Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2021.13.1.001

Lexico-semantic interactions during the visual and spoken recognition of homonymous Korean Eojeols  

Kim, Joonwoo (Department of Psychology, Korea University)
Kang, Kathleen Gwi-Young (Department of Psychology, Korea University)
Yoo, Doyoung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University)
Jeon, Inseo (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University)
Kim, Hyun Kyung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University)
Nam, Hyeomin (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University)
Shin, Jiyoung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University)
Nam, Kichun (Department of Psychology, Korea University)
Publication Information
Phonetics and Speech Sciences / v.13, no.1, 2021 , pp. 1-15 More about this Journal
Abstract
The present study investigated the mental representation and processing of an ambiguous word in the bimodal processing system by manipulating the lexical ambiguity of a visually or auditorily presented word. Homonyms (e.g., '물었다') with more than two meanings and control words (e.g., '고통을') with a single meaning were used in the experiments. The lemma frequency of words was manipulated while the relative frequency of multiple meanings of each homonym was balanced. In both experiments using the lexical decision task, a robust frequency effect and a critical interaction of word type by frequency were found. In Experiment 1, spoken homonyms yielded faster latencies relative to control words (i.e., ambiguity advantage) in the low frequency condition, while ambiguity disadvantage was found in the high frequency condition. A similar interactive pattern was found in visually presented homonyms in the subsequent Experiment 2. Taken together, the first key finding is that interdependent lexico-semantic processing can be found both in the visual and auditory processing system, which in turn suggests that semantic processing is not modality dependent, but rather takes place on the basis of general lexical knowledge. The second is that multiple semantic candidates provide facilitative feedback only when the lemma frequency of the word is relatively low.
Keywords
lexical ambiguity; homonym; spoken word recognition; visual word recognition; Korean Eojeol;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245-266.   DOI
2 Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205-235.   DOI
3 Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon 1. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487-494.   DOI
4 Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(1), 1-17.   DOI
5 Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523-568.   DOI
6 Shin, H., Choi, M. Y., & Choi, M. (2004). Representation of Korean ambiguous verbs. Korean Society of Cognitive and Biopsychology, 16(2), 191-209.
7 Shin, J. Y. (2017). Prosodic markers and morphological markers in spoken Korean. Korean Linguistics, 77, 37-63.   DOI
8 Simon, D. A., Lewis, G., & Marantz, A. (2012). Disambiguating form and lexical frequency effects in MEG responses using homonyms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(2), 275-287.   DOI
9 Wang, W., Li, X., Ning, N., & Zhang, J. X. (2012). The nature of the homophone density effect: An ERP study with Chinese spoken monosyllable homophones. Neuroscience Letters, 516(1), 67-71.   DOI
10 Yu, G. S., & Nam, K. C. (2009). Semantic priming effect of Korean lexical ambiguity: A comparison of homonymy and polysemy. Phonetics and Speech Science, 1(2), 63-73.
11 Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1994). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 218-233.   DOI
12 Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103(3), 518-565.   DOI
13 Grainger, J., Muneaux, M., Farioli, F., & Ziegler, J. C. (2005). Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density interact in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 981-998.   DOI
14 Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermuller, F., & MarslenWilson, W. D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. Neuroimage, 30(4), 1383-1400.   DOI
15 Holley-Wilcox, P. (1977, April). The effect of homophony with auditory presentation of stimuli. Proceedings of the 91st Annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
16 Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1331-1356.   DOI
17 Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 686-713.   DOI
18 Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 247-273.   DOI
19 Hong, J. (2007). A study on disambiguation processing in Korean machine translation. Korean Language Society, 50, 241-267.
20 Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-51.
21 Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 63-85.   DOI
22 Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335-359.   DOI
23 Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
24 Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2010). Fast phonology and the bimodal interactive activation model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 764-778.   DOI
25 Doh, J. (2018). On the ambiguity of Korean sentence: Focused on the classification of the types, Asian Cultural Studies Research Institute, 46, 39-72.
26 Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 4, 53-61.   DOI
27 Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256-281.   DOI
28 Hong, J., Nam, K., Yoo, H., & Lee, D., Hwang, H. (2000). Korean dictionary of ambiguous Eojeols. Seoul, Korea: Taehaksa.
29 Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 278-305.   DOI
30 Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(5), 534-537.   DOI
31 Jun, S. A. (2000). K-ToBI (Korean ToBI ) labelling conventions1. Speech Sciences, 7(1), 143-169.
32 Kang, B. M. (2005). Aspect of the use of homonyms. Language Research, 41(1), 1-29.
33 Kang, B., & Kim, H. (2009). Frequency of Korean usage: 15 million words based on sejong form semantic analysis corpus. Seoul, Korea: Hankukmunhwasa.
34 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), 1-24.   DOI
35 Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 601-609.   DOI
36 Kim, J. (2016). Lexical factors that influence the Korean Eojeol recognition (Doctoral Dissertation). Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
37 Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259-282.   DOI
38 Kwon, Y. A., Cho, H. S., Nam, K. (2013). The event-related potential evidence of phonological activation in hangul homophone reading. Journal of Language Sciences, 20(2), 1-12.
39 Lee, H. Y. (2010). The representation of Korean ambiguous nouns in the mental lexicon (Master's thesis). Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
40 McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86(4), 287-330.   DOI
41 Millis, M. L., & Bution, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don't. Memory and Cognition, 17, 141-147.   DOI
42 Mirman, D., Strauss, T. J., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2010). Effect of representational distance between meanings on recognition of ambiguous spoken words. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 161-173.   DOI
43 Park, T. (2003). Subjective frequency estimates of Korean words and frequency effects on word recognition. Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 15(2), 349-366.
44 R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.5.1) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
45 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(4), 323-334.   DOI
46 Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1252-1270.   DOI
47 Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 139-156.   DOI
48 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(4), 527-544.   DOI