The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter?

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 180-196

  Hino, Yasushi ^a   Kusunose, Yuu ^a   Lupker, Stephen J ^b  

^a WASEDA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

A lexical decision task; A number of meaning effect; A relatedness of meaning effect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; CUES; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL LEARNING; VOCABULARY;

EID: 78049286393     PISSN: 11961961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020475     Document Type: Article

References (54)

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., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340-357.
3. Balota, D. A., & Lorch, R. F. (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 336-345.
4. Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
5. Besner, D., & McCann, R. S. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 201-219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63-85.
7. Bowers, J. S., Davis, C. J., & Hanley, D. (2005). Automatic semantic activation of embedded words: Is there a "hat" in "that"? Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 131-143.
8. Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 4, 53-61.
9. Gemsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., Sears, C. R., & Ogawa, T. (1998). The effects of polysemy for Japanese katakana words. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 395-424.
14. 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.
15. Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 278-305.
16. Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 534-537.
17. 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.
18. Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516.
19. Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T., & Kello, C. (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.
20. Kawamoto, A. H., & Zemblidge, J. (1992). Pronunciation of homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 349-374.
21. 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.
22. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
23. 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.
24. Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 1-24.
25. Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends of sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534-1543.
26. Lupker, S. J. (2007). Representation and processing of lexically ambiguous words. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 159-174). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27. McNamara, T. P., & Altarriba, J. (1988). Depth of spreading activation revisited: Semantic mediated priming occurs in lexical decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 545-559.
28. 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.
29. National Language Research Institute. (1970). Denshikeisanki niyoru shinbun no goi-chosa [Studies on the vocabulary of modem newspapers (Vol. 1), General descriptions and vocabulary frequency tables]. Tokyo, Japan: Shuei Shuppan.
30. National Language Research Institute. (1993). Bunrui Goi Hyou: Floppy Disk version [Thesaurus: Floppy Disk version]. Tokyo, Japan: Shuei Shuppan.
31. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Parks, R., Ray, J., & Bland, S. (1998). Wordsmyth English dictionary thesaurus. Retrieved from http://www.wordsmyth.net/
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 765-805.
37. Plaut, D. C., & McClelland, J. L. (1993). Generalization with componential attractors: Word and nonword reading in an attractor network. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 824-829). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. 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.
39. Pylkkanen, L., Stringfellow, A., & Marantz, A. (2002). Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing of lexical activation: An MEG component sensitive to phonotactic probability but not to neighborhood density, Brain and Language, 81, 666-678.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographie entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487-494.
43. Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 645-657.
44. Rueckl, J. G. (1995). Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution. Commentary on Joordens and Besner (1994). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 501508.
45. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 521-568.
46. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 383-404.
47. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., & Owen, W. J. (2007). Multiple meanings are not necessarily a disadvantage in semantic processing: Evidence from homophone effects in semantic categorization. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 453-467.
48. Stone, G. O., & Van Orden, G. C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 144-114.
49. Taft, M. (2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross-language studies (pp. 113-137). Amsterdam, The Netherlands'. Kluwer.
50. Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 745-765.
51. Taft, M., Zhu, X., & Peng, D. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 498-519.
52. Umesao, T., Kindaichi, H., Sakakura, A., & Hinohara, S. (1995). Nihongo dai-jiten: Dai2-ban [The great Japanese dictionary: 2nd ed.]. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha.
53. Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522.
54. Yap, M. J., Tse, C.-S., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Individual differences in the joint effects of semantic priming and word frequency revealed by RT distributional analyses: The role of lexical integrity. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 305-325.