Reading Ambiguous Words Sara Sereno in collaboration with Paddy O’Donnell

Why ambiguous words? Ambiguous words have 1 form and 2 meanings: Is only the context-relevant meaning selectively accessed, or, are all meanings accessed (regardless of context) with selection occurring at a later, post-lexical integration stage? The timing of contextual constraint - early or late - has implications for the architecture of language processing... Understanding how ambiguous words are processed tells us about how words in general are processed. CRICKET = or cf.

Distributed hierarchical visual processing in the primate lexicalhuman features letters word forms meanings higher-level semantics syntax

Distributed hierarchical visual processing in the primate lexicalhuman

Measurement In order to specify when higher-level processes affect lower-level processes, one needs to accurately measure the processes of interest. In word recognition, perceptual and cognitive events occur on the millisecond scale. + = ?

(Sereno & Rayner, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003)

But, when is access? A word frequency effect [ HF < LF ] is used as a marker or index of successful word recognition or lexical access. The sore on Tam-Tam’s was swollen. (HF) back (LF) rump The word frequency effect represents the differential response to commonly used high-frequency (HF) words vs. low-frequency (LF) words that occur much less often: But, what does frequency have to do with ambiguity?

BANK Dominant: “money” Subordinate: “river”

Biased (polarised): Dom >> Sub Balanced: Dom ≥ Sub

BANK ambiguousunambiguous controls BRIM EDGE “river” “money”“edge” “brim” MEANINGMEANING FORMFORM Dom Sub HF LF

EM ambiguity studies Duffy & Rayner (1986) x x Duffy, Morris, & Rayner (1988) x x Rayner & Frazier (1989) x x Sereno, Pacht, & Rayner (1992) x x x Dopkins, Morris, & Rayner (1992) x x Rayner, Pacht, & Duffy (1994) x - switch Sereno (1995) x x Binder & Morris (1995) x - switch Binder & Rayner (1998) x x Binder & Rayner (1999) x x Rayner, Binder, & Duffy (1999) x x Wiley & Rayner (2000) x x Kambe, Rayner, & Duffy (2001) x - switch Binder (2003) x - switch Context sentence paragraph Control word HF LF amb ERP study Sereno, Brewer, & O’Donnell (2003) x x x

EM ambiguity studies Duffy & Rayner (1986) x x Duffy, Morris, & Rayner (1988) x x Rayner & Frazier (1989) x x Sereno, Pacht, & Rayner (1992) x x x Dopkins, Morris, & Rayner (1992) x x Rayner, Pacht, & Duffy (1994) x - switch Sereno (1995) x x Binder & Morris (1995) x - switch Binder & Rayner (1998) x x Binder & Rayner (1999) x x Rayner, Binder, & Duffy (1999) x x Wiley & Rayner (2000) x x Kambe, Rayner, & Duffy (2001) x - switch Binder (2003) x - switch Context sentence paragraph Control word HF LF amb ERP study Sereno, Brewer, & O’Donnell (2003) x x x Sereno, O’Donnell, & Rayner

The moon cast an eerie light as Sister Margaret hurried up the unlit road. She had heard tales about the vampire. Although she did not believe them, Sister Margaret was still cautious. So when she was out alone at night, she wore her habit and carried a stake.

habit cross shawl Amb HF (form) LF (meaning)

Amb HF LF

Conclusions Ambiguous words (with prior context supporting the weak, subordinate sense) are simultaneously: HF forms  fast LF meanings  slow The present data support a top-down account, with early (lexical) selection of the contextually appropriate sense. A strict bottom-up account, with later (post-lexical selection), predicts increased difficulty (both meanings would need to be integrated at least half of the time). Future lexical ambiguity studies should use both the word-form (HF) and word-meaning (LF) controls.

(Sereno & Rayner, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003)

Emotion words Valence Arousal + ve – ve LoHi peacelove boredfire Neutral controls:hotel, farm

MEASURE Normal reading TASK fixation duration (as well as location and sequence of EMs) TIME RES. GOOD POOR hemodynamic imaging: fMRI, PET electromagnetic imaging: EEG, MEG various word tasks ms-by-ms seconds various word tasks Standard word recognition paradigms (± priming, ± masking): naming categorisation lexical decisionRT ~500 ms ~600 ms ~800 ms ~250 ms

MEASURE Normal reading TASK fixation duration (as well as location and sequence of EMs) TIME RES. GOOD POOR hemodynamic imaging: fMRI, PET electromagnetic imaging: EEG, MEG various word tasks ms-by-ms seconds various word tasks Standard word recognition paradigms (± priming, ± masking): naming categorisation lexical decisionRT ~500 ms ~600 ms ~800 ms ~250 ms

