Exhaustive semantic activation for reading ambiguous verbs in Chinese sentences
Tóm tắt
Studies of lexical ambiguity resolution in sentential contexts have not sufficiently considered the relatedness among an ambiguous word’s meanings as a predicting factor for semantic activation. To better understand the relation between lexical access and discourse processing and the effect of semantic relatedness on lexical ambiguity resolution, a cross-modal lexical priming experiment focusing on Mandarin ambiguous verbs of varying degrees of semantic relatedness was conducted. The results indicated that both meanings of an ambiguous verb were activated regardless of contextual biases and the degrees of semantic relatedness between the associated meanings. Taken together with previous research, the present study suggests that the meanings of an ambiguous word (i.e., homophonic homographs, which share both phonological and orthographic representations) are co-activated exhaustively if they are syntactically licensed by the context. These results thus support the exhaustive semantic activation model of lexical ambiguity resolution and the syntax-first theory of sentence processing.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ahrens, Kathleen. 1996. The mutability of noun and verb meaning. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, ed. Yuen-mei Yin, I-Li Yang, and Hui-Chen Chan, 335–371. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Ahrens, Kathleen. 1998. Lexical ambiguity resolution: Languages, tasks, and timing. Syntax and Semantics 31: 11–31.
Ahrens, Kathleen. 2001. On-line sentence comprehension of ambiguous verbs in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10: 337–358.
Ahrens, Kathleen. 2006. The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics 7: 677–696.
Allan, Keith. 1986. Linguistic meaning, vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Azuma, Tamiko, and Guy C Van Orden. 1997. Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 484–504.
Beretta, Allen, Robert Fiorentino, and David Poeppel. 2005. The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research 24: 57–65.
Borowsky, Ron, and Michael E J Masson. 1996. Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 63–85.
Chen, Keh-jiann, Chu-Ren Huang, Li-ping Chang, and Hui-Li Hsu. 1996. Sinica corpus: Design methodology for balanced corpora. In Proceeding of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, ed. Byung-Soo Park and Jong-Bok Kim, 167–176. Seoul: Kyung Hee University.
Conrad, Carol. 1974. Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon. Memory and Cognition 2: 130–138.
Cruse, DA. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Durkin, Kevin, and Jocelyn Manning. 1989. Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 577–612.
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Charles Clifton. 1986. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 348–368.
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forster, Kenneth I. 1979. Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic essays presented to Merrill Garrett, ed. William E Cooper and Edward Walker, 27–84. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Forster, Kenneth I, and Elizabeth S Bednall. 1976. Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition 4: 53–61.
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Attention and performance, vol. XII: The psychology of reading, ed. Max Colheart, 601–681. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Frazier, Lyn, and Janet Dean Fodor. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6: 291–325.
Frazier, Lyn, and Keith Rayner. 1990. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 181–200.
Friederici, Angela D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science 6: 78–84.
Friederici, Angela D, and Jürgen Weissenborn. 2007. Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface. Brain Research 1146: 50–58.
Gentner, Dedre, and Ilene M France. 1988. The verb mutability effect: Studies of the combinatorial semantics of nouns and verbs. In Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence, ed. Steven L Small, Garrison W Cottrell, and Michael K Tanenhaus, 343–382. San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.
Glucksberg, Sam, Roger J Kreuz, and Susan H Rho. 1986. Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12: 323–335.
Guo, Jia, Hua Shu, and Ping Li. 2007. Context effects in lexical ambiguity processing in Chinese: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Science 8: 91–107.
Hino, Yasushi, and Stephen J Lupker. 1996. Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22: 1331–1356.
Hino, Yasushi, Penny M Pexman, and Stephen J Lupker. 2006. Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language 55: 247–273.
Hino, Yasushi, Yuu Kusunose, and Stephen J Lupker. 2010. The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 64: 180–196.
Hino, Yasushi, Yuu Kusunose, Stephen J Lupker, and Debra Jared. 2013. The processing advantage and disadvantage for homophones in lexical decision tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39: 529–551.
Hogaboam, Thomas W, and Charles A Perfetti. 1975. Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 265–274.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Shu-Kai Hsieh, Jia-Fei Hong, Yun-Zhu Chen, I Su, Yong-Xiang Chen, and Sheng-Wei Huang. 2010. Chinese Wordnet: Design, implementation, and application of an infrastructure for cross-lingual knowledge processing. Journal of Chinese Information Processing 24: 14-23.
Huang, Chu-Ren, and Nianwen Xue. 2015. Chinese lexical semantics: From radicals to event structure. In The Oxford handbook of Chinese linguistics, ed. William S-Y. Wang, and Chaofen Sun, 290-305. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jastrzembski, James E. 1981. Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology 13: 278–305.
Jastrzembski, James E, and Robert F Stanners. 1975. Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 534–537.
Kellas, George, F Richard Ferraro, and Greg B Simpson. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 601–609.
Kintsch, Walter, and Ernest F Mross. 1985. Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 336–349.
Klein, Devorah E, and Gregory L Murphy. 2001. The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 259–282.
Klein, Devorah E, and Gregory L Murphy. 2002. Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 548–570.
Klepousniotou, Ekaterini, and Shari R Baum. 2007. Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20: 1–24.
Klepousniotou, Ekaterini, Bruce G Pike, Karsten Steinhauer, and Vincent Gracco. 2012. Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language 123: 11–21
Li, Ping. 1998. Crosslinguistic variation and sentence processing: The case of Chinese. Syntax and Semantics 31: 33–53.
Li, Ping, and Michael C Yip. 1996. Lexical ambiguity and context effects in spoken word recognition: Evidence from Chinese. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Garrison Cottrell, 228–232. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Li, Ping, and Michael C Yip. 1998. Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing 10: 223–243.
Li, Ping, Hua Shu, Michael C Yip, Yaxu Zhang, and Yinghong Tang. 2001. Lexical ambiguity in sentence processing: Evidence from Chinese. In Sentence processing in East Asian languages, ed. Mineharu Nakayama, 111–129. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.
Lin, Chien-Jer Charles, and Kathleen Ahrens. 2010. Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39: 1–19.
Locker, Lawrence, Greg B Simpson, and Mark Yates. 2003. Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words. Memory and Cognition 31: 505–515.
Lucas, Margery. 1987. Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts. Language and Speech 30: 25–46.
Lucas, Margery. 1999. Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory and Cognition 27: 385–398.
Lupker, Stephen J. 2007. Representation and processing of lexically ambiguous words. In The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. M Gareth Gaskell, 159–174. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maratsos, Michael P. 1991. How the acquisition of nouns may be different from that of verbs. In Biological and behavioral determinants of language development, ed. Norman A Krasnegor, Duane M Rumbaugh, Richard L Schiefelbusch, and Michael Studdert-Kennedy, 67–88. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marslen-Wilson, William, and Lorraine Komisarjevsky Tyler. 1980. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8: 1–71.
McClelland, James L, and Jeffrey L Elman. 1986. The trace model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18: 1–86.
McElree, Brian, and Teresa Griffith. 1998. Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence processing: A time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24: 432–460.
Millis, Michelle L, and Scott B Button. 1989. The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t. Memory and Cognition 17: 141–147.
Ministry of Education revised Chinese dictionary 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本. 1994. Taipei: Ministry of Education, Republic of China. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/. Accessed 1 August 2008.
Oden, Gregg C, and James L Spira. 1983. Influence of context on the activation and selection of ambiguous word senses. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 35: 51–64.
Onifer, William, and David A Swinney. 1981. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition 9: 225–236.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1981. Semantics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Paul, Stephen T, George Kellas, Nichael Martin, and Matthew B Clark. 1992. Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 703.
Pickering, Martin J, and Steven Frisson. 2001. Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27: 556–573.
Pylkkänen, Liina, Rodolfo Llinás, and Gregory L Murphy. 2006. The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 97–109.
Rodd, Jennifer, Gareth Gaskell, and William Marslen-Wilson. 2002. Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language 46: 245–266.
Rubenstein, Herbert, Lonnie Garfield, and Jane A Millikan. 1970. Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9: 487–494.
Seidenberg, Mark S, Michael K Tanenhaus, James M Leiman, and Marie Bienkowski. 1982. Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology 14: 489–537.
Shu, Hua, Yinghong Tang, and Yaxu Zhang 舒华, 唐映紅, 張亞旭. 2000. A study on the resolution of lexical ambiguity of two-syllable homophones in Chinese 汉语双音节同音词词汇歧义消解过程的研究. Acta Psychologica Sinica 心理学报 32: 247–252.
Simpson, Greg B. 1981. Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 120–136.
Simpson, Greg B, and Curt Burgess. 1985. Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11: 28–39.
Simpson, Greg B, and Merilee A Krueger. 1991. Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 627–643.
Sproat, Richard. 2000. A computational theory of writing systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swinney, David A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 645–659.
Swinney, David A, and Tracy Love. 1996. Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 5–24.
Tabossi, Patrizia. 1988. Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 324–340.
Tabossi, Patrizia, and Francesco Zardon. 1993. Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 359–372.
Tabossi, Patrizia, Lucia Colombo, and Remo Job. 1987. Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research 49: 161–167.
Tanenhaus, Michael K, James M Leiman, and Mark S Seidenberg. 1979. Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 427–440.
Till, Robert E, Ernest F Mross, and Walter Kintsch. 1988. Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition 16: 283–298.
Vu, Hoang, George Kellas, and Stephen T Paul. 1998. Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition 26: 979–1001.
Vu, Hoang, George Kellas, Kimberly Metcalf, and Ruth Herman. 2000. The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition 28: 236–252.
Williams, John N. 1992. Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21: 193–218.
Wu, Ningning, and Hua Shu 武宁宁, 舒华. 2002. Meaning activation of Chinese syntactic category ambiguous words in sentence context 句子语境中汉语词类歧义词的意义激活. Acta Psychologica Sinica 心理学报 34: 454–461.
Zhang, Yaxu, Ningning Wu, and Michael Yip. 2006. Lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese sentence processing. In Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics vol. 1, Chinese, ed. Ping Li, Li Hai Tan, Elizabeth Bates, and Ovid J L Tzeng, 268–278. Cambrdige, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zhou, Xiaolin, and William Marslen-Wilson. 2000. The relative time course of semantic and phonological activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26: 1245–1265.
Zhou, Zhijin, Yongming Chen, Lixia Yang, and Hsuan-Chih Chen 周治金, 陈永明, 杨丽霞, 陈烜之. 2003. The inhibition mechanism for resolving lexical ambiguity of two-syllable homophones in Chinese 汉语同音歧义词歧义消解的过程及其抑制机制. Acta Psychologica Sinica 心理学报 35: 1–8.