Abstract
Human language is massively ambiguous, yet we are generally able to identify the intended meanings of the sentences we hear and read quickly and accurately. How we manage and resolve ambiguity incrementally during real-time language comprehension given our cognitive resources and constraints is a major question in human cognition. Previous research investigating resource constraints on lexical ambiguity resolution has yielded conflicting results. Here we present results from two experiments in which we recorded eye movements to test for evidence of resource constraints during lexical ambiguity resolution. We embedded moderately biased homographs in sentences with neutral prior context and either long or short regions of text before disambiguation to the dominant or subordinate interpretation. The length of intervening material had no effect on ease of disambiguation. Instead, we found only a main effect of meaning at disambiguation, such that disambiguating to the subordinate meaning of the homograph was more difficult-results consistent with the reordered access model and contemporary probabilistic models, but inconsistent with the capacity-constrained model.
Highlights
Human language is massively ambiguous, yet we are generally able to identify the intended meanings of the sentences we hear and read quickly and accurately
In Experiment 1, we investigated whether readers attempt to maintain multiple meanings of a moderately biased homograph encountered in neutral context, and if so, whether this maintenance is subject to resource constraints
By varying the length of sentence material that intervened between the homograph and subsequent disambiguation, we sought to determine whether readers attempt to maintain multiple meanings of an ambiguous word presented without prior disambiguating information, and whether this meaning maintenance is subject to resource constraints
Summary
Human language is massively ambiguous, yet we are generally able to identify the intended meanings of the sentences we hear and read quickly and accurately. The activation of less preferred meanings might decrease, making resolution to less preferred meanings more effortful the longer the ambiguity persists before disambiguation—so called DIGGING-IN EFFECTS (e.g., Levy, Reali, & Griffiths, 2009; Tabor & Hutchins, 2004) Such digging-in effects have primarily been documented and discussed in the context of syntactic ambiguity resolution (e.g., during the reading of garden path sentences —Ferreira & Henderson, 1991, 1993; Frazier & Rayner, 1982; Tabor & Hutchins, 2004; see General Discussion). We review relevant data and theory in lexical ambiguity resolution, contrasting two classes of models: exhaustive access models that do not predict that diggingin effects should be observed (such as the reordered access model—Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988) and memory-based models that do (such as the capacity-constrained model— Miyake, Just, & Carpenter, 1994)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
