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 l, 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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Attneave, F. (1954)Applications of information theory to psychology New York. Henry Holt.
Barclay, J. R., Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., McCarrell N. S, &Nitsch, K (1974). Comprehension and semantic flexibilrtyJournal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 471–481
Barsalou, L W (1982). Context-independent and context-depentdent information in conceptsMemory & Cognition,10, 82–93.
Britton, B. K (1979) Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,10, 1–7
Carpenter, P.A., &Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 137–160.
Cramer, P. (1970). A study of homographs. In L. Postman & G. Keppel (Eds.),Norms of word association. New York: Academic Press.
Drysdale, P. (1991).Collins pocket reference English dictionary. Glasgow: Harper Collins.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 429–446.
Ferraro, F. R., &Kellas, G. (1990). Normative data for number of word meanings.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 491–498.
Frazier, L., &Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences.Journal of Memory & Language,26,505–5266.
Geis, M. F., &Winograd, E. (1974). Norms of semantic encoding variability for fifty homographs.Bulletin of the Psyehonomic Society,3, 429–431.
Gilhooly, K. J., &Lode, R. H. (1980). Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 428–450.
Gorfein, D. S., Viviani, J. M., &Leddo, J. (1982). Norms as a tool for the study of homography.Memory & Cognition,10, 503–509.
Hogaboam, T. W., &Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 265–274.
Kausler, D. H., &Kollasch, S. F. (1970). Word associations to homographs.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 444–449.
Kellas, G., Paul, S. T., Martin, M., &Simpson, G. (1991). Contextual feature activation and meaning access. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 47–71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Neill, W. T. (1989). Lexical ambiguity and context: An activations uppression model. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.),Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 63–83). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Neill W. T., Hilliard, D. V., &Cooper, E. (1988). The detection of lexical ambiguity: Evidence for context-sensitive parallel access.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 279–287.
Neill, W. T., &Klein, R. M. (1989). Reflexions on modularity and connectionism. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.),Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 276–293). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., &Wheeler, J. W. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 16–37.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., &Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, emagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,76(1, Pt. 2), 1–25.
Perfetti, C. A., Lindsay, R., &Garson, B. (1971).Association and uncertainty: Norms of association to ambiguous words. Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Prather, P. A., &Swinney, D. A. (1988). Lexical processing and ambiguity resolution: An autonomous process in an interactive box. In S. I. Small, G. W. Comell, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.),Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 289–310). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Rayner, K., &Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 779–790.
Rayner, K., &Morris, R. K. (1991). Comprehension processes in reading ambiguous sentences: Reflections from eye movements. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 175–198). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, I. K., Leiman, T. M., &Bienkowshi, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing.Cognitive Psychology,14, 489–537.
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.Psychological Bulletin,96, 316–340.
Simpson, G. H. (1989). Varieties of ambiguity: What are we seeking? In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.),Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 13–21). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Simpson, G. B., &Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 28–39.
Simpson, G. B., &Burgess, C. (1988). Implications of lexical ambiguity resolution for word recognition and comprehension. In S. I. Small, G. W. Cottrell, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.),Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 271–288). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Swinney, D. A. (1991). The resolution of indeterminacy during language comprehension: Perspectives on modularity in lexical, structural, and pragmatic processing. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding word and sentence (pp. 367–385). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Tabossi P., Colombo, L., &Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of contextand dominance.Psychological Research,49, 161–167.
Twilley, L. C., & Dixon, P. (1992).Enhancement and suppression of homograph meanings. Unpublished manuscript.
Warren, R. E., Bresnick, J. H., &Green, J. P. (1972). Definitional dominance distributions for 20 English homographs.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,10, 229–231.
Woolen, K. A., Cox, S. D., Coahran, M. M., Shea, D. S., &Kirby, R. F. (1980). Frequency of occurrence and concreteness ratings of homograph meanings.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 8–15.
Yates, J. (1985). The content of awareness is a model of the world.Psychological Review,92, 249–284.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) operating grant toP. Dixon. L. C Twilley was supported by an NSERC postgraduate scholarship
—Accepted by previous editor, Margaret Jean Intons-Peterson
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Twilley, L.C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D. et al. University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Mem Cogn 22, 111–126 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202766
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202766