The activation of ambiguous word senses was investigated by measuring the amount of interference in naming the ink color of a word that was either related or unrelated to one of the meanings of a preceding ambiguous word. In agreement with previous results obtained using this procedure (Conrad, 1974), evidence was obtained that both meanings of the ambiguous words are activated even in the presence of biasing context. However, contrary to previous findings, the degree of activation of each word sense depended on its degree of compatibility with the context. These results are consistent with a language processing system in which all interpretations of an ambiguity are accessed and then processed until an accurate determination has been made of which interpretation best satisfies the syntactic and semantic constraints that govern it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R. (1976). Language, memory and thoughtHillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BeverT. G.GarrettM. F.HurtigR. (1973). The interaction of perceptual processes and ambiguous sentences. Memory Cognition1, 277–86.
3.
CairnsH. S.KamermanJ. (1975). Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior14, 170–9.
4.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review82, 407–28.
5.
ConradC. (1974). Context effects in language comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon. Memory Cognition2, 130–8.
6.
FossD. J.JenkinsC. M. (1973). Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12, 577–89.
7.
GeisM. F.WinogradE. (1974). Norms of semantic encoding variability for fifty homographs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society3, 429–31.
8.
Holley-WilcoxP.BlankM. A. (1980). Evidence for multiple access in the processing of isolated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance6, 75–84.
9.
KillionT. H. (1978). Activation of multiple meanings in the processing of lexical ambiguity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.).
10.
LevinJ. A. (1976). Proteus: An activation framework for cognitive process modelsMarina del Ray, California: Information Sciences Institute (Working Paper ISI/WP-2).
11.
Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science189, 226–8.
12.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.TylerL. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition8, 1–71.
13.
MassaroD. W.OdenG. C. (1980). Speech perception: A framework for research and theory. LassN. J.Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice.New York: Academic Press Vol. 3.
14.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review88, 375–407.
15.
MeyerD. E.SchvaneveldtR. W. (1976). Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes. CoferC. N.The structure of human memory.San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
16.
OdenG. C. (1974). Semantic constraints and ambiguity resolution (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.).
17.
OdenG. C. (1978a). Integration of place and voicing information in the identification of synthetic stop consonants. Journal of Phonetics6, 83–93.
18.
OdenG. C. (1978b). On the use of semantic constraints in guiding syntactic analysis(WHIPP Report No. 3)Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Human Information Processing Program.
19.
OdenG. C. (1978c). Semantic constraints and judged preference for interpretations of ambiguous sentences. Memory Cognition6, 26–37.
20.
OdenG. C. (1979). A fuzzy logical model of letter identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 336–52.
21.
OdenG. C.MassaroD. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review85, 172–91.
22.
RumelhartD. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. DornicS.Attention and performance 17.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
SchvaneveldtR. W.MeyerD. E.BeckerC. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2, 243–56.
24.
SimpsonG. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20, 120–36.
25.
SwinneyD. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior18, 645–59.
26.
SwinneyD. A.HakesD. T. (1976). Effects of prior context upon lexical access during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior15, 681–9.
27.
TanenhausM. K.LeimanJ. M.SeidenbergM. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior18, 427–40.
28.
WarrenR. E. (1972). Stimulus encoding and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology94, 90–100.
29.
WarrenR. E. (1974). Association, directionality, and stimulus encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology102, 151–8.
30.
WinogradT. (1973). A procedural model of language understanding. SchankR. C.ColbyR. M.Computer models of thought and language.San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
