Abstract
Results from a series of naming experiments demonstrated that major lexical categories of simple sentences can provide sources of constraint on the interpretation of ambiguous words (homonyms). Manipulation of verb (Experiment 1) or subject noun (Experiment 2) specificity produced contexts that were empirically rated as being strongly biased or ambiguous. Priming was demonstrated for target words related to both senses of a homonym following ambiguous sentences, but only contextually appropriate target words were primed following strongly biased dominant or subordinate sentences. Experiment 3 showed an increase in the magnitude of priming when multiple constraints on activation converged. Experiments 4 and 5 eliminated combinatorial intralexical priming as an alternative explanation. Instead, it was demonstrated that each constraint was influential only insofar as it contributed to the overall semantic representation of the sentence. When the multiple sources of constraint were retained but the sentence-level representation was changed (Experiment 4) or eliminated (Experiment 5), the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 and were not replicated. Experiment 6 examined the issue of homonym exposure duration by using an 80-msec stimulus onset asynchrony. The results replicated the previous experiments. The overall evidence indicates that a sentence context can be made strongly and immediately constraining by the inclusion of specific fillers for salient lexical categories. The results are discussed within a constraint-based, context-sensitive model of lexical ambiguity resolution.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Altarriba, J., Kroll, J. F., Sholl, A., &Rayner, K. (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixedlanguage sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times.Memory & Cognition,24, 477–492.
Anderson, J. A. (1976).Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixation in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 461–476.
Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M., &Morris, R. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 791–801.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 429–446.
Fodor, J. A. (1983).Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.),Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Foss, D. J. (1982). A discourse on semantic priming.Cognitive Psychology,14, 590–607.
Foss, D. J., &Speer, S. R. (1991). Global and local context effects in sentence processing. In R. Hoffman & D. Palermo (Eds.),Cognition and the symbolic processes: Vol. III. Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 115–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garnham, A. (1985).Psycholinguistics: Central topics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990).Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P. B., Alford, J. A., Jr., &Holley-Wilcox, P. (1981). Words and contexts. In O. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.),Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 85–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hess, D. J., Foss, J. F., &Carroll, P. (1996). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 62–82.
Hogaboam, T. W., &Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 265–274.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1987).The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., &Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 228–238.
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 474–516.
Kellas, G., Martin, C., Yehling, K., Herman, R., & Vu, H. (1995, November). Contextual strength as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. Poster presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Kellas, G., Paul, S. T., Martin, M., &Simpson, G. B. (1991). Contextual feature activation and meaning access. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 47–71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
MacDonald, M. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 692–715.
MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N., &Seidenberg, M. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
Marslen-Wilson, W., &Tyler, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.),Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 37–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Massaro, D., Taylor, G., Venezky, R., Jastrzembski, J., &Lucas, P. (1980).Letter and word perception: The role of orthographic structure and visual processing in reading. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 227–234.
Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G. (1972, November).Activation of lexical memory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.
Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 92–103.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., &Wheeler, J.W., Jr. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 16–37.
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.
O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1989). The dependence of lexical relatedness effects on syntactic connectedness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 73–87.
O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1991). A perspective on sentence context research. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 73–96). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., &Clark, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 703–717.
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,33, 527–544.
Sanford, A. J., &Garrod, S. C. (1981).Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., &LaCount, K. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 344–354.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., &Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 232–252.
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.
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., &Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 28–39.
Simpson, G. B., &Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context.Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 627–643.
Simpson, G. B., Peterson, R. R., Casteel, M. A., &Burgess, C. (1989). Lexical and sentence context effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 88–97.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112, 1–36.
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.
Taraban, R., &McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 597–632.
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.
Trueswell, J., &Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexicalist approach to syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Van Petten, C., &Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 188–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by Biomedical Research Grant R15045 R05 awarded to G.K. and postdoctoral fellowship support from NIA Grant AG00030 to S.T.P. Experiments 1–4 constituted part of the first author’s master’s thesis, supervised by G.K.
—Accepted by previous associate editor Kathryn T. Spoehr
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vu, H., Kellas, G. & Paul, S.T. Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Mem Cogn 26, 979–1001 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201178
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201178