Perceptual representation as a mechanism of lexical ambiguity resolution: An investigation of Span and processing time

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1291-1303

  Madden, Carol J ^a   Zwaan, Rolf A ^b  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Individual differences; Language comprehension; Lexical ambiguity; Perceptual representations; Processing time; Sentences; Span comprehenders

Indexed keywords

APTITUDE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REVIEW; SEMANTICS; SHORT TERM MEMORY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

APTITUDE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33750737051     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1291     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
2. Britton, B. K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 10, 1-7.
3. Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 30-49.
4. Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 687-696.
5. Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable manmade objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478-484.
6. Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon. Memory & Cognition, 2, 130-138.
7. Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 163-184.
8. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Dagerman, K. S., Mac-Donald, M. C., & Harm, M. W. (2006). Aging and the use of context in ambiguity resolution: Complex changes from simple slowing. Cognitive Science, 30, 1-35.
10. Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 498-513.
11. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
12. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422-433.
13. Forster, K. I. (1981). Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical contexts on naming time: Evidence for autonomous lexical processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 33A, 465-495.
14. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181-200.
15. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2003). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136-158.
16. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366-1383.
17. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245-262.
18. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Varner, K. R. (1988). The Multi-Media Comprehension Battery (Tech. Rep. No. 88-03). Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences.
19. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430-445.
20. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.
21. Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, F. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 323-335.
22. Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
23. Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., & Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 62-82.
24. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428.
25. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
26. Hintzman, D. L. (2002). Context matching and judgments of recency. Psychunomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 368-374.
27. Hintzman, D. L., Block, R. A., & Summers, J. J. (1973). Contextual associations and memory for serial position. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 220-229.
28. Kan, I. P., Barsalou, L. W., Solomon, K. O., Minor, J. K., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Role of mental imagery in a property verification task: FMRI evidence for perceptual representations of conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 525-540.
29. Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, B79-B89.
30. Klatzky, R. L., Pellegrino, J. W., McCloskey, B. P., & Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in seman tic sensibility judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 633-642.
31. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal, of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
32. Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205-223.
33. Long, D. L., Seely, M. R., & Oppy, B. J. (1999). The strategic nature of less skilled readers' suppression problems. Discourse Processes, 27, 281-302.
34. Lucas, M. M. (1987). Frequency effect on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence context. Language and Speech, 30, 25-46.
35. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.). The emergence of language (pp. 177-196). Maliwall, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35-54.
38. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
39. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Spreading activation versus compound cue accounts of priming: Mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1155-1172.
40. McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 465-482.
41. McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 29, 10-17.
42. Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 275-291.
43. Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 15, 225-236.
44. Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521-542.
45. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119-124.
46. Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 556-573.
47. Pollatsck, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785-794.
48. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with "the language-as-fixed-cffect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416-426.
49. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1995). Sequential effects in lexical decision: Tests of compound-cue retrieval theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1380-1388.
50. Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27, 767-780.
51. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
52. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime 1.0 [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Software Tools.
53. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfonnance, 2, 243-256.
54. Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569-588.
55. Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
56. Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359-374). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
57. Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2001). Representing properties locally. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 129-169.
58. Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
59. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
60. Tabossi, P. (1988). Effects of context on the immediate interpretation of unambiguous nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 153-162.
61. 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.
62. Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 224-245). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
63. Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic mental representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611-619.
64. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.
65. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1-11.
66. Zwaan, R. A., & Truitt, T. P. (2000). Inhibition of smoking-related information in smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8, 192-197.
67. Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954-958.
68. Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2004). Lateralisation of object-shape information in semantic processing. Cognition, 94, B35-B43.