Abstract

Semantic ambiguity has often been divided into 2 forms: homonymy, referring to words with 2 unrelated interpretations (e.g., bark), and polysemy, referring to words associated with a number of varying but semantically linked uses (e.g., twist). Typically, polysemous words are thought of as having a fixed number of discrete definitions, or “senses,” with each use of the word corresponding to one of its senses. In this study, we investigated an alternative conception of polysemy, based on the idea that polysemous variation in meaning is a continuous, graded phenomenon that occurs as a function of contextual variation in word usage. We quantified this contextual variation using semantic diversity (SemD), a corpus-based measure of the degree to which a particular word is used in a diverse set of linguistic contexts. In line with other approaches to polysemy, we found a reaction time (RT) advantage for high SemD words in lexical decision, which occurred for words of both high and low imageability. When participants made semantic relatedness decisions to word pairs, however, responses were slower to high SemD pairs, irrespective of whether these were related or unrelated. Again, this result emerged irrespective of the imageability of the word. The latter result diverges from previous findings using homonyms, in which ambiguity effects have only been found for related word pairs. We argue that participants were slower to respond to high SemD words because their high contextual variability resulted in noisy, underspecified semantic representations that were more difficult to compare with one another. We demonstrated this principle in a connectionist computational model that was trained to activate distributed semantic representations from orthographic inputs. Greater variability in the orthography-to-semantic mappings of high SemD words resulted in a lower degree of similarity for related pairs of this type. At the same time, the representations of high SemD unrelated pairs were less distinct from one another. In addition, the model demonstrated more rapid semantic activation for high SemD words, thought to underpin the processing advantage in lexical decision. These results support the view that polysemous variation in word meaning can be conceptualized in terms of graded variation in distributed semantic representations.

Highlights

  • Semantic ambiguity has often been divided into 2 forms: homonymy, referring to words with 2 unrelated interpretations, and polysemy, referring to words associated with a number of varying but semantically linked uses

  • This establishes that the semantic diversity (SemD) measure yields a similar ambiguity advantage in this task as polysemous words selected based on number of dictionary definitions or distinct meanings generated by participants (Azuma & VanOrden, 1997; Borowsky & Masson, 1996; Hino & Lupker, 1996; Jastrzembski, 1981; Piercey & Joordens, 2000; Rubenstein et al, 1970)

  • As the effect of imageability was weak in the by-items analysis, we investigated this effect further by again constructing a multiple regression model that included reaction time (RT) as the dependent variable and all of the variables listed in Table 1 as predictors

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Semantic ambiguity has often been divided into 2 forms: homonymy, referring to words with 2 unrelated interpretations (e.g., bark), and polysemy, referring to words associated with a number of varying but semantically linked uses (e.g., twist). The model demonstrated more rapid semantic activation for high SemD words, thought to underpin the processing advantage in lexical decision These results support the view that polysemous variation in word meaning can be conceptualized in terms of graded variation in distributed semantic representations. A number of connectionist computational models have accounted for effects of polysemy by assuming that the various senses of polysemous words are represented by distinct but overlapping patterns of semantic activation (Armstrong & Plaut, 2008; Kawamoto, 1993; Kawamoto, Farrar, & Kello, 1994; Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2004)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.