Abstract
Using a self-paced reading task, Kellas, Martin, Yehling, Herman, and Vu (1995) demonstrated that strength of context can modulate the effects of meaning frequency. Binder and Rayner (1998) initially replicated the results, using eye-tracking methodology. On further examination of the stimuli, Binder and Rayner eliminated 43% of the stimulus set and found that context strength failed to modulate meaning frequency. Binder and Rayner’s initial replication of Kellas et al. and the convergence of results between their two main experiments established the validity of self-paced reading as a measure of on-line reading, when compared with eye-tracking methodology. However, their central conclusion, that context strength cannot modulate the subordinate bias effect, is open to question. In this commentary, we examine the criteria adopted to exclude items from our homonym set and discuss the issue of local versus published norms. We also discuss the issue of context strength, as related to the specific rating procedures employed. Finally, we conclude that strong context can, in fact, eliminate the subordinate bias effect and that the context-sensitive model can more fully account for the available data on lexical ambiguity resolution.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Azuma, T. (1996). Familiarity and relatedness of word meanings: Ratings for 110 homographs.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 109–124.
Binder, K. S., &Rayner, K. (1998). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 271–276.
Cramer, P. (1970). A study of homographs. In L. Postman & G. Keppel (Eds.),Norms of word association (pp. 361–382). New York: Academic Press.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 461–476.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., &Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 429–446.
Fodor, J. A. (1983).Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.),Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogaboam, T. W., &Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 265–274.
Kellas, G.,Martin, C.,Yehling, K.,Herman, R., &Vu, H. (1995, November).Contextual strength as a determinant of the subordinatebias effect. Poster presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Martin, C.,Vu, H.,Kellas, G., &Metcalf, K. (in press). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., &Wheeler, J.W., Jr. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 16–37.
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., &Clark, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, & Cognition,18, 703–717.
Perfetti, C. A., Lindsey, R., &Garson, B. (1971).Association and uncertainty: Norms of association to ambiguous words. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
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.
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 & Language,33, 527–544.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 120–136.
Simpson, G. B., &Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 627–643.
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., &Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance.Psychological Research,49, 161–167.
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.
Van Petten, C., &Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 188–208.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., &Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution.Memory & Cognition,26, 979–1001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We thank Greg Simpson for his help on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kellas, G., Vu, H. Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6, 511–517 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210842
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210842