The Effect of Semantic Similarity on Learning Ambiguous Words in a Second Language: An Event-Related Potential Study

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2020 Aug 9

PMID 32765371

Authors

Yuanyue Zhang

Yao Lu

Lijuan Liang

Baoguo Chen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Ambiguous words have multiple meanings. How these multiple meanings interact with each other during ambiguous word learning remains unclear. The current study adopted an event-related potentials (ERPs) technique to explore whether there is an interaction between two meanings when learning second language (L2) ambiguous words and how semantic similarity affects ambiguous word learning. In order to explore this issue, Chinese-English bilinguals were asked to learn pseudowords, which were paired with either two related new meanings (polysemes), two unrelated new meanings (homonyms), or one single new meaning (monosomies) over 2 consecutive days. ERP results revealed that learning the second meaning of a homonym induced a more negative N400 than the first meaning; learning the second meaning of a polyseme tended to produce a more positive late component (LPC) than the first meaning. These results indicate that the first meaning of homonyms may interfere with learning their second meaning. However, the first meaning of polysemous words may facilitate learning their second meaning. The current findings suggest that different mechanisms might be involved in learning L2 homonyms and polysemes.

References

Keuleers E, Brysbaert M . Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behav Res Methods. 2010; 42(3):627-33. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627. View

Balass M, Nelson J, Perfetti C . Word learning: An ERP investigation of word experience effects on recognition and word processing. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2012; 35(2):126-140. PMC: 3293175. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.001. View

Perfetti C, Wlotko E, Hart L . Word learning and individual differences in word learning reflected in event-related potentials. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006; 31(6):1281-92. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1281. View

Paller K, Wagner A . Observing the transformation of experience into memory. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 6(2):93-102. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01845-3. View

Haro J, Ferre P . Semantic Ambiguity: Do Multiple Meanings Inhibit or Facilitate Word Recognition?. J Psycholinguist Res. 2017; 47(3):679-698. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3. View

Hillyard S, Kutas M . Electrophysiology of cognitive processing. Annu Rev Psychol. 1983; 34:33-61. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.34.020183.000341. View

Yarkoni T, Balota D, Yap M . Moving beyond Coltheart's N: a new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(5):971-9. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.971. View

Kutas M, Hillyard S . Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science. 1980; 207(4427):203-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.7350657. View

Proverbio A, Leoni G, Zani A . Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous interpreters: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia. 2004; 42(12):1636-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.013. View

10.

Rodd J, Berriman R, Landau M, Lee T, Ho C, Gaskell M . Learning new meanings for old words: effects of semantic relatedness. Mem Cognit. 2012; 40(7):1095-108. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0209-1. View

11.

Fang X, Perfetti C, Stafura J . Learning new meanings for known words: Biphasic effects of prior knowledge. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2018; 32(5):637-649. PMC: 5796674. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1252050. View

12.

Haro J, Comesana M, Ferre P . Is There an Orthographic Boost for Ambiguous Words During Their Processing?. J Psycholinguist Res. 2018; 48(2):519-534. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-018-9616-1. View

13.

Brandeis D, Lehmann D, Michel C, Mingrone W . Mapping event-related brain potential microstates to sentence endings. Brain Topogr. 1995; 8(2):145-59. DOI: 10.1007/BF01199778. View

14.

Lau E, Phillips C, Poeppel D . A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(12):920-33. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2532. View

15.

Paller K, Kutas M, Mayes A . Neural correlates of encoding in an incidental learning paradigm. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987; 67(4):360-71. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(87)90124-6. View

16.

Pu H, Holcomb P, Midgley K . Neural changes underlying early stages of L2 vocabulary acquisition. J Neurolinguistics. 2017; 40:55-65. PMC: 5625355. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.05.002. View

17.

Rugg M, Curran T . Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007; 11(6):251-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.004. View

18.

Beretta A, Fiorentino R, Poeppel D . The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005; 24(1):57-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006. View

19.

Mestres-Misse A, Rodriguez-Fornells A, Munte T . Watching the brain during meaning acquisition. Cereb Cortex. 2006; 17(8):1858-66. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhl094. View

20.

Lu Y, Wu J, Dunlap S, Chen B . The Inhibitory Mechanism in Learning Ambiguous Words in a Second Language. Front Psychol. 2017; 8:636. PMC: 5406400. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00636. View