SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY EFFECTS IN WORD IDENTIFICATION

The influence of semantic ambiguity on word identification processes was explored in a series of word naming and lexical-decision experiments. There was no reliable ambiguity effect in 2 naming experiments, although an ambiguity advantage in lexical decision was obtained when orthographically legal nonwords were used. No ambiguity effect was found in iexical decision when orthographically illegal nonwords were used, implying a semantic locus for the ambiguity advantage. These results were simulated by using a distributed memory model that also produces the ambiguity disadvantage in gaze duration that has been obtained with a reading comprehension task. Ambiguity effects in the model arise from the model's attempt to activate multiple meanings of an ambiguous word in response to presentation of that word's orthographic pattern. Reasons for discrepancies in empirical results and implications for distributed memory models are considered. Any comprehensive theory of mental representation and process must accommodate the complex means by which concepts are communicated through language. Through the course of history, humans have developed tools of communication that facilitate the relaying of ideas and concepts, such as a writing system or orthography. This mapping of concepts to orthography is not entirely one to one, however, resulting in some words that correspond to multiple concepts, which are known as semantically ambiguous words. When reading text, the context provided by preceding words and sentences provides a means of disambiguating such words. As a result, we may not even notice the ambiguity in words that we are reading in context. If, on the other hand, semantically ambiguous words are presented in isolation, their alternative meanings are readily accessible, and thus their ambiguous nature is noticed. In the research reported in this article, we compare performance on semantically ambiguous words with that of semantically unambiguous words in isolated word identification tasks and describe simulations of the empirical effects within the framework of a distributed memory architecture (Masson, 1995). The effect of semantic ambiguity on isolated word identification has usually been determined by comparing performance on unambiguous words (which are associated with only one

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

[2]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and Performance VI , 1978 .

[3]  Derek Besner,et al.  Basic decoding components in reading: Two dissociable feature extraction processes. , 1983 .

[4]  C. Perfetti,et al.  Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming , 1991 .

[5]  Michael C. Doyle,et al.  Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: where are they? , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Lesioning an attractor network: investigations of acquired dyslexia , 1991 .

[8]  Derek Besner,et al.  When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. , 1994 .

[9]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

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

[11]  D. Besner,et al.  Visual word recognition: a multistage activation model. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[13]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  M. Masson.  A distributed memory model of semantic priming. , 1995 .

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

[16]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[17]  D. Besner,et al.  Priming effects that span an intervening unrelated word: implications for models of memory representation and retrieval. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Sally Andrews,et al.  Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? , 1992 .

[19]  J. Grainger.  Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. , 1990 .

[20]  James C. Johnston,et al.  Reading and the mental lexicon: on the uptake of visual information , 1989 .

[21]  F. Richard Ferraro,et al.  Normative data for number of word meanings , 1990 .

[22]  J. Rueckl,et al.  When pseudowords acquire meaning: Effect of semantic associations on pseudoword repetition priming. , 1993 .

[23]  M. Turvey,et al.  Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  S. Andrews.  Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? , 1989 .

[25]  D. Massaro.  Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance , 1988 .

[26]  Bruce F. Pennington,et al.  Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. , 1990, Psychological review.

[27]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[28]  A. H. Kawamoto.  Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. , 1993 .

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

[30]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Long-Term Memory Search: An Intersecting Activation Process. , 1976 .

[31]  John R. Anderson.  Language, Memory, and Thought , 1976 .

[32]  Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders,et al.  The effects of graphemic, phonetic, and semantic relationships on access to lexical structures , 1978 .

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

[34]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Basic processes in reading : visual word recognition , 1993 .

[35]  D. Meyer,et al.  Attention and Performance XIV , 1973 .

[36]  M. Humphreys,et al.  Delayed Priming of the Pronunciation of Inconsistent Words and Pseudowords , 1993 .

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

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

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

[40]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Lexical Representation and Process , 1991 .

[41]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[42]  D. O. Hebb,et al.  The organization of behavior , 1988 .

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

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

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

[46]  G. C. Orden,et al.  Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  Jay G. Rueckl,et al.  Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994). , 1995 .

[48]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Automatic (prelexical) phonetic activation in silent word reading: Evidence from backward masking*1 , 1988 .

[49]  B. Abbott,et al.  The Psychology of Word Meanings. , 1992 .

[50]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[51]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  Unsettling Questions About Semantic Ambiguity in Connectionist Models: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994) , 1995 .

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

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

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

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