• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

阿尔伯塔大学566个同形异义词的相对意义频率规范。

University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs.

作者信息

Twilley L C, Dixon P, Taylor D, Clark K

机构信息

Deparment of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

出版信息

Mem Cognit. 1994 Jan;22(1):111-26. doi: 10.3758/bf03202766.

DOI:10.3758/bf03202766
PMID:8035680
Abstract

For many models of lexical ambiguity resolution, relative frequency of the different meanings of homographs (words with more than one meaning) is crucial. Although several homograph association norms have been published in the past, none has involved a large number of subjects responding to a large number of homographs, and most homograph norming studies are now at least a decade old. In Experiment 1, associations to 566 homographs were collected from an average of 192 subjects per homograph. Frequency of occurrence for the three most common meanings is reported, along with the corresponding associates, and a measure of the overall ambiguity of each homograph. Homographs whose meanings differed in part of speech were more ambiguous overall than homographs whose different meanings belonged to a single grammatical class. Homographs whose pronunciation depended on meaning (heterophones) were no more ambiguous than nonheterophones, and word frequency was unrelated to overall ambiguity. Estimates of homograph balance across different norming studies were compared, and homographs with two meanings of approximately equal relative meaning frequency (balanced homographs) and homographs with one clearly dominant meaning (polarized homographs) were identified. In Experiment 2, reliability of meaning categorizations was measured for a subset of the homographs in the first experiment. Meaning categorizations were shown to be highly reliable across raters.

摘要

对于许多词汇歧义消解模型而言,同形异义词(具有不止一种含义的词)不同含义的相对频率至关重要。尽管过去已发表了一些同形异义词联想规范,但没有一个涉及大量受试者对大量同形异义词做出反应的情况,并且大多数同形异义词规范研究现在至少已有十年历史。在实验1中,从每个同形异义词平均192名受试者那里收集了对566个同形异义词的联想。报告了三种最常见含义的出现频率,以及相应的联想词,还有每个同形异义词总体歧义的一种度量。其含义在词性上不同的同形异义词总体上比其不同含义属于单一语法类别的同形异义词更具歧义性。发音取决于含义的同形异义词(异音同形词)并不比非异音同形词更具歧义性,并且词频与总体歧义无关。比较了不同规范研究中同形异义词平衡的估计值,并识别出具有两种相对含义频率大致相等的含义的同形异义词(平衡同形异义词)和具有一种明显占主导地位含义的同形异义词(极化同形异义词)。在实验2中,对第一个实验中一部分同形异义词的含义分类可靠性进行了测量。结果表明,含义分类在评分者之间具有高度可靠性。

相似文献

1
University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs.阿尔伯塔大学566个同形异义词的相对意义频率规范。
Mem Cognit. 1994 Jan;22(1):111-26. doi: 10.3758/bf03202766.
2
The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: evidence from eye movement studies.阅读过程中谐音同形异义词的加工:来自眼动研究的证据。
J Psycholinguist Res. 1993 Mar;22(2):251-71. doi: 10.1007/BF01067833.
3
The selection of homograph meaning: word association when context changes.
Mem Cognit. 2000 Jul;28(5):766-73. doi: 10.3758/bf03198411.
4
Context and homograph meaning resolution.语境与同形异义词意义解析。
Can J Exp Psychol. 1999 Dec;53(4):335-46. doi: 10.1037/h0087321.
5
Reading homographs: orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics.阅读同形异义词:正字法、语音学和语义动态学。
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Apr;25(2):561-74. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.25.2.561.
6
Hemispheric asymmetries in meaning selection: evidence from the disambiguation of homophonic vs. heterophonic homographs.大脑半球在词义选择上的不对称性:来自同音异形异义词和同音字歧义的证据。
Brain Cogn. 2012 Dec;80(3):328-37. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Oct 6.
7
Suppressing contextually irrelevant meanings of homophonic versus heterophonic homographs: A tDCS study targeting LIFG.抑制同音异形异义词与异音同形异义词语境无关意义:针对左侧额下回的 tDCS 研究。
Brain Cogn. 2024 Nov;181:106212. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106212. Epub 2024 Sep 4.
8
Phonological ambiguity modulates resolution of semantic ambiguity during reading: An fMRI study of Hebrew.语音歧义在阅读过程中调节语义歧义的消解:一项关于希伯来语的功能磁共振成像研究。
Neuropsychology. 2017 Oct;31(7):759-777. doi: 10.1037/neu0000357. Epub 2017 Aug 31.
9
Homograph norms: an alternative approach to determining meaning dominance.同形词规范:一种确定词义优势的替代方法。
Behav Res Methods. 2010 Nov;42(4):976-86. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.976.
10
Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual information: evidence from lexical ambiguity resolution.大脑半球对词汇和语境信息的敏感性:来自词汇歧义消解的证据。
Brain Lang. 2008 May;105(2):71-82. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.004. Epub 2007 Oct 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Pupil Size Tracks the Effects of Global Context and Semantic Ambiguity on Word-Meaning Processing.瞳孔大小跟踪全局语境和语义模糊对词义加工的影响。
J Cogn. 2025 Jul 29;8(1):42. doi: 10.5334/joc.454. eCollection 2025.
2
Studying Individual Differences in Language Comprehension: The Challenges of Item-Level Variability and Well-Matched Control Conditions.研究语言理解中的个体差异:项目层面变异性和匹配良好的对照条件所带来的挑战。
J Cogn. 2023 Sep 7;6(1):54. doi: 10.5334/joc.317. eCollection 2023.
3
Context Facilitates the Decoding of Lexically Ambiguous Words for Adult Literacy Learners.

本文引用的文献

1
Norms as a tool for the study of homography.规范作为单应性研究的工具。
Mem Cognit. 1982 Sep;10(5):503-9. doi: 10.3758/bf03197654.
2
Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.概念中与上下文无关和与上下文相关的信息。
Mem Cognit. 1982 Jan;10(1):82-93. doi: 10.3758/bf03197629.
3
Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.词汇歧义及其在单词识别模型中的作用。
语境有助于成年识字学习者对词汇歧义的解码。
Read Writ. 2023 Mar;36(3):699-722. doi: 10.1007/s11145-022-10315-0. Epub 2022 Jul 7.
4
Learning about the meanings of ambiguous words: evidence from a word-meaning priming paradigm with short narratives.从带有简短叙述的词义启动范式看歧义词的词义学习
PeerJ. 2022 Oct 19;10:e14070. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14070. eCollection 2022.
5
Dominance Norms and Data for Spoken Ambiguous Words in British English.英式英语中口语歧义词汇的显性规范与数据
J Cogn. 2022 Jan 6;5(1):4. doi: 10.5334/joc.194. eCollection 2022.
6
Sensitive Measures of Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment.轻度认知障碍的认知敏感测量。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;82(3):1123-1136. doi: 10.3233/JAD-201280.
7
Recovery from misinterpretations during online sentence processing.在线句子处理中误解的恢复。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Jun;47(6):968-997. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000936. Epub 2020 Nov 30.
8
The role of default mode network in semantic cue integration.默认模式网络在语义线索整合中的作用。
Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117019. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117019. Epub 2020 Jun 6.
9
Structural Equation Modeling of Vocabulary Size and Depth Using Conventional and Bayesian Methods.使用传统方法和贝叶斯方法对词汇量和词汇深度进行结构方程建模
Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 21;11:618. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00618. eCollection 2020.
10
The Neural Time Course of Semantic Ambiguity Resolution in Speech Comprehension.言语理解中语义歧义消解的神经时程。
J Cogn Neurosci. 2020 Mar;32(3):403-425. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01493. Epub 2019 Nov 4.
Psychol Bull. 1984 Sep;96(2):316-40.
4
Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.925个名词的具体性、意象性和意义性数值
J Exp Psychol. 1968 Jan;76(1):Suppl:1-25. doi: 10.1037/h0025327.
5
Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.阅读词汇歧义单词时的选择机制。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Sep;15(5):779-90. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779.