The Semantic Settling Dynamics model postulated that the seemingly inconsistent effects of lexical ambiguity are, in fact, a systematic manifestation of the specific dynamics that arise as a consequence of the amount of time spent in processing. The model has thus far been tested by prolonging lexical decision and comparing homonymous, polysemous, and unambiguous words in a factorial design. Here, we kept the strategy of task manipulation but tested the model by using continuous measures as indices of the level of lexical ambiguity and their slopes as indices of the effect size. We expressed the size of the polysemy effect as the slope of the effect of entropy of sense probability distribution and the size of the homonymy effect as the redundancy of sense probability distribution. Comparing lexical decision tasks with the shorter and longer time spent in processing, we observed the predicted decrease in the effect of the polysemy level as well as the predicted increase in the effect of homonymy level.
ArmstrongB. C.PlautD. C. (2016). Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(7), 940–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1171366
3.
ArmstrongB. C.TokowiczN.PlautD. C. (2012). eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0199-8
4.
AzumaT. (1996). Familiarity and relatedness of word meanings: Ratings for 110 homographs. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203645
5.
AzumaT.Van OrdenG. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2502
BaayenR. H.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.4.395
8.
BaayenR. H.VasishthS.KlieglR.BatesD. (2017). The cave of shadows: Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 206–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.11.006
BerettaA.FiorentinoR.PoeppelD. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
12.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/
13.
BorowskyR.MassonM. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.63
14.
BoxG. E. P.CoxD. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–252. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984418
15.
BrocherA.ForakerS.KoenigJ.-P. (2016). Processing of irregular polyemes in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 1798–1813. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000271
16.
BrocherA.KoenigJ. P.MaunerG.ForakerS. (2018). About sharing and commitment: The retrieval of biased and balanced irregular polysemes. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1381748
17.
BrysbaertM. (2017). Age of acquisition ratings score better on criterion validity than frequency trajectory or ratings “corrected” for frequency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1172097
18.
DavelaarE.ColtheartM.BesnerD.JonassonJ. T. (1978). Phonological recoding and lexical access. Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197471
19.
EddingtonC. M.TokowiczN. (2015). How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: The current state of the literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 13–37. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0665-7
20.
ErnestusM.CutlerA. (2015). BALDEY: A database of auditory lexical decisions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1469–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.984730
21.
Filipović ĐurđevićD. (2007). Efekat višeznačnosti na obradu izolovanih reči u srpskom jeziku [The ambiguity effect in processing of isolated words in Serbian] [Doctoral thesis, University of Belgrade].
22.
Filipović ĐurđevićD. (2019). Balance of meaning probabilities in processing of serbian homonymy. Primenjena Psihologija, 12(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2019.3.283-304
23.
Filipović ĐurđevićD.KostićA. (2017). Number, relative frequency, entropy, redundancy, familiarity, and concreteness of word senses: Ratings for 150 Serbian polysemous nouns. In Halupka-RešetarS.Martinez-FerreiroS. (Eds.), Studies in language and mind (pp. 13–77). Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu. http://digitalna.ff.uns.ac.rs/sadrzaj/2017/978-86-6065-446-7
FrazierL.RaynerK. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7
GernsbacherM. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.02.012.Investigations
28.
GilhoolyK. J.LogieR. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12(4), 395–427. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201693
29.
GohW. D.SuárezL.YapM. J.TanS. H. (2009). Distributional analyses in auditory lexical decision: Neighborhood density and word-frequency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 882–887. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.882
30.
Gortan-PremkD. (2004). Polisemija i organizacija leksičkog sistema u srpskome jeziku [Polysemy and organization of the lexical system]. Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
31.
HinoY.KusunoseY.LupkerS. J. (2010). The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 64(3), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020475
32.
HinoY.LupkerS. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1331–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1331
33.
HinoY.LupkerS. J.PexmanP. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 686–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.686
34.
HinoY.PexmanP. M.LupkerS. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding?Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.001
35.
JagerB.ClelandA. A. (2016). Polysemy advantage with abstract but not concrete words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9337-z
36.
JagerB.GreenM.ClelandA. A. (2016). Polysemy in the mental lexicon: Relatedness and frequency affect representational overlap. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(3), 425–429. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
37.
JoordensS.BesnerD. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1051
38.
KawamotoA. H.FarrarW. T.KelloC. T. (1994). When two meanings are better than one: Modeling the ambiguity advantage using a recurrent distributed network. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1233–1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1233
39.
KlepousniotouE. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518
40.
KlepousniotouE.BaumS. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001
41.
KlepousniotouE.PikeG. B.SteinhauerK.GraccoV. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007
42.
KlepousniotouE.TitoneD.RomeroC. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1534–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013012
43.
KostićĐ. (1999). Frekvencijski rečnik savremenog srpskog jezika [Frequency dictionary of contemporary Serbian language]. Institut za eksperimentalnu fonetiku i patologiju govora i Laboratorija za eksperimentalnu psihologiju.
MaciejewskiG.KlepousniotouE. (2020). Disambiguating the ambiguity disadvantage effect: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for semantic competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46, 1682–1700. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000842.supp
47.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
48.
Matica Srpska. (1967–1976). Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika, t. I-VI [Dictionary of Serbo-Croatian literary language].
49.
Matica Srpska. (2007). Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika [Dictionary of Serbo-Croatian literary language].
PexmanP. M.LupkerS. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087320
52.
PierceyC. D.JoordensS. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory & Cognition, 28(4), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201255
53.
RaynerK.DuffyS. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692
54.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
55.
RiceC. A.TokowiczN.FraundorfS. H.LiburdT. L. (2019). The complex interactions of context availability, polysemy, word frequency, and orthographic variables during lexical processing. Memory & Cognition, 47(7), 1297–1313. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00934-4
56.
RoddJ. M. (2020). Settling into semantic space: An ambiguity-focused account of word-meaning access. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619885860
57.
RoddJ. M.GaskellG.Marslen-WilsonW. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
58.
RoddJ. M.GaskellG.Marslen-WilsonW. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.08.002
59.
RubensteinH.GarfieldL.MillikanJ. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80091-3
StanojčićŽ.PopovićL. (1995). Gramatika srpskoga jezika [Grammar of the Serbian language] (4th ed.). Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
62.
van RijJ.VaciN.WurmL.FeldmanL. B. (2020). Alternative quantitative methods in psycholinguistics: Implications for theory and design. In PirrelliV.PlagI.DresslerW. (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: A cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon (pp. 83–126). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440577-003
63.
van RijJ.WielingM.BaayenR. H.van RijnH. (2020). itsadug: Interpreting time series and autocorrelated data using GAMMs (R Package Version 2.4). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/itsadug
64.
WoodS. N. (2006). On confidence intervals for generalized additive models based on penalized regression splines. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 48(4), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2006.00450.x
65.
WoodS. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 73(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x
66.
WurmL.ErnestusM.SchreuderR.BaayenR. H. (2006). Dynamics of the auditory comprehension of prefixed words: Cohort entropies and conditional root uniqueness points. The Mental Lexicon, 1(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.3.02str
67.
YapM. J.BalotaD. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 502–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.001
68.
YatesM. (2005). Phonological neighbors speed visual word processing: Evidence from multiple tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1385–1397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1385
69.
YatesM.LockerL.SimpsonG. B. (2004). The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 452–457. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196594
70.
YurchenkoA.LopukhinaA.DragoyO. (2020). Metaphor is between metonymy and homonymy: Evidence from event-related potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 2113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02113
71.
ZieglerJ. C.MuneauxM.GraingerJ. (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00006-8
