250 likes | 536 Views
Reading Ambiguous Words. Sara Sereno in collaboration with Paddy O’Donnell. CRICKET = or cf. Why ambiguous words?. Ambiguous words have 1 form and 2 meanings :.
E N D
Reading Ambiguous Words Sara Sereno in collaboration with Paddy O’Donnell
CRICKET = or cf. Why ambiguous words? • Ambiguous words have 1 form and 2 meanings: • Understanding how ambiguous words are processed tells us about how words in general are processed. • Is only the context-relevant meaning selectively accessed, or, are all meanings accessed (regardless of context) with selection occurring at a later, post-lexical integration stage? • The timing of contextual constraint - early or late - has implications for the architecture of language processing...
higher-level semantics syntax meanings word forms letters features lexical human Distributed hierarchical visual processing in the primate
lexical human Distributed hierarchical visual processing in the primate
? + = Measurement • In order to specify when higher-level processes affect lower-level processes, one needs to accurately measure the processes of interest. • In word recognition, perceptual and cognitive events occur on the millisecond scale.
(HF) back (LF) rump The sore on Tam-Tam’s was swollen. But, when is access? • The word frequency effect represents the differential response to commonly used high-frequency (HF) words vs. low-frequency (LF) words that occur much less often: • A word frequency effect [ HF < LF ] is used as a marker or index of successful word recognition or lexical access. • But, what does frequency have to do with ambiguity?
Subordinate: “river” Dominant: “money” BANK
Balanced: Dom ≥ Sub Biased (polarised): Dom >> Sub
EDGE BANK BRIM “money” “edge” M E A N I N G Dom HF “river” “brim” Sub LF F O R M ambiguous unambiguous controls
Control word HFLFamb Context sentenceparagraph EM ambiguity studies Duffy & Rayner (1986) x x Duffy, Morris, & Rayner (1988) x x Rayner & Frazier (1989) x x Sereno, Pacht, & Rayner (1992) x x x Dopkins, Morris, & Rayner (1992) x x Rayner, Pacht, & Duffy (1994) x - switch Sereno (1995) x x Binder & Morris (1995) x - switch Binder & Rayner (1998) x x Binder & Rayner (1999) x x Rayner, Binder, & Duffy (1999) x x Wiley & Rayner (2000) x x Kambe, Rayner, & Duffy (2001) x - switch Binder (2003) x - switch ERP study Sereno, Brewer, & O’Donnell (2003) x x x
Control word HFLFamb Context sentenceparagraph Sereno, O’Donnell, & Rayner EM ambiguity studies Duffy & Rayner (1986) x x Duffy, Morris, & Rayner (1988) x x Rayner & Frazier (1989) x x Sereno, Pacht, & Rayner (1992) x x x Dopkins, Morris, & Rayner (1992) x x Rayner, Pacht, & Duffy (1994) x - switch Sereno (1995) x x Binder & Morris (1995) x - switch Binder & Rayner (1998) x x Binder & Rayner (1999) x x Rayner, Binder, & Duffy (1999) x x Wiley & Rayner (2000) x x Kambe, Rayner, & Duffy (2001) x - switch Binder (2003) x - switch ERP study Sereno, Brewer, & O’Donnell (2003) x x x
The moon cast an eerie light as Sister Margaret hurried up the unlit road. She had heard tales about the vampire. Although she did not believe them, Sister Margaret was still cautious. So when she was out alone at night, she wore her habit and carried a stake.
habit cross shawl Amb HF (form) LF (meaning) The moon cast an eerie light as Sister Margaret hurried up the unlit road. She had heard tales about the vampire. Although she did not believe them, Sister Margaret was still cautious. So when she was out alone at night, she wore her habit and carried a stake.
HF forms fast LF meanings slow Conclusions • Ambiguous words (with prior context supporting the weak, subordinate sense) are simultaneously: • The present data support a top-down account, with early (lexical) selection of the contextually appropriate sense. • A strict bottom-up account, with later (post-lexical selection), predicts increased difficulty (both meanings would need to be integrated at least half of the time). • Future lexical ambiguity studies should use both the word-form (HF) and word-meaning (LF) controls.
Emotion words Arousal Lo Hi peace love + ve Valence bored fire – ve Neutral controls: hotel, farm
naming ~500 ms lexical decision RT ~600 ms categorisation ~800 ms TASK MEASURE TIME RES. GOOD various word tasks electromagnetic imaging: EEG, MEG ms-by-ms fixation duration (as well as location and sequence of EMs) Normal reading ~250 ms Standard word recognition paradigms (± priming, ± masking): various word tasks hemodynamic imaging: fMRI, PET seconds POOR
naming ~500 ms lexical decision RT ~600 ms categorisation ~800 ms TASK MEASURE TIME RES. GOOD various word tasks electromagnetic imaging: EEG,MEG ms-by-ms fixation duration (as well as location and sequence of EMs) Normal reading ~250 ms Standard word recognition paradigms (± priming, ± masking): various word tasks hemodynamic imaging: fMRI, PET seconds POOR