» Articles » PMID: 11352220

Global Context Effects on Processing Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Fixations

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2001 May 16
PMID 11352220
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Readers' eye movements were monitored as they read biased ambiguous target words in the context of a short paragraph. Two aspects of context were manipulated. The global context was presented in the topic sentence of the paragraph and instantiated either the dominant or the subordinate meaning of biased ambiguous target words (those with highly dominant meanings). Local contextual information either preceded or followed the target word and was always consistent with the subordinate interpretation. Consistent with prior research, we obtained a subordinate bias effect wherein readers looked longer at the ambiguous words than control words when the preceding context instantiated the subordinate meaning. More importantly, the magnitude of the subordinate bias effect was the same when global context alone, local context alone, or local and global context combined were consistent with the subordinate meaning of the ambiguous word. The results of this study indicate that global contextual information (1) has an immediate impact on lexical ambiguity resolution when no local disambiguating information is available, (2) has no additional effect when it is consistent with local information, but (3) does have a slightly delayed effect when inconsistent with local information.

Citing Articles

The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Evidence from Child and Adult Greek.

Kaltsa M, Papadopoulou D J Psycholinguist Res. 2024; 53(1):16.

PMID: 38383830 PMC: 10881745. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-024-10063-y.


Information entropy facilitates (not impedes) lexical processing during language comprehension.

Karimi H, Weber P, Zinn J Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 31(5):2102-2117.

PMID: 38361106 PMC: 11472653. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02463-x.


Context Facilitates the Decoding of Lexically Ambiguous Words for Adult Literacy Learners.

Gonzalez A, Tremblay K, Binder K Read Writ. 2023; 36(3):699-722.

PMID: 37192856 PMC: 10181807. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-022-10315-0.


Translation ambiguity in and out of context.

Prior A, Wintner S, MacWhinney B, Lavie A Appl Psycholinguist. 2023; 32(1):93-111.

PMID: 36896256 PMC: 9994018. DOI: 10.1017/s0142716410000305.


Learning about the meanings of ambiguous words: evidence from a word-meaning priming paradigm with short narratives.

Blott L, Hartopp O, Nation K, Rodd J PeerJ. 2022; 10:e14070.

PMID: 36281360 PMC: 9587715. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14070.


References
1.
Till R, Mross E, Kintsch W . Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Mem Cognit. 1988; 16(4):283-98. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197039. View

2.
Rayner K, Duffy S . Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Mem Cognit. 1986; 14(3):191-201. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197692. View

3.
Binder K, Rayner K . Does contextual strength modulate the subordinate bias effect? A reply to Kellas and Vu. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 6(3):518-22. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210843. View

4.
Rayner K, Frazier L . Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989; 15(5):779-90. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779. View

5.
Sereno S . Resolution of lexical ambiguity: evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995; 21(3):582-95. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.3.582. View