Skip to main content
Log in

Semantic and syntactic constraints in resolving homography: a developmental study in Hebrew

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effects of semantic versus syntactic constraints on resolution of Hebrew heterophonic-homographic words were examined at three reading skill levels. Fourth-and sixth-grade students and a group of adults read aloud sentences containing two types of heterophonic-homographs: noun–noun (e.g., BYCH ביצה is read as beitsa ‘egg’ and bitsa ‘swamp’) and noun–verb (e.g., GZR גזר is read as gezer ‘carrot’ and gazar ‘(he) cut’). Dominant and less-dominant alternatives were identified for each homograph and the alternatives were embedded in two sentences biased semantically towards noun–noun homographs and syntactically towards noun–verb homograph. The reading accuracy and correction results clearly showed a greater effect for syntactic context than for semantic context. For noun–noun words, the dominance effect appeared among the three study groups, though accuracy of reading the less-dominant meaning increased with age, indicating greater reliance on context. For noun–verb words, a small difference between the two meanings was found in the younger group only. We concluded that in resolving Hebrew heterophonic-homographic words, syntactic constraints are sufficient for accurate reading while semantic information is less efficient. The results are discussed in the context of other languages and the unique typology of the Hebrew orthography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We CAPITAL LATIN LETTERS in representing unpointed written Hebrew words so as to facilitate understanding in readers who are not familiar with Hebrew (Ravid, 2005).

References

  • Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008147606320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allon, E. (1995). Unvocalized Hebrew writing: The structure of Hebrew words. Be'er Sheva, Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press [in Hebrew].

  • Bar-Haim, R., Sima’an, K., & Winter, Y. (2008). Part-of-speech tagging of modern Hebrew text. Natural Language Engineering, 14(2), 223–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-On, A. (2010). The role of linguistic knowledge in learning to read the unpointed Hebrew (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel [in Hebrew].

  • Bar-On A. (2011). Developmental model of reading the unpointed Hebrew. DASH: The Israeli Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing, 30, 1–24 [in Hebrew].

  • Bar-On, A. (2015). Reading in the shadow of homography: The problem is the solution. Oriyanut VeSafa, 5, 99–120. [in Hebrew].

  • Bar-On, A., Dattner, E., & Braun-Peretz, O. (2019). Resolving homography: The role of post-homograph context in reading aloud ambiguous sentences in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(6), 1405–1420. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716419000316.

  • Bar-On, A., Dattner, E., & Ravid, D. (2017). Context effect on resolving heterophonic-homography in learning to read Hebrew. Reading and writing, 30, 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9685-1

  • Bar-On, A., & Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological analysis in learning to read pseudowords in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 553–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641100021X.

  • Bitan, T., Kaftori, A., Meiri-Leib, A., Eviatar, Z., & Peleg, O. (2017). Phonological ambiguity modulates resolution of semantic ambiguity during reading: An fMRI study of Hebrew. Neuropsychology, 31(7), 759–777. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/neu0000357

  • Booth, J. R., Harasaki, Y., & Burman, D. D. (2006). Development of lexical and sentence level context effects for dominant and subordinate word meanings of homonyms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9028-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brothers, T., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading: Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1894–1906. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, P. A., & Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90357-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. H., & Tsai, J. L. (2015). The influence of syntactic category and semantic constraints on lexical ambiguity resolution: An eye movement study of processing Chinese homographs. Language and Linguistics, 16(4), 555–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X15583239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Decade of behavior. On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity, (pp. 27–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-002.

  • Evanhaim, N. (2018). Syntactic and phonological influences on semantic ambiguity resolution: Evidence from reading homographs in Hebrew. (Unpublished master's thesis), Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel [in Hebrew].

  • Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123, 2552–2566. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.12.2552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005290706460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Multiple lexical codes in reading: Evidence from eye movements, naming time, and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1412–1429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.6.1412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2000). Phonology is used to access word meaning during silent reading: evidence from lexical ambiguity resolution. In: A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, J. Pynte (eds.). Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 427–446). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50020-6.

  • Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 291–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R., & Plaut, D. (2005). The word-frequency database for printed Hebrew. Retrieved from http://word-freq.mscc.huji.ac.il/

  • Gentner, D. (1981). Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation. Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 56–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. Language, 2, 301–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. (2006). The interaction of top–down and bottom–up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 363–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Concerning the automaticity of syntactic processing. Psychophysiology, 36, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004857729997155X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P. (2003). The interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903322370807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00127-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80070-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. C., Folk, J. R., & Brusnighan, S. M. (2012). Resolving syntactic category ambiguity: An eye-movement analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 672–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.679925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, M. M., & Boland, J. (2010). Children’s use of language context in lexical ambiguity resolution. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(1), 160–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902866664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69(3), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(88)90131-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2015). The eye-voice span during reading aloud. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, B. L., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2006). To mind the mind: An event-related potential study of word class and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research, 1081(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects of ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). Ambiguity’s aftermath: How age differences in resolving lexical ambiguity affect subsequent comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinengera, M., & Rayner, K. (2013). Eye movements while reading biased homographs: Effects of prior encounter and biasing context on reducing the subordinate bias effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.806513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(5), 692–715. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, S. (2021). Morpho-Syntactic features of Hebrew heterophonic-homographic words. (Unpublished master's thesis), Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel [in Hebrew].

  • Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(4), 813–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2008). Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual constraints: Evidence from ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 105(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.004.

  • Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Semantic asymmetries are modulated by phonological asymmetries: Evidence from the disambiguation of heterophonic versus homophonic homographs. Brain and Cognition, 70, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.007.

  • Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2012). Understanding written words: Phonological, lexical and contextual effects in the two cerebral hemispheres. In M. Faust (Ed.), The Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language: Volume 1. Advances in the neural substrates of language. (pp. 59–76). Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Peleg, O. & Eviatar, Z. (2017). Controlled Semantic Processes within and between the Two Cerebral Hemispheres, Laterality: Asymmetries of Body. Brain and Cognition, 22, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2015.1092547.

  • Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678894

  • Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2004). Contextual strength: The whens and hows of context effects. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental Pragmatics (pp. 172–186). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Peleg, O., Markus, A., & Eviatar, Z. (2012). Hemispheric asymmetries in meaning selection: Evidence from the disambiguation of homophonic vs. heterophonic homographs. Brain and cognition, 80(3), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.08.005

  • Perfetti, C. A, & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical bases of comprehension skill. In D. Gorfien (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-004.

  • Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravid, D. (2005). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339–363). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15(5), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Language, 33, 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. A., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shani, M., Laxman, D., Shalem, S., Bahat, A., & Zieger, T. (2006). א' עד ת': המדריך. [Alef to Taf: Manual]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Mofet Institute.

  • Share, D. L., & Bar-On, A. (2018). Learning to read a Semitic abjad: The triplex model of Hebrew reading development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(5), 444–453.‏ https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417718198.

  • Shimron, J., & Sivan, T. (1994). Reading proficiency and orthography: Evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01447.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrem, K. (2021). Frequency characteristics of heterophonic-homographic Hebrew words. (Unpublished master's thesis), Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel [in Hebrew].

  • Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90356-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., Nathan, R. G., West, R. F., & Valarossi, M. (1985). Children‟s word recognition in context: Spreading activation, expectancy, and modularity. Child Development, 56, 1418–1428. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stites, M. C., Federmeier, K. D., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2013). Cross-age comparisons reveal multiple strategies for lexical ambiguity resolution during natural reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1823–1841. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stites, M. C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2015). Subsequent to suppression: Downstream comprehension consequences of noun/verb ambiguity in natural reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1497–1515. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90058-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabossi, P., & Sbisà, S. (2001). Methodological issues in the study of lexical ambiguity resolution. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Decade of behavior. On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 11–26). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-001.

  • 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 and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90237-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 638–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 979–1001. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. F., Stanovich, K. E., Feeman, D. J., & Cunningham, A. E. (1983). The effect of sentence context on word recognition in second-and sixth-grade children. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/747333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amalia Bar-On.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bar-On, A., Oron, T. & Peleg, O. Semantic and syntactic constraints in resolving homography: a developmental study in Hebrew. Read Writ 34, 2103–2126 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10129-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10129-6

Keywords

Navigation