eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms

Words that are homonyms—that is, for which a single written and spoken form is associated with multiple, unrelated interpretations, such as COMPOUND, which can denote an < enclosure > or a < composite > meaning—are an invaluable class of items for studying word and discourse comprehension. When using homonyms as stimuli, it is critical to control for the relative frequencies of each interpretation, because this variable can drastically alter the empirical effects of homonymy. Currently, the standard method for estimating these frequencies is based on the classification of free associates generated for a homonym, but this approach is both assumption-laden and resource-demanding. Here, we outline an alternative norming methodology based on explicit ratings of the relative meaning frequencies of dictionary definitions. To evaluate this method, we collected and analyzed data in a norming study involving 544 English homonyms, using the eDom norming software that we developed for this purpose. Dictionary definitions were generally sufficient to exhaustively cover word meanings, and the methods converged on stable norms with fewer data and less effort on the part of the experimenter. The predictive validity of the norms was demonstrated in analyses of lexical decision data from the English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459, 2007), and from Armstrong and Plaut (Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2223–2228, 2011). On the basis of these results, our norming method obviates relying on the unsubstantiated assumptions involved in estimating relative meaning frequencies on the basis of classification of free associates. Additional details of the norming procedure, the meaning frequency norms, and the source code, standalone binaries, and user manual for the software are available at http://edom.cnbc.cmu.edu.

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

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

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

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

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

[6]  Marc Brys,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 .

[7]  C. Davis N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[8]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition , 2011, CogSci.

[9]  Shari R. Baum,et al.  Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

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

[11]  Marge M. Coahran,et al.  Frequency of occurrence and concreteness ratings of homograph meanings , 1980 .

[12]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Age of acquisition estimates for 1,208 ambiguous and polysemous words , 2011, Behavior research methods.

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

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

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

[16]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  C. Phillips,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[18]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: when does relatedness matter? , 2010, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[19]  R. Baayen,et al.  Analyzing Reaction Times , 2010 .

[20]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

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

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

[25]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[26]  W. Trammell Neill,et al.  The detection of lexical ambiguity: Evidence for context-sensitive parallel access , 1988 .

[27]  M. Pickering,et al.  Processing ambiguous verbs: evidence from eye movements. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Lexical ambiguity of words used in english text , 1978 .

[29]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

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

[31]  D. Nelson,et al.  The University of South Florida homograph norms , 1980 .

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

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

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

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

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

[37]  Blair C Armstrong,et al.  SOS! An algorithm and software for the stochastic optimization of stimuli , 2012, Behavior research methods.

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

[39]  R. E. Warren,et al.  Definitional dominance distributions for 20 English homographs , 1977 .

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

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

[42]  D. Titone,et al.  Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Handbook of Psycholinguistics , 2011 .

[44]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[45]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Tolerating ambiguity: ambiguous words recruit the left inferior frontal gyrus in absence of a behavioral effect. , 2011, Experimental psychology.

[46]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? , 2006 .

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

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

[49]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words , 1980 .

[50]  Donald H. Kausler,et al.  Word associations to homographs , 1970 .

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

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

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

[54]  John N. Williams Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings , 1992 .

[55]  K. McRae,et al.  Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. , 2008 .

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