Abstract
Models of lexical ambiguity resolution posit a role for context, but this construct has remained relatively undefined in the literature. The present study isolated two different forms of contextual constraint and examined how these sources of information might differentiate between a selective access and a reordered access model of ambiguity processing. Eye movements were monitored as participants read passages that contained either a balanced or a biased ambiguous word. The sentence containing the ambiguous word was held constant and instantiated either the subordinate meaning (Experiment 1) or the dominant meaning (Experiment 2) through the use of local context. These sentences were embedded in passages in which the topic was consistent, inconsistent, or neutral with respect to the meaning biased by the critical sentence. Experiment 1 provided evidence suggesting that the subordinate meaning of an ambiguous word was not selectively accessed even when sentence and discourse topic information biased that meaning. The data from Experiment 2 provided evidence that even the dominant meaning was not selectively accessed. These contextual sources of information were evaluated in terms of the roles they play in models of lexical ambiguity resolution.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1–11.
Binder K. S., & Rayner, K. (1998). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 271–276.
Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading.Memory & Cognition,25, 653–660.
Burgess, C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Seidenberg, M. (1989). Context and lexical access: Implications of nonword interference for lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 620–632.
Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon.Memory & Cognition,2, 130–138.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 461–476.
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.),On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 429–446.
Francis, W., & Kuÿcera, H. (1982).Word frequency counts of modern English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, R. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 323–335.
Gorfein, D. S., Viviani, J. M., & Leddo, J. (1982). Norms as a tool for the study of homography.Memory & Cognition,10, 503–509.
Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations.Memory & Cognition,29, 363–372.
Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word identification.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 336–349.
Lucas, M. M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts.Language & Speech,30, 25–46.
Morrison, R. E. (1984). Manipulations of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 667–682.
Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 863–883.
Neill, W. T. (1989). Lexical ambiguity and context: An activationsuppression model. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed. ),Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 63–83). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Neill, W. T., Hilliard, D. V., & Cooper, E. (1988). The detection of lexical ambiguity: Evidence for context-sensitive parallel access.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 279–287.
Oden, G. C., & Spira, J. L. (1983). Influence of context on the activation and selection of ambiguous word senses.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35A, 51–64.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias.Memory & Cognition,9, 225–236.
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). The influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 703–717.
Perfetti, C. A., & Goodman, D. (1970). Semantic constraints on the decoding of ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology,86, 420–427.
Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 841–852.
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.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 779–790.
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 & Language,133, 527–544.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989).The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context and visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 243–256.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & White, C. R. (1991). The influence of paragraph information on the processing of upcoming words.Reading Research Quarterly,26, 160–177.
Seidenberg, M. S., 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.
Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 582–595.
Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations.Psychological Science,3, 296–300.
Sharkey, A. J., & Sharkey, N. E. (1992). Weak contextual constraints in text and word priming.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 543–572.
Sharkey, N. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context: The use of scripts in reading.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 253–270.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 120–136.
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.Psychological Bulletin,96, 316–340.
Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359–374). San Diego: Academic Press.
Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context.Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 627–643.
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)considerationf context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 645–659.
Swinney, D. A., & Hakes, D. T. (1976). Effects of prior context upon lexical access during sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 681–689.
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 324–340.
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance.Psychological Research,49, 161–167.
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 359–372.
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 & Verbal Behavior,18, 427–440.
Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context.Memory & Cognition,16, 283–298.
Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs.Memory & Cognition,22, 111–126.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution.Memory & Cognition,28, 236–252.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was part of a doctoral dissertation conducted at the University of South Carolina under the direction of Robin K. Morris and was supported by Grant BNS-9110115 from the National Science Foundation to Robin K. Morris. In addition, preparation of this manuscript was supported by an NIMH postdoctoral fellowship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Binder, K.S. Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition 31, 690–702 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196108
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196108