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.
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.
Britton, B.K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text.Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 1–7.
Cairns, H.S., & Kamerman, J. (1975). Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 170–179.
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.
Ci, J. (1987). Synonymy and polysemy.Lingua, 72, 315–331.
Colombo, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G.B. (1984). The meaning of Dutch prepositions: A psycholinguistic study of polysemy.Linguistics, 22, 51–98.
Cramer, P. (1970). A study of homographs. In L. Postman & K. Keppel (eds.),Norms of word association (pp. 361–382). New York: Academic Press.
Deane, P.D. (1988). Polysemy and cognition.Lingua, 75, 325–361.
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.
Foss, D.J. (1970). Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 699–706.
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.
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.
Gorfein, D.S., Viviani, J.M., & Leddo, J. (1982). Norms as a tool for the study of homography.Memory and Cognition, 10, 503–509.
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.
Leech, G. (1974).Samantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lucas, M.M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts.Language and Speech, 30, 25–46.
Lyons, J. (1977).Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1981).Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.
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.
Nickerson, C.A., & Cartwright, D.S. (1984). The University of Colorado meaning norms.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 16, 355–382.
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.
Panman, O. (1982). Homonymy and polysemy.Lingua, 58, 105–136.
Schoen, L.M. (1988). Semantic flexibility and core meaning.Journal of Psycholiguistic Research, 17, 113–123.
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.
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.
Simpson, G.B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316–340.
Simpson, G.B., & Foster, R.M. (1986). Lexical ambiguity and children's word recognition.Developmental Psychology, 22, 147–154.
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.
Ullmann, S. (1962).Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Zgusta, L. (1971).Manual of lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a grant from the Special Research Fund, University of Western Australia, to Kevin Durkin.
Rights 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
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067161