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

[45]  G. Simpson.  Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  D. Balota,et al.  Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  Albrecht W. Inhoff,et al.  Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose , 1984 .

[48]  D. Zola.  Redundancy and word perception during reading , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  D. Balota,et al.  The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[50]  D. Balota,et al.  The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production? ☆ , 1985 .

[51]  A W Inhoff,et al.  The effect of factivity on lexical retrieval and postlexical processes during eye fixations in reading , 1985, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[52]  K. Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.