The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 236-252

  Vu, Hoang ^a   Kellas, George ^a   Metcalf, Kimberly ^a   Herman, Ruth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; NORMAL HUMAN; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0034049145     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03213803     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. ALTARRIBA, J., KROLL, J., SCHOLL, A., & RAYNER, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Memory & Cognition, 24, 477-492.
2. ALTMANN, G. T. M. (1987). Modularity and interaction in sentence processing. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing (pp. 428-444). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. ALTMANN, G. T. M., & STEEDMAN, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
4. BAINBRIDGE, J. V., LEWANDOWSKY, S., & KIRSNER, K. (1993). Context effects in repetition priming are sense effects. Memory & Cognition, 21, 619-626.
5. BINDER, K. S., & MORRIS, R. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1186-1196.
6. CARPENTER, P. A., MIYAKE, A., & JUST, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 91-120.
7. GRAIN, S., & STEEDMAN, M. J. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320-359). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. DELL, G. S., MCKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1983). The activation of antecedent information during the processing of anaphoric reference in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 121-132.
9. DOPKINS, S., MORRIS, R. K., & RAYNER, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixation in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 461-476.
10. DUFFY, S. A., HENDERSON, J. M., & MORRIS, R. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cognition, 15, 791-801.
11. DUFFY, S. A., MORRIS, R. K., & RAYNER, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 429-446.
12. FODOR, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
13. FORSTER, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. FOSS, D. J. (1982). A discourse on semantic priming. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 590-607.
15. FOSS, D. J., & SPEER, S. R. (1991). Global and local context effects in sentence processing. In R. Hoffman & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Vol. III. Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 115-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. GARROD, S. C., & SANFORD, A. J. (1994). Resolving sentences in a discourse context. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 675-698). San Diego: Academic Press.
17. GREENE, S. B., MCKOON, G., & RATCLIFF, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 266-283.
18. HESS, D. J., FOSS, J. F., & CARROLL, P. (1996). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 62-82.
19. JUST, M. A., & CARPENTER, P. A. (1987). Understanding the referent of a text. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), The psychology of reading and language comprehension (pp. 195-223). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
20. JUST, M. A., CARPENTER, P. A., & WOOLLEY, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
21. KAWAMOTO, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 474-516.
22. KELLAS, G., PAUL, S. T., MARTIN, M., & SIMPSON, G. B. (1991). Contextual feature activation and meaning access. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 47-71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. KINTSCH, W., & MROSS, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 8, 336-344.
24. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
25. MARSLEN-WILSON, W., & TYLER, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.
26. MARSLEN-WILSON, W., & TYLER, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 37-62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. MARTIN, C., VU, H., KELLAS, G., & METCALF, K. (1999). Strength of context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 813-839.
28. MASSARO, D., TAYLOR, G., VENEZKY, R., JASTRZEMBSKI, J., & LUCAS, P. (1980). Letter and word perception: The role of orthographic structure and visual processing in reading. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
29. MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. MCCLELLAND, J. L., ST. JOHN, M., & TARABAN, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach. Language & Cognitive Processes, 4, 287-335.
31. NELSON, D. L., MCEVOY, C. L., WALLING, J. R., & WHEELER, J. W., JR. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 16-37.
32. ONIFER, W., & SWINNEY, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9, 225-236.
33. O'SEAGHDHA, P. G. (1989). The dependence of lexical relatedness effects on syntactic connectedness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 73-87.
34. O'SEAGHDHA, P. G. (1991). A perspective on sentence context research. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 73-96). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
35. PACHT, J. M., & RAYNER, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 251-271.
36. PAUL, S. T., KELLAS, G., MARTIN, M., & CLARK, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 703-717.
37. RAYNER, K., & FRAZIER, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 779-790.
38. RAYNER, K., PACHT, J. M., & DUFFY, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 527-544.
39. RAYNER, K., & WELL, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509.
40. SANFORD, A. J., & GARROD, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.
41. SCHWANENFLUGEL, P. J., & LACOUNT, K. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 344-354.
42. SCHWANENFLUGEL, P. J., & SHOBEN, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory & Language, 24, 232-252.
43. SEIDENBERG, M. S., TANENHAUS, M. K., LEIMAN, J. M., & BIENKOWSKI, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489-537.
44. SHARKEY, A. J. C., & SHARKEY, N. E. (1992). Weak contextual constraints in text and word priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 543-572.
45. SIMPSON, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
46. SIMPSON, G. B., & KELLAS, G. (1989) Dynamic contextual processes and lexical access. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 40-56). New York: Springer-Verlag.
47. SIMPSON, G. B., & KRUEGER, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 627-643.
48. SIMPSON, G. B., PETERSON, R. R., CASTEEL, M. A., & BURGESS, C. (1989). Lexical and sentence context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 88-97.
49. STANOVICH, K. E., & WEST, R. F. (1981). The effect of sentence context on ongoing word recognition: Tests of a two-process theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 658-672.
50. STANOVICH, K. E., & WEST, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 1-36.
51. SWINNEY, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
52. TABOSSI, P. (1988). Effects of context on the immediate interpretation of unambiguous nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 153-162.
53. TABOSSI, P., COLOMBO, L., & JOB, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161-167.
54. TABOSSI, P., & ZARDON, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 359-372.
55. TANENHAUS, M. K., LEIMAN, J. M., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 427-440.
56. TARABAN, R., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 597-632.
57. TILL, R. E., MROSS, E. F., & KINTSCH, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 16, 283-298.
58. TWILLEY, L. C., DIXON, P., TAYLOR, D., & CLARK, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22, 111-126.
59. VAN PETTEN, C., & KUTAS, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 188-208.
60. VAN PETTEN, C., WECKERLY, J., MCISAAC, H. K., & KUTAS, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238-242.
61. VU, H., KELLAS, G., & PAUL, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26, 979-1001.