Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access

There have been several reports in the literature of faster visual lexical decisions to words that are semantically ambiguous. All current models of this ambiguity advantage assume that it is the presence of multiple unrelated meanings that produce this benefit. A set of three lexical decision experiments reported here challenge this assumption. We contrast the ambiguity seen in words like bark, which have multiple unrelated meanings, with words that have multiple related word senses (e.g., twist). In all three experiments we find that while multiple word senses do produce faster responses, ambiguity between multiple meanings delays recognition. These results suggest that, while competition between the multiple meanings of ambiguous words delays their recognition, the rich semantic representations associated with words with many senses facilitate their recognition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8]  Randolph G. Bias,et al.  Phonological recoding and reading. , 1981 .

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

[10]  G. Bower,et al.  Comparisons of models of associative recall , 1981, Memory & cognition.

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

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

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

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

[15]  P. Zwitserlood.  The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing , 1989, Cognition.

[16]  C.M.E. Zwitserlood,et al.  Words and sentences: the effects of sentential-semantic context on spoken-word processing , 1989 .

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

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

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

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

[21]  R. Ratcliff.  Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

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

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

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

[25]  Tamiko Azuma,et al.  Familiarity and relatedness of word meanings: Ratings for 110 homographs , 1996 .

[26]  J. E.,et al.  Semantic Ambiguity Effects in Word Identification , 1996 .

[27]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[28]  Helen Moss,et al.  Birkbeck Word Association Norms , 1996 .

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

[30]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Structure and Function in the Lexical System: Insights from Distributed Models of Word Reading and Lexical Decision , 1997 .

[31]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Integrating Form and Meaning: A Distributed Model of Speech Perception. , 1997 .

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

[33]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition , 1998 .

[34]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and visual word recognition: can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? , 1999, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[36]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

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