Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 134 writing or that of others, looking for grammatical errors, but the task of rating similarity on a scale seems to be con ned to psychological experiments 4 .Nevertheless, such experiments do produce some intriguing results; for example, in their second step, Durkin & Manning (1989) asked their subjects to rate the semantic relatedness of pairs of uses of ambiguous words (some homophonous, but mostly polysemous); they found that the similarity judgements distinguished well between the homonyms and the polysemous words and provided a good measure of the relative salience of the senses of the latter. (Durkin & Manning also went on to do a priming task on related data.) Free sorting experiments have better face validity than similarity judgments, but the resulting categories are hard to compare. For example, Jorgensen (1990) gave subjects cards containing low-polysemy nouns and high-polysemy nouns, as measured by the number of dictionary senses. In the rst task, they did completely free sorting; in the second, they were told to divide the cards according to a set of dictionary de nitions they had been provided with. She found that subjects basically produced approximately 3 categories for the low-polysemy words in both tasks, but created an average of 5.6 categories on the free sorting and 9.1 on the dictionary-guided sorting. This was still less than the average numberofsensesgiven in the dictionary (14.6), but the increase was signi cant. Jorgensen uses measures of the number of categories produced by her subjects and the amount of agreement between them on the classi cation of individual items, but has nothing to say about the relation between the semantics of the categories produced by one subject and those of other subjects or those of the dictionary. Previous Work on Priming Various experiments have demonstrated that priming e ects between related words can provide information as to the structure of semantic elds (de Groot 1984, Meyer & Schvanenveldt 1971). Other experimenters have used priming techniques to study the rela- tions between the separate senses of homonyms. Swinney (1979) used cross-modal priming, with an auditory stimulus consisting of two sentences with the ambiguous noun occurring in the predicate of the second sentence, and a visual probe related to one of the senses presented either (1) at the o set of the ambiguous word or (2) three syllables later. For 4 Subjects making grammaticality judgements apparently make the same grammaticality judgements whether they are asked to apply their own standards or what they believe to be \academic" standards. (Cowart 1997:56-59)
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 135 example, one pair of sentences referred to a government building containing bugs, probed with either spy or ant; the context could either be carefully ambiguous or deliberately biased (. . . spiders, roaches, and other bugs. . . ). Ambiguous sentences alternated with un- ambiguous controls, e.g. ones in which bugs was replaced with insects. When the probe was immediate, Swinney found that both senses of the ambiguous noun were primed even if the context was strongly biased toward one or the other of the readings. When the probe was presented three syllables later, however, only the contextually appropriate sense was primed. These results suggest that the lexical access process is not guided by contextual information, but retrieves all of the senses of ambiguous items. However, contextual information is used very soon thereafter to select the appropriate sense from those that have been retrieved. Seidenberg et al. (1982) conducted a methodical series of ve experiments on two types of homonyms, both noun-noun (e.g. ball dance/baseball) and noun-verb (a tire/to tire), using auditory primes. In each case the last word of the auditory prime was either a homonym or a control word. A visual probe consisting of a single word was presented either zero milliseconds or 200 milliseconds after the end of the auditory prime. For example given the noun-noun homonym spade, the following four sentences were used as primes: (1) a. You should have played the spade. b. You should have played the part. c. Go to the store and buy a spade. d. Go to the store and buy a belt. If the following probe is the word card, Ex. (1-a) is congruent with it, using spade. Ex. (1-b) is congruent using a control word, Ex. (1-c), using the homonym, is incongruent with the probe, and Ex. (1-d) is also incongruent, using a control word. Over the course of the ve experiments, Seidenberg et al. carefully varied the extent to which the context selected for one of the senses, either syntactically, semantically, or pragmatically. Consistent di erences between the e ects of probing at zero milliseconds and at 200 milliseconds demonstrated that lexical access per se was not in uenced by context but that all the senses of the ambiguous words were retrieved \instantaneously" and then a rapid selection process based on the context occurred. Apparentcounterexamples seem to the result of lexical priming caused by earlier words within the prime (The auto
Page 1 and 2:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 3 and 4:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 5 and 6:
Next three psycholinguistic experim
Page 7 and 8:
BasicSenses........................
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements Careful citations
Page 11 and 12:
acquisition. Aside from needing to
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Introduction Xue er bu s,
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 In lingui
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 5 Although
Page 19 and 20:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 7 part on t
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 9 is not cl
Page 23 and 24:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1980:10-
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 13 L.U. Lex
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 15 spondenc
Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 17 happy an
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 19 shows th
Page 33 and 34:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 21 Regular
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 23 base for
Page 37 and 38:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 25 d. The i
Page 39 and 40:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 27 (12) a.
Page 41 and 42:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 29 linguist
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 31 Introspe
Page 45 and 46:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 33 on the o
Page 47 and 48:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 35 they con
Page 49 and 50:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 37 meaning
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 2 A Frame Semantic Analysis
Page 53 and 54:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 3 Other Cognitive Approache
Page 125 and 126: CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 139 and 140: Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 145: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 149 and 150: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 177 and 178: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 197 and 198:
CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 Bierwisch, Manfred
Page 253 and 254:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 ||, & B.T.S. Atkin
Page 255 and 256:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 ||. 1990. The inva
Page 257 and 258:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 Osgood, C.E. 1970.
Page 259 and 260:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 Wasow, Thomas. 198
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix A Additional Corpus Exampl
Page 263 and 264:
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 265 and 266:
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 267 and 268:
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF MORPHOLOGY A
Page 269 and 270:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 257 Recogn
Page 271 and 272:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 259 to lea
Page 273 and 274:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 261 At the
Page 275 and 276:
Appendix D Stimuli for Experiments
Page 277 and 278:
APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Index activation, 13, 136, 137, 231
Page 289 and 290:
INDEX 277 description, 82 see proce
Page 291:
INDEX 279 173{178, 186, 190{192, 20
show all

Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?