Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Ambiguity Advantage Revisited: Two Meanings are Better than One When Accessing Chinese Nouns

  • Chien-Jer Charles LinEmail author
  • Kathleen Ahrens
Article

Abstract

This paper revisits the effect of lexical ambiguity in word recognition, which has been controversial as previous research reported advantage, disadvantage, and null effects. We discuss factors that were not consistently treated in previous research (e.g., the level of lexical ambiguity investigated, parts of speech of the experimental stimuli, and the choice of non-words) and report on a lexical decision experiment with Chinese nouns in which ambiguous nouns with homonymic and/or metaphorical meanings were contrasted with unambiguous nouns. An ambiguity advantage effect was obtained—Chinese nouns with multiple meanings were recognized faster than those with only one meaning. The results suggested that both homonymic and metaphorical meanings are psychologically salient semantic levels actively represented in the mental lexicon. The results supported a probability-based model of random lexical access with multiple meanings represented by separate semantic nodes. We further discuss these results in terms of lexical semantic representation and how different experimental paradigms result in different ambiguity effects in lexical access.

Keywords

Ambiguity advantage Homonymy Polysemy Lexical decision Metaphor and metonymy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahrens K. (1998) Lexical ambiguity resolution: Language, tasks and timing. In: Hillert D. (eds) Syntax and semantics, volume 31. Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective.. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 11–31Google Scholar
  2. Ahrens K. et al (1999) The mutability of noun and verb meaning. In: Yin Y. (eds) Chinese languages and linguistics V: Interactions in language. Taipei, Academia Sinica, pp 335–548Google Scholar
  3. Ahrens K. (2006) The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics 7: 677–696Google Scholar
  4. Ahrens K., Chang L., Chen K., Huang C. (1998) Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 3: 45–60Google Scholar
  5. Allan K. (1986) Linguistic meaning: Volume one. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews S. (1989) Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15: 802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrews S. (1992) Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 234–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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: 484–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borowsky R., Masson M.E. (1996) Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 63–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carreiras M., Perea M., Grainger J. (1997) Effects of orthographic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23: 857–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiarello C., Shears C., Lund K. (1999) Imageability and distributional typicality measures of nouns and verbs in contemporary English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 31: 603–637Google Scholar
  12. Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group (CKIP). (1993). Corpus-based frequency count of words in Chinese journals (No. Technical report 93–02). Taipei: Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
  13. Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group (CKIP). (1995). Character frequency of modern Chinese (No. Technical report 95–01). Taipei: Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica. http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/.
  14. Clark H.H. (1973) The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 335–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dell G.S. (1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93: 283–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Deutsch A., Frost R., Forster K. (1998) Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24: 1238–1255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Druks J. (2002) Verbs and nouns—A review of the literature. Journal of Neurolinguistics 15: 289–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durkin K., Manning J. (1989) Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 577–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Forster K.I., Bednall E.S. (1976) Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition 4: 53–61Google Scholar
  20. Forster K.I., Shen D. (1996) No enemies in the neighborhood: Absence of inhibitory neighborhood effects in lexical decision and semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 696–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Frazier L., Rayner K. (1990) Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentner D., France I. (1988) The verb mutability effect: Studies of the combinatorial semantics of nouns and verbs. In: Small S., Cottrell G.W., . Tanenhaus M.K. (eds) Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence. San Mateo, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp 343–382Google Scholar
  23. Gernsbacher M.A. (1984) Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 256–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goddard C. (1998) Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Gwoyeuryhbaw Group (Ed.). (1989). Gwoyeuryhbaw dictionary. Taipei: Gwoyeuryhbaw Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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: 1331–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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: 686–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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: 247–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jastrzembski J.E. (1981) Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology 13: 278–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jastrzembski J.E., Stanners R.F. (1975) Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 534–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson M., Lakoff G. (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Joordens S., Besner D. (1994) When banking on money is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 1051–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kawamoto A.H., Farrar W.T. IV, 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: 1233–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kellas G., Ferraro F.R., Simpson G.B. (1988) Lexical ambiguity and the time-course of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 601–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim M., Thompson C.K. (2000) Patterns of comprehension and production of nouns and verbs in agrammatism: Implications for lexical organization. Brain and Language 74: 1–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein D.E., Murphy G.L. (2001) The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 259–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klein D.E., Murphy G.L. (2002) Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 548–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klepousniotou E. (2002) The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 81: 205–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lakoff G. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind?. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin C.-J.C., Ahrens K. (2005) How many meanings does a word have? Meaning estimation in Chinese and English. In: Minett J.W., Wang W.S.-Y. (eds) Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics. City University of Hong Kong Press, Hong Kong, pp 437–464Google Scholar
  41. Lyons J. (1977) Semantics: Volume I. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Lyons J. (1995) Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Marinellie S.A., Johnson C.J. (2004) Nouns and verbs: A comparison of definitional style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33: 217–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: 375–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Millis M.L., Button S.B. (1989) The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t. Memory and Cognition 17: 141–147Google Scholar
  46. Morton J. (1979) Word recognition. In: Morton J., Marshall J.C. (eds) Psycholinguistics 2: Structure and processes.. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 107–156Google Scholar
  47. Onifer W., Swinney D. (1981) Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition 15: 225–236Google Scholar
  48. Palmer F.R. (1981) Semantics (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. 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: 1252–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piercey C.D., Joordens S. (2000) Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory and Cognition 28: 657–666Google Scholar
  51. Pustejovsky J. (1991) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17: 409–441Google Scholar
  52. Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. (1967). In J. Stein (Ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  53. Rodd J., Gaskell G., Marslen-Wilson W. (2002) Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language 46: 245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rubenstein H., Garfield L., Millikan J.A. (1970) Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9: 487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rubenstein H., Lewis S.S., Rubenstein M.A. (1971) Homographic entries in the internal lexicon: Effects of systematicity and relative frequency of meanings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10: 57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saeed J.I. (1997) Semantics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Sereno J.A., Jongman A. (1997) Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition 25: 425–437Google Scholar
  58. Shapiro K., Caramazza A. (2003) Grammatical processing of nouns and verbs in left frontal cortex. Neuropsychologia 41: 1189–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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: 453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spenney M.J., Haynes W.O. (1989) Semantic and phonological performance in adults learning novel object and action words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Swinney D. (1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 645–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tyler L.K., Bright P., Fletcher P., Stamatakis E.A. (2004) Neural processing of nouns and verbs: The role of inflectional morphology. Neuropsychologia 42: 512–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ullman S. (1957) The principles of semantics. Basil Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Vitevitch M.S. (2002) The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 28: 735–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vitevitch M.S., Stamer M.K. (2006) The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21: 760–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. (1976). Springfield, MA: G&C Merriam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of LinguisticsNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Language CentreHong Kong Baptist UniversityKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations