You are on page 1of 38

Two types of lexical ambiguity

• Homonymy
– One pronunciation, two clearly different meanings

savings bank river bank • Polysemy
– One pronunciation, two or more distinct but related meanings, i.e. “senses”

green book interesting book

Two types of lexical ambiguity
• Homonymy
– One pronunciation, two clearly different meanings

savings bank river bank • Polysemy
– One pronunciation, two or more distinct but related meanings, i.e. “senses”

green book interesting book

Two types of lexical ambiguity
• Homonymy - Uncontroversial: homonyms involve distinct lexical entries.

• Polysemy - Representation controversial.

storage • Are distinct senses of the same root – represented in the lexicon (e. 1983.. Copestake & Briscoe. Kempson. 2001. Clark & Gerrig. Weinreich. 1995) .Sense generation vs. 1977. 1995. 1966. Pustejovsky. 2001) or – generated via rule from a central meaning? (e.g. Frisson & Pickering. Klein & Murphy.g.

Predictions • Senses are lexically represented → processing involves sense selection → sense competition • Senses are not represented → no sense selection → no sense competition → switching from one sense to another not costly .

insightful book .Klein and Murphy (2001) • Switching from one sense to another in polysemy as costly as switching from one meaning to another in homonymy.baby bat green book . Homonymy: Polysemy: broken bat .

why should sense switching be costly at all? Homonymy: Polysemy: broken bat .baby bat green book .insightful book .Challenge for sense generation • If polysemy involves full identity at the level of lexical representations.

Present study • Behavioral interference effects suggest that polysemy involves some competing representations. • What are those representations like? .

Two hypotheses Polysemy is like homonymy: senses have their own lexical entries bank1 financial institution Sense representations stored with roots bank2 edge of river bank1 financial institution bank2 edge of river book1 physical object book2 content of physical object book physical object content of physical object .

Predictions Polysemy is like homonymy: senses have their own lexical entries • Polysemy effects = effects of homonymy + semantic relatedness  Cumulative effects of phonological and semantic relatedness Sense representations stored with roots • The relationship between polysemes and homonyms is qualitatively different  Polysemy effects can be “special” .

book physical object content of physical object .Predictions Polysemy is like homonymy: senses have their own lexical entries • Polysemy effects = homonymy effects + the effect semantic relatedness  Cumulative effects of phonological and semantic relatedness Sense representations stored with roots • Polysemy involves root identity.

identity polysemy effects should involve priming at the level of root access. access .Predictions Sense representations stored with roots bank1 financial institution bank2 edge of river book physical object content of physical object • If polysemy involves root identity.

Sense competition Need a measure of this . Facilitated root access 2.Hypothesis • Sense-relatedness elicits 1.

. 2002) ..M350: an MEG measure of lexical access • Sensitive to factors affecting lexical activation. – Lexical frequency (Embick et al. 2001) – Morphological constituent frequency (soapbox) (Fiorentino and Poeppel.. 2004) • Insensitive to later “decision” related factors (Pylkkänen et al. 2001) – Repetition (Pylkkänen et al.

i. M350 priming? . homonymy? 2) What is the effect of semantic relatedness of the polysemy type? 3) Do polysemy effects reduce to the combination of (1) and (2) OR Do they show effects of root identity.e.Questions In a priming paradigm: 1) What is the effect of phonological identity alone. i.e.

Materials (30 per condition) PRIME HOMONYMOUS UNRELATED broken bat vast fortune PRIME POLYSEMOUS UNRELATED green book national bank PRIME SEMANTIC UNRELATED interesting novel national bank TARGET baby bat baby bat TARGET insightful book insightful book TARGET green book green book Created pairwise from polysemous prime target pairs. .

Sensicality judgment task Until Until 500 ms 300 ms 300 ms response 500 ms 500 ms 300 ms 300 ms response + quick shower + marble shower • • • 17 subjects MEG responses to target nouns recorded with a 148 channel magnetometer (BTi). M350 sources modeled as equivalent current dipoles. .

This solution is kept constant across conditions. 1. Localization of activity time window by time window. All sources are introduced into a multi-dipole model. 2. .MEG recording and source modeling • • 146 channel magnetometer (BTi) Multi-dipole modeling – The averaged response to all words is used in source modeling.

Example .

Visual M100 (bilateral) .

M170. bilateral .

“M250” (three dipoles) .

M350 .

Late activity: “M420” .

Multidipole model .

All sources (n=17) .

Results: RT SPEED 780 760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 * RELATED UNRELATED RT [msec] * SEMANTIC POLYSEMY • HOMONYMY ACCURACY 95 90 85 RELATED UNRELATED * % correct 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC * POLYSEMY Behavioral data do not distinguish polysemy from homonymy: compatible with the cumulative similarity view. .

Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .

Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .

s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.

s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.

s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.

s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.

Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RELATED UNRELATED 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.s HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .

s Sense competition? HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY HOMONYMY SEMANTIC POLYSEMY .Results: M350 latency LEFT RELATED 390 380 M350 latency [msec] RIGHT UNRELATED 390 RELATED UNRELATED M350 latency [msec] 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 Priming of the shared morphological root 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 n.

Sense representations stored with roots bank1 financial institution bank2 edge of river • book physical object content of physical object . Polysemes involve root identity.Results: Summary • Polysemy effects do not reduce to similarity effects.

Results: Summary Sense representations stored with roots Homonymy: LH M350 delay (lexical competition) Polysemy: LH M350 speed-up (root priming) RH M350 delay (sense competition) bank1 financial institution bank2 edge of river book physical object content of physical object Irregular polysemy .

Results: Summary .