Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access

By Jennifer M. Rodd, Gareth Gaskell, William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2002

517 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ba4c74682978f82ae89fd3cf302e0a2c7461ea31

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context (2006, background): “In general, studies that have looked at the processing of ambiguous words out of context, such as in a lexical decision task, have found that recognition performance for homonyms are facilitated relative to unambiguous words (Gottlob, Goldinger, Stone, & Van Orden, 1999; Hino & Lupker, 1996; Pexman ”
The neural mechanisms of speech comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. (2005, background): “At least 80% of the common words in a typical English dictionary have more than one dictionary definition (Parks et al., 1998; Rodd et al., 2002), and some words have a very large number of different meanings — there are 44 different definitions listed for the word ‘run’ in the WordSmyth Dictionary ”
A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon (2010, methodology): “The development of attractor basins within a distributed connectionist model has been used to explain how lexical ambiguity might be represented (eg, Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002 Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2004).”
Visual Word Recognition (2007, unknown): “…et al., 2002), semantic neighborhood density (Buchanan et al., 2001; Locker et al., 2003), number of meanings (Hino and Lupker, 1996), number of related meanings (Azuma and Van Orden, 1997), and number of related senses (Rodd et al., 2002; see Lupker, Chapter 10 this volume for a full review).”
Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? (2006, unknown): “Azuma and Van Orden (1997) and Rodd et al. (2002) have suggested that lexical decision performance is affected by the relatedness of the meanings of ambiguous words when semantics are activated and used in making the decision (which, according to those authors, occurs when the nonwords are…”
The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming (2004, background): “Recent work investigating the influence of semantic senses on lexical decision processes has found that response times are sensitive to the number of senses associated with a particular target ( Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002; see also General discussion).”
Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words (2012, methodology): “Interestingly, this is just the pattern observed in the response times of human beings performing such lexico-semantic tasks as word recognition: Homonyms with two unrelated meanings take longer to recognize than do unambiguous words, but polysemous words with many related meanings are recognized fa”
Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages (2007, background): “More recent research suggests that the typical finding of a processing advantage for words with multiple meanings holds only for words with multiple related senses, but a processing disadvantage is found for words with multiple distinct (unrelated) meanings (Rodd et al., 2002). The pattern of result”
The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data (2006, background): “Similarly, semantic properties of written words (such as the presence of ambiguity or the concreteness of their meanings) also alter the speed of recognition due to their influence on meaning-based processes (Eviatar et al., 1990; Rodd et al., 2002).”