Multiple meanings are not necessarily a disadvantage in semantic processing: Evidence from homophone effects in semantic categorisation

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 453-467

  Siakaluk, Paul D ^a   Pexman, Penny M ^b   Sears, Christopher R ^b   Owen, William J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MODEL; NOMENCLATURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 34447287152     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960600834756     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Balota, D. A., Pilotti, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory and Cognition, 29, 639-647.
2. Besner, D., & Joordens, S. (1995). Wrestling with ambiguity - Further reflections: Reply to Masson and Borowsky (1995) and Rueckl (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 515-519.
3. Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63-85.
4. Bowers, J. S. (2002). Challenging the widespread assumption that connectionism and distributed representations go hand-in-hand. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 413- 445.
5. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535 -555). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
6. Coltheart, V., Patterson, K., & Leahy, J. (1994). When a ROWS is a ROSE: Phonological effects in written word comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 917 -955.
7. Forster, K. I. (1999, November). Beyond lexical decision: Lexical access in categorization tasks. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, CA.
8. Gottlob, L. R., Goldinger, S. D., Stone, G. O., & Van Orden, G. C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 561-574.
9. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565.
10. Grainger, J., Van Kang, M. N., & Segui, J. (2001). Cross-modal repetition priming of heterographic homophones. Memory and Cognition 29, 53-61.
11. Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 686-713.
12. Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 247-273.
13. Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). Does word identification proceed from spelling to sound to meaning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 358-394.
14. Joordens, S., & Besner, D. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1051-1062.
15. Kucčera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
16. McClelland, J. L. (1981). Retrieving general and specific information from stored knowledge of specifics. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 170-172.
17. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
18. Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activationverification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573-594.
19. Parks, R., Ray, J., & Bland, S. (1998). Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus. [On-line]. Available: http://www.wordsmyth.net/ [1999, February 1], University of Chicago.
20. Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1252-1270.
21. Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 139-156.
22. Piercey, C. D., & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory and Cognition, 28, 657-666.
23. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103 56-115.
24. Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
25. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487-494.
26. Siakaluk, P. D., Buchanan, L., & Westbury, C. (2003). The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks. Memory and Cognition, 31, 100-113.
27. Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181-198.
28. Van Orden, G. C., Johnston, J. C., & Hale, B. L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 14, 371-386.