Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1252-1270

  Pexman, Penny M ^a,d   Hino, Yasushi ^b   Lupker, Stephen J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b CHUKYO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

COGNITION; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 7544245276     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1252     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484-504.
2. Balota, D. A., Ferraro, R. F., & Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Balota, D. A., & Paul, S. T. (1996). Summation of activation: Evidence from multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 827-845.
4. Balota, D. A., Paul, S. T., & Spieler, D. H. (1999). Attentional control of lexical processing pathways during word recognition and reading. In S. C. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 15-57). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
5. Besner, D., & Joordens, S. (1995). Wrestling with ambiguity - Further reflections: Reply to Masson and Borowsky (1995) and Rneckl (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 515-519.
6. Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 813-840.
7. Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63-85.
8. Bowers, J. S. (2002). Challenging the widespread assumption that connectionism and distributed representations go hand-in-hand. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 413-445.
9. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257-271.
10. 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). New York: Academic Press.
11. Damasio, H. (2001). Words and concepts in the brain. In J. Branquinho (Ed.), The foundations of cognitive science (pp. 109-120). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Damasio, H., Grabowski, T. J., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R. D., & Damasio, A. (1996). A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380, 499-505.
13. Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain, damage: A computational account Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 77-94.
14. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
18. 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.
19. Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Effects of ambiguity and relatedness of meanings in lexical decision and semantic categorization tasks: Is the speed of semantic coding modulated by the nature of orthographic-to-semantic mappings? Manuscript submitted for publication.
20. Hinton, G. E., & Shallice, T. (1991). Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review, 98, 74-95.
21. Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 278-305.
22. Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 534-537.
23. 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.
24. Joordens, S., Piercey, C. D., & Azerbehi, R. (2003, April). From word recognition to lexical decision: A random walk along the road of harmony. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, Bamberg, Germany.
25. Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T., & Kello, C. T. (1994). When two meanings are better than one: Modeling the ambiguity advantage using a recurrent distributed network. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1233-1247.
26. Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 601-609.
27. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
28. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 548-570.
29. Klinger, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Unconscious priming of association judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 569-581.
30. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
31. Luo, C. R., Johnson, R. A., & Gallo, D. A. (1998). Automatic activation of phonological information in reading: Evidence from the semantic relatedness decision task. Memory & Cognition, 26, 833-843.
32. Lupker, S. J. (1984). Semantic priming without association: A second look. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 709-733.
33. Masson, M. E. J. (1991). A distributed memory model of context effects in word identification. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 233-263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don't. Memory & Cognition, 17, 141-147.
35. National Language Research Institute. (1993). Bunrui Goi Hyou (floppy disk version) [Thesaurus (floppy disk version)]. Tokyo: Shuei Shuppan.
36. Page, M. (2000). Connectionist modeling in psychology: A localist manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 443-512.
37. Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 545-551.
38. Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323-334.
39. Piercey, C. D., & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory & Cognition, 28, 657-666.
40. 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.
41. Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377-500.
42. Pugh, K. R., Rexer, K., & Katz, L. (1994). Evidence of flexible coding in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 807-825.
43. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.
44. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201.
45. 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.
46. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487-494.
47. Rueckl, J. G. (1995). Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution - Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 501-508.
48. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
49. Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337-359.
50. Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (1997). A neural basis for the retrieval of conceptual knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1319-1327.
51. Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (1998). The neural basis of lexical retrieval. In R. W. Parks, D. S. Levine, et al. (Eds.), Fundamentals of neural network modeling: Neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 271-296). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
52. Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244-252.
53. Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75, 195-231.
54. Umesao, T., Kindaichi, H., Sakakura, A., & Hinohara, S. (1995). Nihongo dai-jiten; Dai2-ban [The great Japanese dictionary: second edition]. Tokyo: Kodansha.
55. Van Orden, G. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (1994). The interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1269-1291.
56. Wike, E. L., & Church, J. D. (1976). Comments on dark's "The language-as-fixed-effects fallacy." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 249-255.