Suppr超能文献

语义相似性如何影响歧义词语处理:文献综述

How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: the current state of the literature.

作者信息

Eddington Charles M, Tokowicz Natasha

机构信息

Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O'Hara St., Room 651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA.

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Feb;22(1):13-37. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0665-7.

Abstract

The majority of words in the English language do not correspond to a single meaning, but rather correspond to two or more unrelated meanings (i.e., are homonyms) or multiple related senses (i.e., are polysemes). It has been proposed that the different types of "semantically-ambiguous words" (i.e., words with more than one meaning) are processed and represented differently in the human mind. Several review papers and books have been written on the subject of semantic ambiguity (e.g., Adriaens, Small, Cottrell, & Tanenhaus, 1988; Burgess & Simpson, 1988; Degani & Tokowicz, 2010; Gorfein, 1989, 2001; Simpson, 1984). However, several more recent studies (e.g., Klein & Murphy, 2001; Klepousniotou, 2002; Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007; Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002) have investigated the role of the semantic similarity between the multiple meanings of ambiguous words on processing and representation, whereas this was not the emphasis of previous reviews of the literature. In this review, we focus on the current state of the semantic ambiguity literature that examines how different types of ambiguous words influence processing and representation. We analyze the consistent and inconsistent findings reported in the literature and how factors such as semantic similarity, meaning/sense frequency, task, timing, and modality affect ambiguous word processing. We discuss the findings with respect to recent parallel distributed processing (PDP) models of ambiguity processing (Armstrong & Plaut, 2008, 2011; Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2004). Finally, we discuss how experience/instance-based models (e.g., Hintzman, 1986; Reichle & Perfetti, 2003) can inform a comprehensive understanding of semantic ambiguity resolution.

摘要

英语中的大多数单词并非对应单一含义,而是对应两个或多个不相关的含义(即同音同形异义词)或多个相关的意义(即多义词)。有人提出,不同类型的“语义模糊词”(即具有不止一种含义的词)在人类思维中的处理和表征方式有所不同。关于语义模糊这一主题,已经撰写了几篇综述论文和书籍(例如,阿德里安斯、斯莫尔、科特雷尔和坦纳豪斯,1988年;伯吉斯和辛普森,1988年;德加尼和托科维茨,2010年;戈尔芬,1989年、2001年;辛普森,1984年)。然而,最近的几项研究(例如,克莱因和墨菲,2001年;克莱普斯诺托乌,2002年;克莱普斯诺托乌和鲍姆,2007年;罗德、加斯克尔和马斯伦 - 威尔森,2002年)研究了模糊词多种含义之间的语义相似性在处理和表征中的作用,而这并非以往文献综述的重点。在本综述中,我们关注语义模糊文献的当前状态,该文献探讨了不同类型的模糊词如何影响处理和表征。我们分析文献中报告的一致和不一致的发现,以及语义相似性、意义/语义频率、任务、时间和模态等因素如何影响模糊词的处理。我们讨论与最近的并行分布式处理(PDP)模糊处理模型(阿姆斯特朗和普劳特,2008年、2011年;罗德、加斯克尔和马斯伦 - 威尔森,2004年)相关的发现。最后,我们讨论基于经验/实例的模型(例如,欣茨曼,1986年;赖克尔和佩费蒂,2003年)如何有助于全面理解语义模糊的解决。

相似文献

1
How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: the current state of the literature.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Feb;22(1):13-37. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0665-7.
2
Offline dominance and zeugmatic similarity normings of variably ambiguous words assessed against a neural language model (BERT).
Behav Res Methods. 2023 Jun;55(4):1537-1557. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01869-6. Epub 2022 Jun 10.
3
Semantic Ambiguity: Do Multiple Meanings Inhibit or Facilitate Word Recognition?
J Psycholinguist Res. 2018 Jun;47(3):679-698. doi: 10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3.
4
Probing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senses.
Cogn Sci. 2021 May;45(5):e12943. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12943.
5
Pupillometric and behavioural evidence shows no differences between polyseme and homonym processing.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2023 Aug;238:103985. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103985. Epub 2023 Jul 13.
6
Listeners and readers generalize their experience with word meanings across modalities.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Oct;44(10):1533-1561. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000532. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
7
Idioms show effects of meaning relatedness and dominance similar to those seen for ambiguous words.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Apr;26(2):591-598. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01589-7.
8
Sustained meaning activation for polysemous but not homonymous words: evidence from EEG.
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Feb;68:126-38. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.008. Epub 2015 Jan 8.
9
Emotionality effects in ambiguous word recognition: The crucial role of the affective congruence between distinct meanings of ambiguous words.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2021 Jul;74(7):1234-1243. doi: 10.1177/1747021821990003. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
10
Opposing effects of semantic diversity in lexical and semantic relatedness decisions.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015 Apr;41(2):385-402. doi: 10.1037/a0038995. Epub 2015 Mar 9.

引用本文的文献

1
The time course of semantic ambiguity in visual word recognition: behavioral and ERP evidence for the lexical-semantic effect.
Front Psychol. 2024 Jul 9;15:1378125. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1378125. eCollection 2024.
2
Semantic encoding during language comprehension at single-cell resolution.
Nature. 2024 Jul;631(8021):610-616. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07643-2. Epub 2024 Jul 3.
4
The role of category ambiguity in normal and impaired lexical processing: can you without the ?
Front Hum Neurosci. 2023 May 4;17:1028378. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1028378. eCollection 2023.
6
7
The time course of cross-language activation in deaf ASL-English bilinguals.
Biling (Camb Engl). 2017 Mar;20(2):337-350. doi: 10.1017/S136672891500067X. Epub 2015 Oct 21.
8
Neurocognitive correlates of category ambiguous verb processing: The single versus dual lexical entry hypotheses.
Brain Lang. 2019 Jul;194:65-76. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2019.04.005. Epub 2019 May 16.
10
Idioms show effects of meaning relatedness and dominance similar to those seen for ambiguous words.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Apr;26(2):591-598. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01589-7.

本文引用的文献

1
The truth about chickens and bats: ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy.
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul 1;24(7):1354-60. doi: 10.1177/0956797612472205. Epub 2013 May 30.
2
Polysemy in Sentence Comprehension: Effects of Meaning Dominance.
J Mem Lang. 2012 Nov 1;67(4):407-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.010. Epub 2012 Sep 4.
3
Not all ambiguous words are created equal: an EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy.
Brain Lang. 2012 Oct;123(1):11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jul 21.
4
Learning new meanings for old words: effects of semantic relatedness.
Mem Cognit. 2012 Oct;40(7):1095-108. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0209-1.
5
Deferred Interpretations: Why Starting Dickens is Taxing but Reading Dickens Isn't.
Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan 2;30(1):181-92. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_49.
9
Effect of Representational Distance between Meanings on Recognition of Ambiguous Spoken Words.
Cogn Sci. 2009 Jan;34(1):161-173. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01069.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验