The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter?

Abstract

Effects of the number of meanings (NOM) and the relatedness of those meanings (ROM) were examined for Japanese Katakana words using a lexical-decision task. In Experiment 1, only a NOM advantage was observed. In Experiment 2, the same Katakana words produced a ROM advantage when Kanji words and nonwords were added. Because the Kanji nonwords consisted of unrelated characters whereas the Kanji words consisted of related characters, participants may have used the relatedness of activated meanings as a cue in making lexical decisions in this experiment, artificially creating a ROM advantage for Katakana words. Consistent with this explanation, no ROM effect for Katakana words was observed in Experiment 3 when the Kanji nonwords consisted of characters with similar (i.e., related) meanings. These results pose a further challenge to the position that the speed of semantic coding is modulated by ROM for ambiguous words.

Learning new meanings for old words: effects of semantic relatedness

“…This finding has important implications for the debate within the ambiguity-processing literature about whether and how meaning relatedness affects lexical decision performance. While several authors have reported that responses to ambiguous words with unrelated meanings are slowed relative to related meanings (Azuma and Van Orden, 1997;Beretta et al 2005;Klepousniotou et al 2008;Rodd, 2004;Rodd et al 2002), other authors have reported no effect of semantic relatedness (e.g., Hino et al 2010). These inconsistent findings might suggest that previous effects of meaning relatedness could have arisen from some other, potentially confounding difference between the particular sets of words used in the earlier experiments.…”

“…The natural correlation between ambiguity and variables such as word frequency, age of acquisition, and neighbourhood size makes this issue particularly challenging. Indeed, some lexical decision experiments have failed to replicate the effect of meaning relatedness (e.g., Hino, Kusunose, & Lupker, 2010). The present lexical decision experiments will attempt to replicate the relatedness effect using a within-item design; this result could only be achieved by artificially modifying participants' knowledge of words and their meanings (cf.…”

Relative meaning frequencies for 578 homonyms in two Spanish dialects: A cross-linguistic extension of the English eDom norms

“…Across a series of investigations, as compared to relatively unambiguous words such as CHALK, homonyms have been reported as showing an overall processing advantage (Hino, Pexman, & Lupker, 2006; although see Armstrong & Plaut, 2011, for discussion), neither a disadvantage nor an advantage (e.g., Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002) or a processing disadvantage (e.g., Mirman, Strauss, Dixon, & Magnuson, 2010). Although the theoretical debate regarding the source of all of these discrepancies is ongoing (see, e.g., Armstrong & Plaut, 2008, 2011Hino, Kusunose, & Lupker, 2010;Hino et al, 2006;Rodd et al, 2002), there is general agreement on one point in this literature: the relative frequency of a homonym's interpretations can modulate the effects of homonymy (e.g., Armstrong & Plaut, 2011;Klepousniotou, Pike, Steinhauer, & Gracco, 2012;Klepousniotou, Titone, & Romero, 2008;Mirman et al, 2010;Seidenberg, Tanenhaus, Leiman, & Bienkowski, 1982;Swinney, 1979;Tabossi, 1988). Consequently, quantifying the relative meaning frequency of a homonym plays a critical role in contextualizing any effects obtained with this type of item and in determining the broader implications for theories of semantic ambiguity resolution.…”

eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms

“…This contrasts with polysemes, for which a single written and spoken form is associated with multiple related interpretations, which may reduce the degree to which each individual meaning may be differentially activated (Armstrong & Plaut, 2008Beretta, Fiorentino, & Poeppel, 2005;Frazier & Rayner, 1990;Klepousniotou et al, 2008;Pylkkänen, Llinás, & Murphy, 2006;Rodd et al, 2002; but see Hino et al, 2010;Hino et al, 2006;Klein & Murphy, 2001. Consequently, assessing the dominance of homonyms is particularly important, and failures to control for this factor have been proposed as an explanation for the weak and inconsistent effects of homonymy in many studies (Armstrong & Plaut, 2011).…”

“…The difference between balanced and unbalanced ambiguous words is most pronounced in the case of homonyms-words for which a single written and spoken form is associated with multiple unrelated interpretations, and for which there is general agreement that the semantic overlap between the interpretations is minimal (e.g., <dog>/<tree> BARK; Armstrong & Plaut, 2008;Frazier & Rayner, 1990;Hino, Kusunose, & Lupker, 2010;Hino et al, 2006;Klein & Murphy, 2001Klepousniotou et al, 2008;Rodd et al, 2002;Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2004;Rubenstein et al, 1970). This contrasts with polysemes, for which a single written and spoken form is associated with multiple related interpretations, which may reduce the degree to which each individual meaning may be differentially activated (Armstrong & Plaut, 2008Beretta, Fiorentino, & Poeppel, 2005;Frazier & Rayner, 1990;Klepousniotou et al, 2008;Pylkkänen, Llinás, & Murphy, 2006;Rodd et al, 2002; but see Hino et al, 2010;Hino et al, 2006;Klein & Murphy, 2001.…”