Abstract
In two experiments, we investigated the relationship between semantics and phonology in the lexical decision task. In the first experiment, lexical decisions to words with large semantic neighborhoods were faster than those to words with sparse semantic neighborhoods. Conversely, this effect of semantic neighborhood was reversed for pseudohomophones (e.g.,nale). That is, pseudohomophones based on words with large semantic neighborhoods took longer to reject than did those based on words with sparse semantic neighborhoods. In the second experiment, we found the magnitude of the semantic neighborhood effect for words to be a function of nonword foil type. Taken together, these results indicate that semantic neighborhood size affects processing of both words and pseudohomophones, and that the effect of semantic neighborhood size for words is more pronounced when pseudohomophone foils are employed. These effects are discussed in terms of a model in which the orthographic, phonological, and semantic systems are fully interactive.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Gulikers, L. (1995).The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Berent, I. (1997). Phonological priming in the lexical decision task regularity effects are not necessary evidence for assembly.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 1727–1742.
Besner, D., &Davelaar, E. (1983). Suedohomofoan effects in visual word recognition: Evidence for phonological processing.Canadian Journal of Psychology,37, 300–305.
Borowsky, R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 63–85.
Borowsky, R., Owen, W. J., &Masson, M. E. J. (2002) Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects.Memory & Cognition,30, 969–987.
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., &Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 531–544.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., &Richman, B. (1971).American Heritage word frequency book. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fera, P., &Besner, D. (1992). The process of lexical decision: More words about a parallel distributed processing model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 749–764.
Gibbs, P., &Van Orden, G. C. (1998). Pathway selection’s utility for control of word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1162–1187.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., &Schneider, W. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading development in English and German.Journal of Memory & Language,45, 648–664.
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 130–136.
KuČera, H., &Francis, N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Locker, L., Jr.,Simpson, G. B., &Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words.Memory & Cognition,31, 505–515.
Massaro, D. W., Taylor, G. A., Venezky, R. L., Jastrzembski, J. E., &Lucas, P. A. (1980).Letter and word perception: The role of orthographic structure and visual processing in reading. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Mayall, K., &Humphreys, G. W. (1996). Case mixing and the task-sensitive disruption of lexical processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 278–294.
McCann, R. S., Besner, D., &Davelaar, E. (1988). Word recognition and identification: Do word-frequency effects reflect lexical access?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 693–706.
MRC Psycholinguistic Database (2000).MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine usable dictionary. Version 2.00. Available at http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/MRCDataBase/uwa_mrc.htm.
Nelson, D. L., Bennett, D. J., Gee, N. R., &Schreiber, T. A. (1993). Implicit memory: Effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 747–764.
Nelson, D. L., Schreiber, T. A., &McEvoy, C. L. (1992). Processing implicit and explicit representations.Psychological Review,99, 322–348.
Pexman, P. M., &Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 323–334.
Plaut, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 765–805.
Pring, L. (1981). Phonological codes and functional spelling units: Reality and implications.Perception & Psychophysics,30, 573–578.
Pugh, K. R., Rexer, K., &Katz, L. (1994). Evidence of flexible coding in visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 807–825.
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., &Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 645–657.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.
Schreiber, T. A., & Carter, K. (in press). The activation of preexisting associations in an episodic memory task.Memory.
Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.
Seidenberg, M. S., Petersen, A., MacDonald, M. C., &Plaut, D.C. (1996). Pseudohomophone effects and models of word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 48–62.
SPSS for Windows (Release 11.5.0) [Computer Software] (2002). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 744–774.
Underwood, G., Roberts, M., &Thomason, H. (1988). Strategical invariance in lexical access: The reappearance of the pseudohomophone effect.Canadian Journal of Psychology,42, 24–34.
Vanhoy, M., &Van Orden, G. C. (2001). Pseudohomophones and word recognition.Memory & Cognition,29, 522–529.
Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading.Memory & Cognition,15, 181–198.
Van Orden, G. C., &Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1269–1291.
Van Orden, G. C., Johnston, J. C., &Hale, B. L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 371–386.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., &Klüppel, D. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 547–559.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yates, M., Locker, L. & Simpson, G.B. Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones. Memory & Cognition 31, 856–866 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196440
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196440