About sharing and commitment: the retrieval of biased and balanced irregular polysemes

References

• Apresjan, J. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 12, 5–32. doi: 10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 273–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2011). Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2223–2228).
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2013). Simulating overall and trial-by-trial effects in response selection with a biologically plausible connectionist network. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 139–144). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2016). Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 940–966. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1171366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affect lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484–504. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical Introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (release 2, CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–6. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
   Google Scholar
• Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63–85. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bott, L., Rees, A., & Frisson, S. (2016). The time course of familiar metonymy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1160–1170. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000218
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brocher, A., Foraker, S., & Koenig, J. P. (2016). Processing of irregular polysemes in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1798–1813. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
   Google Scholar
• Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship, and task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882–898. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.4.882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copestake, A., & Briscoe, E. J. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67. doi: 10.1093/jos/12.1.15
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02990-9
   Google Scholar
• Dholakia, A., Meade, G., & Coch, D. (2016). The N400 elicited by homonyms in puns: Two primes are not better than one. Psychophysiology, 53, 1799–1810. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eddington, C. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2015). How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: The current state of the literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 13–37. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0665-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31, 87–99. doi: 10.3758/BF03196085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foraker, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2012). Polysemy in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 407–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627–635. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80042-8
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 181–200. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 111–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x
   Google Scholar
• Frisson, S. (2015). About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua, 157, 17–35. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. (2005). Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 277–291. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1366–1383. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511790942
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. (1991). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 245–262). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., & St. John, M. F. (2001). Modeling suppression in lexical access. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10459-003
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1993). Process and products in making sense of tropes. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 258–276), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.014
   Google Scholar
• Gottlob, L. R., Goldinger, S. D., Stone, G. O., & Orden, G. C. V. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 561–574. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 643–657. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2003.15.5.643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785–813. doi: 10.3758/BF03196544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259–282. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 548–570. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00020-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205–223. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain & Language, 123, 11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534–1543. doi: 10.1037/a0013012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Li, L., & Slevc, R. (2017). Of papers and pens: Polysemes and homophones in lexical (mis)selection. Cognitive Science, 41, 1532–1548. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locker, L., Simpson, G. B., & Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words. Memory & Cognition, 31, 505–515. doi: 10.3758/BF03196092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacGregor, L. J., Bouwsema, J., & Klepousniotou, E. (2015). Sustained meaning activation for polysemous but not homonymous words: Evidence from EEG. Neuropsychologia, 68, 126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1146, 115–127. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. P., & Altarriba, J. (1988). Depth of spreading activation revisited: Semantic mediated priming occurs in lexical decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 545–559. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90025-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 558–572. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559. doi: 10.3758/BF03192726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (2007). Parsimony and the psychological representation of polysemous words. In M. Rakova, G. Petho, & C. Rákosi (Eds.), The cognitive basis of polysemy. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Navarro, D. J. (2014). Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (Version 0.4). Adelaide: University of Adelaide.
   Google Scholar
• Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, D., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. (2004). The University of South Florida free association rhyme and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407. doi: 10.3758/BF03195588
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143–184. doi: 10.1007/BF00126509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perea, M., & Gotor, A. (1997). Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short stimulus-onset asynchronies in lexical decision and naming. Cognition, 62, 223–240. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00782-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66, 180–194. doi: 10.1007/s00426-002-0086-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 556–573. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: Meg evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 97–109. doi: 10.1162/089892906775250003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabagliati, H., Marcus, G. F., & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Rules, radical pragmatics and restrictions on regular polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 28, 485–512. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffr005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabagliati, H., & Snedeker, J. (2013). The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological Science, 24, 1354–1360. doi: 10.1177/0956797612472205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201. doi: 10.3758/BF03197692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527–544. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rice, S. A. (1992). Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive Science Society (pp. 89–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89–104. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2801_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120–136. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90356-X
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28–39. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90356-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627–643. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90029-J
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
   Google Scholar
• Taler, V., Kousaie, S., & Zunini, R. L. (2013). ERP measures of semantic richness: The case of multiple senses. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–6. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamminen, J., & Gaskell, M. G. (2013). Novel word integration in the mental lexicon: Evidence from unmasked and masked semantic priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1001–1025. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.724694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. (2003). Cognitive models of polysemy. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy – Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 31–48), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110895698.31
   Google Scholar
• Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22, 111–126. doi: 10.3758/BF03202766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word—nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 143–154. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90110-X
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 193–218. doi: 10.1007/BF01068072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar