Skip to main content
Log in

Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Subjective perceptions of the senses of polysemous English words are collected in questionnaire studies and the effects of variability in semantic distances among these senses are examined in an experiment. In the first of two questionnaire studies, native speakers produce meanings for 175 polysemous words; from their responses, the most frequently produced meaning for each word is identified as its dominant sense. In a second questionnaire, independent subjects rate the semantic relatedness between the dominant meaning and the other senses generated for each word in the first study. Relatedness measures vary, raising the possibility that polysemous words vary in terms of the salience of their different senses in different contexts. This is confirmed in an experiment showing that salience ratings are influenced by the interacting factors of sentential context, extent of relatedness of the senses, and the dominance status of the senses.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Breal, M. (1896).Essay de semantique [English translation (1900/1964)].Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B.K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text.Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, H.S., & Kamerman, J. (1975). Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 170–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. In C. Rameh (Ed.),Georgetown University roundtable on language and linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ci, J. (1987). Synonymy and polysemy.Lingua, 72, 315–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G.B. (1984). The meaning of Dutch prepositions: A psycholinguistic study of polysemy.Linguistics, 22, 51–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (1970). A study of homographs. In L. Postman & K. Keppel (eds.),Norms of word association (pp. 361–382). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deane, P.D. (1988). Polysemy and cognition.Lingua, 75, 325–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkin, K., Crowther, R.D., & Shire, B. (1986). Children's processing of polysemous vocabulary in school. In K. Durkin (Ed.),Language development in the school years (pp. 77–94). London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, D.J. (1970). Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 699–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilhooly, K.J., & Logie, R.H. (1980). Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words.Behavior Research Methods and Implementation, 12, 428–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Cognition, 12, 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorfein, D.S., Viviani, J.M., & Leddo, J. (1982). Norms as a tool for the study of homography.Memory and Cognition, 10, 503–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grober, E. (1976).Polysemy: Its implications for a psychological model of meaning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.

  • Kausler, D.H., & Kollasch, S.F. (1970). Word associations to homographs.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 444–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (1974).Samantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, M.M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts.Language and Speech, 30, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. (1977).Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. (1981).Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D.L., McEvoy, C.L., Walling, J.R., & Wheeler, J.W. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms.Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 16–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, C.A., & Cartwright, D.S. (1984). The University of Colorado meaning norms.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 16, 355–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onifer, W., & Swinney, D.A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension. Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias.Memory and Cognition, 9, 225–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panman, O. (1982). Homonymy and polysemy.Lingua, 58, 105–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, L.M. (1988). Semantic flexibility and core meaning.Journal of Psycholiguistic Research, 17, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schvaneveldt, R.W., Meyer, D.E., & Becker, C.A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context and visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G.B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G.B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G.B., & Foster, R.M. (1986). Lexical ambiguity and children's word recognition.Developmental Psychology, 22, 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 427–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, S. (1962).Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollen, K.A., Cox, S.D., Coahran, M.M., Shea, D.S., & Kirby, R.F. (1980). Frequency of occurrence and concreteness ratings of homograph meanings.Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zgusta, L. (1971).Manual of lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was supported by a grant from the Special Research Fund, University of Western Australia, to Kevin Durkin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Durkin, K., Manning, J. Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. J Psycholinguist Res 18, 577–612 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067161

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067161

Keywords

Navigation