Abstract
The effect of semantic neighborhood on the processing of ambiguous words was examined in two lexical decision experiments. Semantic neighborhood was defined in terms of semantic set size and network connectivity. In Experiment 1, the variables of semantic set size, network connectivity, and ambiguity were crossed. An ambiguity advantage was observed only within small-set low-connectivity words. In Experiment 2, the effect of network connectivity on the processing of words of high and low meaning relatedness was examined. Participants responded more rapidly to words of high meaning relatedness, relative to words of low meaning relatedness, but only within high-connectivity words. These results are interpreted within a framework in which both semantic feedback processes and meaninglevel competition can affect the recognition of semantically ambiguous words.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atchley, R. A., Burgess, C., &Keeney, M. (1999). The effect of time course and context on the facilitation of semantic features in the cerebral hemispheres.Neuropsychology,13, 389–403.
Azuma, T., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meaning affects lexical decision times.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 484–504.
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., &Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borowsky, R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 63–85.
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., &Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 531–544.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 261–262.
Forster, K. I., &Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access.Memory & Cognition,4, 53–61.
Gee, N. R. (1997). Implicit memory and word ambiguity.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 253–275.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 256–281.
Gottlob, L. R., Goldinger, S. D., Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 561–574.
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 & Performance,22, 1331–1356.
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., &Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 686–713.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon.Cognitive Psychology,13, 278–305.
Joordens, S., &Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1083–1105.
Joordens, S., &Besner, D. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1051–1062.
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 474–516.
Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T., &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 & Performance,20, 1233–1247.
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., &Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 601–609.
Kucçera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 618–630.
Massaro, D. W., Taylor, G. A., Venezky, R. L., Jastrzembski, J. E., &Lucas, P. A. (1980).Letter and word perception: The role of orthographic structure and visual processing in reading. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Masson, M. E. J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 3–23.
Masson, M. E. J., &Borowsky, R. (1995). Unsettling questions about semantic ambiguity in connectionist models: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 509–514.
McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Pt. 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.
McRae, K., De Sa, V. R., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 99–130.
Metcalf, K., Kellas, G., & Vu, H. (1999, November).Limits of contextual constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Millis, M. L., &Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t.Memory & Cognition,17, 141–147.
Nelson, D. L., Bennett, D. J., Gee, N. R., &Schreiber, T. A. (1993). Implicit memory: Effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 747–764.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1999).The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms [On-line document]. Available at http://www.usf.edu/Free Association.
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.
Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 545–551.
Pexman, P. M., &Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 323–334.
Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., &Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 542–549.
Piercey, C. D., &Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks.Memory & Cognition,28, 657–666.
Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 765–805.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., &Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 416–426.
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.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., &Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 245–266.
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., &Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 487–494.
Rueckl, J. G. (1995). Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution—commentary on Joordens and Besner (1994).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 501–508.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.
Schreiber, T. A., & Carter, K. (in press). The activation of preexisting associations in an episodic memory task.Memory.
Simpson, G. B., &Adamopoulos, A. (2001). Repeated homographs in word and sentence contexts: Multiple processing of multiple meanings. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.),On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 105–117). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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.
Strain, E., Patterson, K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1140–1154.
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 Orden, G. C., &Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains the perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1269–1291.
Yates, M. C., Locker, L., & Simpson, G. B. (2001, November).Investigating the interaction of semantics and phonology in visual word recognition. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Locker, L., Simpson, G.B. & Yates, M. Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words. Memory & Cognition 31, 505–515 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196092
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196092