Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution

被引:56
作者
Vu, H
Kellas, G [1 ]
Paul, ST
机构
[1] Univ Kansas, Dept Psychol, Lawrence, KS 66045 USA
[2] Mississippi State Univ, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
关键词
D O I
10.3758/BF03201178
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Results from a series of naming experiments demonstrated that major lexical categories of simple sentences can provide sources of constraint on the interpretation of ambiguous words (homonyms). Manipulation of verb (Experiment 1) or subject noun (Experiment 2) specificity produced contexts that were empirically rated as being strongly biased or ambiguous. Priming was demonstrated for target words related to both senses of a homonym following ambiguous sentences, but only contextually appropriate target words were primed following strongly biased dominant or subordinate sentences. Experiment 3 showed an increase in the magnitude of priming when multiple constraints on activation converged. Experiments 4 and 5 eliminated combinatorial intralexical priming as an alternative explanation. Instead, it was demonstrated that each constraint was influential only insofar as it contributed to the overall semantic representation of the sentence. When the multiple sources of constraint were retained but the sentence-level representation was changed (Experiment 4) or eliminated (Experiment 5), the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 and were not replicated. Experiment 6 examined the issue of homonym exposure duration by using an 80-msec stimulus onset asynchrony. The results replicated the previous experiments. The overall evidence indicates that a sentence context can be made strongly and immediately constraining by the inclusion of specific fillers for salient lexical categories. The results are discussed within a constraint-based, context-sensitive model of lexical ambiguity resolution.
引用
收藏
页码:979 / 1001
页数:23
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]   The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times [J].
Altarriba, J ;
Kroll, JF ;
Sholl, A ;
Rayner, K .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 1996, 24 (04) :477-492
[2]  
Anderson J.R., 1976, Language, memory, and thought
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1987, MODULARITY KNOWLEDGE
[4]  
[Anonymous], ATTENTION PERFORM
[5]   SPREADING ACTIVATION THEORY OF SEMANTIC PROCESSING [J].
COLLINS, AM ;
LOFTUS, EF .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1975, 82 (06) :407-428
[6]   LEXICAL AMBIGUITY AND EYE FIXATIONS IN READING - A TEST OF COMPETING MODELS OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION [J].
DOPKINS, S ;
MORRIS, RK ;
RAYNER, K .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1992, 31 (04) :461-476
[7]   LEXICAL AMBIGUITY AND FIXATION TIMES IN READING [J].
DUFFY, SA ;
MORRIS, RK ;
RAYNER, K .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1988, 27 (04) :429-446
[8]   SEMANTIC FACILITATION OF LEXICAL ACCESS DURING SENTENCE PROCESSING [J].
DUFFY, SA ;
HENDERSON, JM ;
MORRIS, RK .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 1989, 15 (05) :791-801
[9]  
Fodor Jerry A., 1983, MODULARITY MIND, DOI 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
[10]  
Forster K.I., 1979, SENTENCE PROCESSING, P27