Reading Ambiguous Words Sara Sereno in collaboration with

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

Why ambiguous words? • Ambiguous words have 1 form and 2 meanings: CRICKET = or cf. • Understanding how ambiguous words are processed tells us about how words in general are processed. • 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. . .

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

lexical human Distributed hierarchical visual processing in the primate

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? • 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: The sore on Tam-Tam’s (HF) back was swollen. (LF) rump • A word frequency effect [ HF < LF ] is used as a marker or index of successful word recognition or lexical access. • But, what does frequency have to do with ambiguity?

Subordinate: “river” Dominant: “money” BANK

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

M E A N I N G F O R M “money” “edge” Dom HF “river” “brim” Sub LF BANK ambiguous EDGE BRIM unambiguous controls

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

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

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.

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 LF meanings fast 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 Arousal Valence + ve Lo peace Hi love – ve bored fire Neutral controls: hotel, farm

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

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

q