The Representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence

Most words in natural language are polysemous, that is, they can be used in more than one way. For example, paper can be used to refer to a substance made out of wood pulp or to a daily publication printed on that substance. Although virtually every sentence contains polysemy, there is little agreement as to how polysemy is represented in the mental lexicon. Do different uses of polysemous words involve access to a single representation or do our minds store distinct representations for each different sense? Here we investigated priming between senses with a combination of behavioral and magnetoencephalographic measures in order to test whether different senses of the same word involve identity or mere formal and semantic similarity. Our results show that polysemy effects are clearly distinct from similarity effects bilaterally. In the left hemisphere, sense-relatedness elicited shorter latencies of the M350 source, which has been hypothesized to index lexical activation. Concurrent activity in the right hemisphere, on the other hand, peaked later for sense-related than for unrelated target stimuli, suggesting competition between related senses. The obtained pattern of results supports models in which the representation of polysemy involves both representational identity and difference: Related senses connect to same abstract lexical representation, but are distinctly listed within that representation.

[1]  Stanley A. Rice,et al.  Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions , 1992 .

[2]  W. Marslen-Wilson Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition , 1987, Cognition.

[3]  J. Vroomen,et al.  Metrical segmentation and lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition , 1995 .

[4]  D. Geeraerts Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries , 1993 .

[5]  Riitta Salmelin,et al.  Neural representation of language: activation versus long-range connectivity , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Jason Eisner,et al.  Lexical Semantics , 2020, The Handbook of English Linguistics.

[7]  P. Luce,et al.  When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words , 1998 .

[8]  William Badecker,et al.  Stem Homograph Inhibition and Stem Allomorphy: Representing and Processing Inflected Forms in a Multilevel Lexical System☆☆☆ , 1999 .

[9]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  David Poeppel,et al.  Decomposition of compound words: an MEG measure of early access to constituents , 2003 .

[11]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Neural correlates of the effects of morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study , 2004, Cognition.

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

[13]  Alec Marantz,et al.  The precise time course of lexical activation: MEG measurements of the effects of frequency, probability, and density in lexical decision , 2004, Brain and Language.

[14]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Electrophysiological studies of comprehension deficits in aphasia , 1997 .

[15]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Priming homographic stems , 1989 .

[16]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  ERPs Reflect Lexical Identification in Word Fragment Priming , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  Distinct effects of semantic plausibility and semantic composition in MEG , 2004 .

[18]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  An MEG Study of Silent Meaning , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  L. Pylkkänen,et al.  Neuromagnetic Evidence for the Timing of Lexical Activation: An MEG Component Sensitive to Phonotactic Probability but Not to Neighborhood Density , 2002, Brain and Language.

[20]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[21]  B. Gordon,et al.  Transcortical sensory aphasia: revisited and revised. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[22]  G. Nunberg The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy , 1979 .

[23]  S. Bentin,et al.  Visual word perception and semantic processing: an electrophysiological perspective. , 1987, Israel journal of medical sciences.

[24]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Competition and segmentation in spoken word recognition , 1994, ICSLP.

[25]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: the roles of competition and bias. , 1992, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[26]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Distinct time courses of word and context comprehension in the left temporal cortex. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[27]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Working Memory and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution as Revealed by ERPs: A Difficult Case for Activation Theories , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  P. Luce,et al.  Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition , 2001 .

[29]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[30]  Béatrice de Gelder,et al.  Lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition , 1995, EUROSPEECH.

[31]  Bernadette M. Jansma,et al.  Neural aspects of cohort-size reduction during visual gating , 2007, Brain Research.

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

[33]  R. Salmelin Clinical neurophysiology of language: The MEG approach , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[34]  Jesse A. Harris,et al.  The cost of question concealment: Eye-tracking and MEG evidence , 2008, Brain and Language.

[35]  Sonja A. Kotz,et al.  Event-related Potential Evidence of Form and Meaning Coding during Online Speech Recognition , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  J. Grainger,et al.  Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. , 1991 .

[37]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  N400-like Magnetoencephalography Responses Modulated by Semantic Context, Word Frequency, and Lexical Class in Sentences , 2002, NeuroImage.

[38]  Riitta Salmelin,et al.  Cortical Effects of Shifting Letter Position in Letter Strings of Varying Length , 2003 .

[39]  Paul D. Allopenna,et al.  Tracking the Time Course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models , 1998 .

[40]  A. Lehrer Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon , 1990 .

[41]  Morris Halle,et al.  Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection , 1993 .

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

[43]  H. Neville,et al.  Natural speech processing: An analysis using event-related brain potentials , 1991, Psychobiology.

[44]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Semantic Cortical Activation in Dyslexic Readers , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words , 1980, Biological Psychology.

[46]  Christine Chiarello,et al.  Right hemisphere language comprehension : perspectives from cognitive neuroscience , 1998 .

[47]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[48]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400 , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[49]  Qiang Wei,et al.  Lexical access and selection of contextually appropriate meaning for ambiguous words , 2007, NeuroImage.

[50]  Valerie A. Carr,et al.  Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Modality-Specific and Supramodal Word Processing , 2003, Neuron.

[51]  Tzu-Chen Yeh,et al.  Neural correlates of Chinese word-appropriateness judgment: an MEG study. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[52]  Heikki Lyytinen,et al.  Cortical Activation during Spoken-Word Segmentation in Nonreading-Impaired and Dyslexic Adults , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[53]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. , 1994 .

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

[55]  Alec Marantz,et al.  A neural response sensitive to repetition and phonotactic probability: MEG investigations of lexical access , 2000 .

[56]  Claudia Leacock,et al.  Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches , 2000 .

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

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

[59]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Dynamics of letter string perception in the human occipitotemporal cortex. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[60]  A. Jacobs,et al.  On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: The neighborhood frequency effect , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  L. Pylkkänen,et al.  Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[62]  M Spitzer,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of direct versus indirect semantic priming in normal volunteers. , 1999, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[63]  Mireille Besson,et al.  Visual and auditory event-related potentials elicited by linguistic and non-linguistic incongruities , 1986, Neuroscience Letters.

[64]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Short communication A magnetoencephalographic component whose latency reflects lexical , 2001 .

[65]  G. Zipf The meaning-frequency relationship of words. , 1945, The Journal of general psychology.