Abstract
Most research supports a non-selective (or exhaustive) account of activation whereby multiple meanings of a word are initially activated (Degani and Tokowicz Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1266-1303, 2010). But what happens to the non-selected meaning of an ambiguous word (e.g., bark) and how is the decision made to select one meaning over the other? A great deal of research by Gernsbacher and colleagues (e.g., Gernsbacher and Faust 1991a) suggests that the non-selected meaning is “discarded” via active suppression. The present paper examines meaning-selection in ambiguous words using a word to elicit meaning context (rather than a sentence). Additionally, a manipulation of cognitive load (Experiment 2) was employed to examine these processes. Results support a suppression account of meaning selection. An updated conceptualization of ambiguity resolution is proposed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We re-ran all of our analyses using linear mixed-effects models with crossed participant and item random effects (Baayen, Davidson, and Bates 2008). All effects reported significant in the current study were also significant in these mixed-effects models, with the exception of the three-way interaction in Experiment 2 (which became marginal, p = .073).
We performed all 6 possible pairwise comparisons (3 for the load condition and 3 for the no load condition).
We conducted a third experiment manipulating perceptual focus (presenting the context-biasing word during the judgment task in uppercase letters). We intended to examine the effects of deeper processing on ambiguity resolution, but results seemed to indicate that our manipulation of focus was unsuccessful. However, the same pattern was observed as in Experiment 1 with priming for the congruent and incongruent conditions and significantly different levels of activation in these conditions.
References
Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(4), 439–461. doi:10.3758/BF03214334.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Short-term memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic.
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The english lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. doi:10.3758/BF03193014.
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 658–672. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(87)90108-2.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.
Burgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language, 33(1), 86–103. doi:10.1016/0093-934x(88)90056-9.
Burton, M. W., Krebs-Noble, D., Gullapalli, R. P., & Berndt, R. S. (2009). Functional neuroimaging of grammatical class: ambiguous and unambiguous nouns and verbs. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26(2), 148–171. doi:10.1080/02643290802536090.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Conklin, K. (2005). Bilingual Access to Interlingual Homographs: Examination of Effects of Sentential Context, Word Frequency, and Proficiency. (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation), State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.
de Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A(2), 397–428. doi:10.1080/027249800390547.
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Semantic ambiguity within and across language: an integrative review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(7), 1266–1303. doi:10.1080/17470210903377372.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429–446. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(88)90066-6.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160.
Engle, R. W., Nations, J. K., & Cantor, J. (1990). Is “working memory” just another name for word knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 799–804. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.82.4.799.
Frost, R., & Bentin, S. (1992). Processing phonological and semantic ambiguity: evidence from semantic priming at different SOAs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 58–68. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.1.58.
Gadsby, N., Arnott, W. L., & Copland, D. A. (2008). An investigation of working memory influences on lexical ambiguity resolution. Neuropsychology, 22(2), 209–216. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.22.2.209.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving twenty years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.113.2.256.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4(5), 294–298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00567.x.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1995). The mechanisms of suppression and enhancement in comprehension. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 36(1), 49–50. doi:10.1037/h0084720.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996). The structure-building framework: What it is, what it might also be, and why. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 289–313). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 265–304. doi:10.1080/01638539709544994.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (2002). Learning to suppress competing information: Do the skills transfer? ARI Research Note 2002–01. Research and Advanced Concepts Office: U.S. Army Research Institution for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991a). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 97–128). North Holland: Elsevier.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991b). The mechanism of suppression: a component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(2), 245–262. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.2.245.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1995). Skilled suppression. In M. A. Dempster & C. N. Brainerd (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 295–327). San Diego: Academic.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1995). Reading skill and suppression revisited. Psychological Science, 6(3), 165–169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00326.x.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Shlesinger, M. (1997). The proposed role of suppression in simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting, 2(1/2), 119–140. doi:10.1075/intp.2.1-2.05ger.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & St. John, M. F. (2002). On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Modeling suppression in lexical access (pp. 47–67). Washington: Americal Psychological Association.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433–450. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2782.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2002). The costs and benefits of meaning. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 119–137). Washington: APA Publications.
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(3), 323–335. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.323.
Gorfein, D. S. (2001). An activation-selection view of homograph disambiguation: A matter of emphasis? In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity, decade of behavior (pp. 157–173). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Gorfein, D. S., Brown, V. R., & DeBiasi, C. (2007). The activation-selection model of meaning: explaining why the son comes out after the sun. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 1986–2000. doi:10.3758/BF03192931.
Grainger, J., Muneaux, M., Farioli, F., & Ziegler, J. C. (2005). Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density interact in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A(6), 981–998. doi:10.1080/02724980443000386.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.
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 and Performance, 14(4), 601–609.
Kennette, L. N., Wurm, L. H., & Van Havermaet, L. R. (2010). Change detection the effects of linguistic focus, hierarchical word level and proficiency. The Mental Lexicon, 5(1), 47–86. doi:10.1075/ml.5.1.03ken.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: an advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001.
Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(4), 263–269. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1970.tb00727.x.
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 465–482. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.465.
Meyer, P. G. (2005). Synchronic english linguistics: An introduction (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Gunter Naar.
Nairne, J. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: Evolutionary constraints on remembering. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 1–32). Burlington: Academic.
Nievas, F., & Marí-Beffa, P. (2002). Negative priming from the non-selected meaning of the homograph. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1), 47–66. doi:10.1348/000712602162445.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225–236. doi:10.3758/BF03196957.
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 703–717.
Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). London: Oxford University Press.
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(3), 191–201. doi:10.3758/BF03197692.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779–790. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.779.
Rayner, K., & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Eye movement sin reading: Psycholinguistic studies. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2810.
Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Alban, J., Ellis, A. W., & Brown, G. D. A. (1994). Effects of word frequency and age of acquisition on short-term memory span. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 695–701. doi:10.3758/BF03209254.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 120–136. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90356-X.
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28–39. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28.
Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (1994). Inhibitory processes in the recognition of homograph meanings. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp. 359–382). San Diego: Academic.
Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627–643. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90029-J.
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J. (2006). The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 598–605. doi:10.3758/BF03193891.
Tengi, R. I. (1998). Design and implementation of the WordNet lexical database and searching software. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), WordNet: an electronic lexical database (pp. 105–128). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 111–126. doi:10.3758/BF03202766.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 485–505. doi:10.3758/BF03192720.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236–252.
Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word–nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17(2), 143–154. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90110-x.
Wurm, L. H. (2007). Danger and usefulness: an alternative framework for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1218–1225.
Acknowledgements
We thank the first author’s dissertation committee members (Pat Siple, Margo Bowman and Kate Paesani) for their valuable input and support during this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kennette, L.N., Wurm, L.H. On the Disambiguation of Meaning and the Effect of Cognitive Load. Curr Psychol 35, 295–308 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9294-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9294-6