JOURNAL
OF MEMORY
AND
27,429-446
LANGUAGE
Lexical Ambiguity
(1988)
and Fixation Times in Reading
SUSAN A. DUFFT
Amherst
College
AND
ROBIN K. MORRIS AND KEITH RAYNER
University
of Massachusetts,
Amherst
Readers’ eye movements were recorded as they read sentences containing lexically ambiguous words or unambiious control words. The ambiguous words had either two equally
likely interpretations (equibiased words) or one highly dominant interpretation (non-equibiased words). On half the trials a preceding clause disambiguated the ambiguous word,
while in the remaining trials the disambiguating clause followed the target word. Gaze durations on the target word and reading times on later parts of the sentences varied as a function of the type of target word (ambiguous or control), the type of ambiguous word (equibiased or non-equibiased), and the location of the disambiguating clause. The data from the
study support a model in which more that one meaning of an ambiguous word is automatically activated, but degree of activation is influenced by frequency and prior context.
0 1988 Academic
press,
Inc
Research on lexical ambiguity has focused on two general questions. First, what
meaning or meanings are retrieved during
the initial lexical access process for an ambiguous word? Second, what effect does
preceding sentence context have on the access process? In discussing these questions,
we will differentiate between two
This research was supported by Grants BNS8510177 from the National Science Foundation and
HD17246 from the National Institutes of Health and
was carried out while the first author held an NIMH
post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Massachusetts. The manuscript was written while the first
author was supported by Grants BNS83-17900 from
the National Science Foundation and 1 ROl MH40029
from the National Institute of Mental Health. Portions
of this data were presented at the London meeting of
the Experimental Psychology Society, January 1988.
We thank Chuck Clifton, Don Fisher, and Lyn Frazier
for their comments on the paper. Requests for reprints
should be addressed to Susan A. DufFy, Department of
Psychology, Amherst College, Amherst, MA 01002.
kinds of encounters with ambiguous lexical
items: an encounter in which the ambiguous word is not preceded by useful disambiguating context and an encounter in
which the ambiguous word is preceded by
disambiguating context.
No prior disambiguating
context. Recent
research has converged on a two-stage
model to account for the processing of ambiguous words which are ambiguous when
encountered. In the lexical access stage, all
meanings of an ambiguous word are initially accessed. In the subsequent selection
stage, one meaning is selected. The timing
of access seems to depend on the relative
frequency of the various meanings. For
ambiguous words with two equally likely
meanings
(equibiased),
the two meanings
are accessed simultaneously (Seidenberg,
Tanenhaus, Leiman, & Bienkowski, 1982;
Swinney, 1979). For ambiguous words with
one likely and one very unlikely meaning
(non-equibiased), although both meanings
429
0749-596X/88 $3.00
Copyright
All rights
8 1988 by Academic
Press. Inc.
of reproduction
in any form reserved.
430
DUFFY,
MORRIS,
are accessed (Onifer & Swinney, 1981), the
dominant meaning becomes available earlier that the non-dominant
meaning
(Simpson & Burgess, 1985). Thus, under
this model, the meanings of an ambiguous
word are accessed exhaustively in order of
frequency. This exhaustive access process
is followed by selection of one meaning,
which can be accomplished within 200 ms
(Seidenberg et al., 1982; Swinney, 1979).
Subsequent disambiguating information
may cause a reanalysis of the ambiguous
word if the inappropriate meaning has been
selected.
Such a model of the processing of lexical
ambiguity suggests that equibiased ambiguous words should take longer to process
than unambiguous words and non-equibiased ambiguous words. There are at least
two reasons why increased processing time
might be required. First, retrieving two
equally likely meanings from the lexicon
may be more time consuming than retrieving one or than retrieving a set of
meanings in which one is highly dominant.
Second, post-access integration processes
may be more time consuming when two
meanings become available at the same
time because the appropriate meaning must
be selected. This selection process may involve an attempt at integrating each
meaning with the context to see which is
more appropriate. Such a selection process
is not required for words with one meaning
and may not be required for non-equibiased
words for which the dominant meaning becomes available first. This model also predicts that if selection is carried out immediately, then the inappropriate meaning will
be selected on some proportion of the
trials. This results in the need for time consuming reanalysis once the disambiguating
information is encountered.
Rayner and Duffy (1986) tested the hypothesis that ambiguous words require
more processing time than unambiguous
words when preceded by neutral context.
They monitored eye movements while subjects read sentences containing either am-
AND
RAYNER
biguous words or control words matched
for length and frequency. Two kinds of ambiguous words were used: equibiased and
non-equibiased. Disambiguating information followed the ambiguous words; thus
the words were ambiguous when first encountered and only disambiguated by later
sentence content. Rayner and Duffy found
that gaze durations on the equibiased ambiguous words were longer than on their
corresponding controls; gaze durations on
the non-equibiased ambiguous words did
not differ from their controls. Overall,
these results strongly support the claim
that both meanings of an equibiased ambiguous word are initially accessed. If only
one meaning was accessed, then one would
not expect lengthened gaze durations on
these words.
Rayner and Duffy also found that subjects spent more time reading the disambiguating region of the sentence when it
followed an ambiguous word than when it
followed a control word. In their experiment, the disambiguating information was
always congruent with the less dominant
meaning of the ambiguous target words, so
this finding is consistent with the claim that
readers select one meaning very quickly.
That is, in many cases the reader selected
the wrong meaning initially and a time consuming reanalysis was then required when
disambiguating information was encountered. For the non-equibiased ambiguous
words, readers would be expected always
to choose the wrong meaning (i.e., the
dominant meaning); whereas for the equibiased ambiguous words, readers would be
expected to choose the wrong meaning
about half the time. In support of this interpretation, Rayner and Duffy found that
time spent on the disambiguating region
was longer for the non-equibiased than for
the equibiased ambiguous words. Rayner
and Duffy (1987) also obtained this pattern
when the disambiguating information was
congruent with the less frequent meaning
for non-equibiased ambiguous targets. As
expected, they found that readers did not
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
spend longer reading the disambiguating
region when it was congruent with the
dominant meaning of the non-equibiased
ambiguous targets.
Prior disambiguating
context. While the
evidence seems to converge on an exhaustive access model for ambiguous words
preceded by a neutral context, the picture
is less clear for the processing of ambiguous words preceded by disambiguating
context. There are two kinds of models of
how prior disambiguating information
could affect the initial processing of an ambiguous word. These models differ in their
assumptions about the effect of context on
the lexical access process for ambiguous
words. Under the assumptions of selective
access models, prior disambiguating information provides enough information to
allow access of only the appropriate
meaning of the word. Under exhaustive access models, all meanings are accessed as
long as prior disambiguating information
does not contain a word which strongly
primes one meaning of the ambiguous
word.
Two versions of the exhaustive access
model are relevant here. Under the autonomous access model, prior disambiguating
context has no effect at all on the access
process (unless the context contains lexical
items which strongly prime one meaning).
The access process proceeds exactly as it
would when preceded by neutral context.
This model has been supported by a variety
of cross-modal priming studies involving
both lexical decision for equibiased
(Swinney, 1979) and non-equibiased (Onifer & Swinney, 1981) ambiguous words
and naming for equibiased ambiguous
words (Seidenberg et al., 1982). In all of
these studies, facilitation was found for
target words related to both meanings of
the ambiguous word relative to a neutral
target word.
Under a second exhaustive access
model, which we will label the reordered
access model, it is assumed that prior disambiguating context does affect the access
AND
FIXATIONS
431
process by increasing the availability of the
appropriate meaning without influencing
the alternative meaning. Thus, the appropriate meaning for equibiased words would
be expected to become available earlier
than the inappropriate meaning (in essence,
the equibiased word becomes non-equibiased). For the case in which the appropriate meaning is the less frequent meaning
of a non-equibiased word, the model would
predict that this less frequent meaning
would become available earlier than usual,
possibly simultaneously with the more frequent meaning. Such a model was proposed by Carpenter and Daneman (1981) to
account for pronunciation patterns in a
study in which subjects read aloud sentences containing ambiguous words whose
two alternative interpretations involved
two different pronunciations (e.g., bow,
lead). More recently, Simpson (1984) has
argued for such a model based on an extensive review of the literature on lexical ambiguity. In presenting this model, we are
deliberately avoiding a specification of the
mechanisms by which context affects access. We will take up this issue in more detail in the General Discussion.
The selective access model has received
support from two recent studies. Glucksberg, Kreuz, and Rho (1986) argued for this
model using the results of a cross-modal
priming study involving lexical decision in
which the critical targets were non-words.
These non-words resembled words whose
meanings might be primed by the ambiguous word in the sentence (e.g., paimoe resembles piano). Interference in responding
“no” to these non-words was taken as evidence that the corresponding meaning of
the ambiguous word had been activated.
Glucksberg et al. found such interference
only for the appropriate meaning of nonequibiased ambiguous words even when
the appropriate meaning was the less frequent meaning (but see Burgess, Seidenberg, & Tanenhaus, 1986). Van Petten and
Kutas (1987) also recently argued for this
model using evidence from a study in
432
DUFFY, MORRIS,
which event-related
brain potentials
(ERPs) were measured as subjects read
sentences containing lexically ambiguous
target words.
The current study. Data relevant to these
models were collected using a natural
reading situation in which subjects’ eye
movements were monitored as in the
Rayner and Duffy (1986) study. In the current study the stimulus sentences were all
composed of two clauses. One clause contained the target word and the other clause
contained disambiguating information. The
order of the two clauses could be reversed,
allowing the disambiguating context either
to precede or to follow the target word.
Target words were either ambiguous words
or unambiguous matched controls. Both
equibiased and non-equibiased ambiguous
words were included. When the target
word was a non-equibiased ambiguous
word, the disambiguating information
always selected the less frequent meaning.
Example sentences from all of the conditions are given in Table 1. Reading times in
three regions of each sentence were
scored: the gaze duration for the initial encounter of the target word, the time spent
AND RAYNER
reading the words following the target word
to the end of the clause containing the
target word (post-target region), and the
time spent reading that portion of the other
clause which contained the disambiguating
information (disambiguating region).
We assume that these measures reflect
different aspects of the processing of the
target words. Gaze duration on the target
word itself reflects the lexical access process; additionally, it is likely to reflect at
least some of the process of integrating the
meaning of the word with the prior sentence context (Schustack, Ehrlich, &
Rayner, 1987). We assume that access is
completed before the reader moves the
eyes away from the target word, but the integration process may not be (Rayner and
Duffy, 1986). Thus, time spent reading the
region immediately following the target
word does not reflect the initial access process. It reflects the process of integrating
the target word’s meaning with the rest of
the sentence context. When the target
word is ambiguous and two meanings have
been accessed, the integration process may
include an attempt at integrating both
meanings with the context, followed by a
selection
among those meanings. AlternaTABLE 1
tively,
if
only
one meaning is being considEXAMPLESENTENCES
ered, the integration process may include a
Equibiased
second access of the target word if the
Ambiguous Before:
Because it was kept on the
reader discovers that the initially selected
back of a high shelf, the
meaning is inappropriate. Finally, time
pitcher (whiskey) was often
spent on the disambiguating region when it
forgotten.
Ambiguous After:
Of course the pitcher
follows the target word will reflect addi(whiskey) was often fortional integration processes, possibly ingotten because it was kept
cluding another accessof the target word if
on the back of a high shelf.
the wrong meaning has been initially selected.
Non-equibiased
Ambiguous Before:
When she finally served it to
The three models discussed earlier make
her guests, the port (soup) different predictions for the pattern of gaze
was a great success.
durations on the target word and for the
Ambiguous After:
Last night the port (soup)
time spent following the target word in
was a great success when
those
conditions in which the disambigshe finally served it to her
guests.
uating context precedes the target word.
We will focus first on gaze durations on the
Note. The ambiguous target word is italicized. The
target words.
corresponding
control word is included in parentheses.
Target word efsects. Rayner and Duffy
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
(1986) found that gaze durations were
lengthened on equibiased ambiguous
targets when no disambiguating context
preceded the targets. However, gaze durations were not lengthened for non-equibiased ambiguous targets. If preceding
context in general has no effect on the process of lexical access, as predicted by the
autonomous access model, then a similar
lengthening should be found for equibiased
ambiguous targets when preceded by disambiguating context. According to this
model, the lengthened durations reflect either the time to access two meanings, to
select among the meanings, or both. This
access of two meanings and selection
among them must occur even in the presence of disambiguating context. If the simultaneous access of two meanings accounts for the lengthened gaze durations,
then the same effect should be found for
the equibiased ambiguous targets preceded
by disambiguating context. If the selection
process accounts for the lengthened gaze
durations, then the effect may be smaller
because it may be easier to make the selection when there is disambiguating context
than when there is neutral context. Nevertheless, since the control words do not require this selection among different
meanings, the autonomous access model
predicts some effect of ambiguity for the
equibiased ambiguous targets. If the gaze
duration is reflecting some selection and integration processes, then the autonomous
access model also predicts that the time
spent on the non-equibiased ambiguous
targets should be lengthened. In this experiment, the disambiguating context always
selected the less likely meaning of the nonequibiased target words. Thus, when disambiguating context precedes such a
target, the first meaning which becomes
available is inappropriate, and a time consuming reanalysis is required. In summary,
the autonomous access model predicts
longer gaze durations on both non-equibiased and equibiased ambiguous targets
compared to their controls.
AND
FIXATIONS
433
The reordered access model predicts a
different pattern of results. Since context is
assumed to increase the availability of the
appropriate meaning, the equibiased words
now resemble non-equibiased. That is, the
appropriate meaning becomes available before the inappropriate. As a result, lexical
access time is not increased and no subsequent selection process is required; the
first meaning is simply integrated with the
prior context as it is for single-meaning
control words. Thus, this model predicts
no difference in gaze durations of equibiased ambiguous words and their controls
when disambiguating context precedes the
target word. In contrast, the non-equibiased ambiguous target words preceded
by disambiguating context should resemble
the equibiased preceded by a neutral context. The disambiguating context causes
the less frequent meaning to be more available than usual while having no inhibiting
effect on the more frequent meaning. As a
result on some trials both meanings will become available close enough in time to
slow the access process and/or require a
selection between meanings. On other
trials the inappropriate meaning will still
become available first, resulting in a time
consuming attempt at integrating the inappropriate meaning. In either case, gaze durations on non-equibiased ambiguous
targets preceded by disambiguating context
should be longer than those on their controls. In summary, the reordered access
model predicts longer gaze durations on
non-equibiased ambiguous words compared with their controls and no difference
between gaze durations on equibiased ambiguous words and their controls.
The selective access model does not
readily lend itself to straightforward predictions about gaze durations on the ambiguous target words when preceded by disambiguating context. The mechanisms by
which context allows one meaning to be ignored altogether await specification. The
finding of no effect of ambiguity on gaze
durations on targets when preceded by dis-
434
DUFFT,
MORRIS,
ambiguating context would be consistent
with the claims of this model, however; it
would also provide evidence against the
other two models.
Post-target region efsects. The pattern of
time spent on the post-target region when
disambiguating information precedes the
target word is also relevant to distinguishing among the three models. Time
spent on this region should reflect any remaining difficulty the reader has in disambiguating the target. The autonomous access model could most easily account for
evidence of difficulty in this region following both kinds of ambiguous targets. In
the case of equibiased targets, the reader
may initially attempt to integrate the inappropriate meaning as part of the selection
process. In the case of non-equibiased
targets, the reader should in most cases be
trying to integrate the inappropriate
meaning or to recover from the failure of
the integration attempt.
The reordered access model predicts no
evidence of difficulty for an equibiased
target word because the appropriate
meaning becomes available first. It can,
however, account for evidence of difficulty
in the region following non-equibiased ambiguous targets because an initial attempt
to integrate the inappropriate meaning may
be made.
The selective access model predicts no
more evidence of difIiculty in this region
when it follows either kind of ambiguous
target than when it follows a control target.
In both cases, the appropriate meaning is
accessed, and integrating it should be
straightforward .
In addition to providing information
about the processing of ambiguous targets
when preceded by disambiguating context,
the current experiment also replicates the
conditions in Rayner and Duffy (1986) in
which disambiguating information always
followed the target words. In the sentences
used by Rayner and Duffy, however, the
disambiguating information followed the
target words fairly immediately. Thus, it
AND
RAYNER
was not possible to determine whether the
initial processing of an ambiguous word
spilled over into subsequent fixations. In
the current experiment, disambiguating information appeared in a separate clause,
and the target words were always followed
by several words which completed the
target word clause and which were neutral
with respect to the alternative meanings of
the ambiguous word. This gave us the opportunity to observe whether the processing of ambiguous words spills over as
the reader goes on to the rest of the clause.
METHOD
Subjects
Forty members of the University of Massachusetts community were paid to participate in the study. They were all native English speakers, had normal uncorrected vision, and were naive with respect to the
purpose of the study.
Procedure
When a subject arrived for the experiment, a bite bar was prepared which served
to eliminate head movements. The eyetracking system was then calibrated for the
subject. This initial calibration process
took approximately 5 min. Subjects were
then told that the experiment dealt with
where readers look during reading. They
were told that they should read each sentence for comprehension, and that they
would periodically be asked to respond to
yes/no comprehension questions asked by
the experimenter. Subjects were encouraged to read as they would normally read,
including rereading the sentence if desired.
At the start of each trial left and right tixation crosses were displayed. The subject
was instructed to look at the left fixation
cross, which marked the position of the
first letter of the sentence. Once the subject had fixated the left cross the experimenter presented the sentence. After
reading the sentence, the subject pushed a
button which erased the sentence from the
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
screen. The experimenter asked comprehension questions after every fourth question, on average. Subjects were able to answer these questions correctly about 90%
of the time.
Apparatus
Eye movements were recorded by a
Stanford Research Institute Dual Purkinje
Eyetracker. Viewing was binocular with
eye location recorded from the right eye.
The eyetracking system was interfaced
with a Hewlett-Packard 2100A computer
that ran the experiment. The position of the
subject’s eye was sampled every millisecond by the computer, and a determination of the location of the eye was made
every 4 ms. The eyetracker has a resolution
of 10 min of arc, and the sentences were
presented over two or three lines, with up
to 42 characters on a single line.
The sentences were presented on a Hewlett-Packard 1300-A cathode ray tube
(CRT) which was also interfaced with the
computer. The subject’s eyes were 46 cm
from the CRT, and three characters
equalled 1 degree of visual angle. The characters were presented in lower case (except
for the first letter of the sentence) and were
made up from a 5 x 7 dot matrix. The CRT
was covered with a dark theatre gel so that
the characters appeared very clear to the
subjects.
Materials
Norming data were collected for 110 ambiguous lexical items. Three lists of words
were constructed for the norming task.
Two of the lists contained 75 words each;
50 ambiguous items and 25 unambiguous
filler items. A third list contained 34 items;
10 new ambiguous items, 12 ambiguous
items repeated from the first two lists for
which additional data were needed, and 12
unambiguous filler items.
Eighty-eight undergraduate students at
the University of Massachusetts participated in the norming task. Each subject
was given one list of words to evaluate. For
AND FIXATIONS
435
each word, they were instructed to write
down the first associated word that came to
mind, and then to use the original word in a
sentence. These two tasks provided information about frequency of meaning and
part of speech for each ambiguous word.
Eighteen equibiased and eighteen nonequibiased ambiguous lexical items were
chosen for the present experiment using
the norming data. The dominant meaning
for the equibiased items had a probability
range of 0.48-0.69, with a mean of 0.57.
The dominant meaning for the non-equibiased items had a probability range of
0.80- 1JO, with a mean of 0.93.
Each ambiguous word was paired with
an unambiguous control word which was
matched for length in letters, and for frequency using the Kucera and Francis
(1967) norms. For each word pair, two sentence frames were constructed. Each
member of the pair fit smoothly into each
sentence frame. For the non-equibiased
words, the intended meaning was always
the less dominant meaning listed in the
norms. For the equibiased, the intended
meaning was always the dominant
meaning. Under ideal conditions, of
course, neither meaning would be more
dominant for the equibiased nouns. We
found very few nouns for which this was
the case. As indicated above, we allowed
the probability of the less likely meaning to
range as low as 0.31 for the equibiased
targets. We worried that for some subjects,
some of the equibiased words would actually by non-equibiased. Because we did not
want the data for the equibiased condition
to reflect a mix of access of likely and unlikely meanings, the intended meaning was
always the more dominant meaning.
Each sentence was made up of two
clauses that could be reversed, with minimal change in the wording of the sentence,
and still maintain the grammatical and semantic integrity of the sentence. The clause
which contained the target word was neutral with respect to the meaning of the ambiguous target. All disambiguating informa-
436
DUFFY,MORRIS,ANDRAYNER
tion was contained in the other clause. Because the clause order could be switched,
disambiguating information appeared either
before or after the target word. A complete
list of stimulus sentences is given in the
Appendix.
The stimuli were arranged in four materials sets. Both sentence frames for each
word pair appeared in all four sets, as did
all of the ambiguous and control target
words. In the first materials set, half of the
pairs of sentence frames associated with
the equibiased targets and half associated
with the non-equibiased targets were arranged with the disambiguating clause preceding the target clause (the Before condition); the remaining half were arranged
with the disambiguating clause following
the target clause (the After condition).
Then for each pair of sentence frames, the
appropriate ambiguous target word was inserted into one member of the sentence
pair; the corresponding control target word
was inserted into the other member of the
pair. The complete sentences were then
randomly ordered with the constraint that
members of a sentence pair could not appear close to one another. The second materials set was created by simply reversing
the assignment of ambiguous and control
targets to sentence frames. Materials sets
three and four were created from the first
two by reversing the order of clauses in the
sentence frames.
Thus, there were a total of eight withinsubjects conditions formed by the crossing
of three factors: target word type (ambiguous or control), bias of target word (equibiased or non-equibiased), and location of
disambiguating information (before or after
target clause). A given subject saw 72 experimental sentences, 9 sentences in each
of the 8 conditions. These were preceded
by 4 practice sentences.
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Measures of processing time for three regions in each sentence were calculated: the
target word itself, the region from the end
of the target word to the clause boundary,
and the disambiguating region. The gaze
duration on a target word was calculated by
summing all consecutive fixations made on
the target word beginning with the first fixation on the word and ending with the last
fixation before the eyes moved on to another word. Thus gaze duration is a measure of time spent fixating the target word
on first encounter. It does not include any
regressions to the target from elsewhere in
the sentence. If the target word was not directly fixated, then the closest fixation
within four character spaces to the left and
one to the right of the word was counted as
the fixation during which the target word
was processed. This procedure was based
upon research demonstrating that the perceptual span is asymmetric, wider to the
right of fixation than to the left, and that
readers are able to obtain lexical information from words beginning less than six
character spaces to the right of fixation
(see Rayner, 1984). A total of 10% of the
trials yielded unusable data for the gaze duration analysis due to track losses or the
lack of a fixation near the target word. In
addition, another 5% of the data were eliminated because gaze durations on the target
were less than 150 ms. In cases where
readers make such short fixations on a
word, it is highly likely that much of the
processing associated with that word was
done on the prior fixation (Morrison, 1984).
Time spent on the post-target region was
calculated as the sum of all fixations beginning with the fixation which followed the
last fixation on the target word and ending
either when the subject went on to the next
clause (when the region was in the first
clause of the sentence) or when the subject
pressed the response button to erase the
sentence (when the region was in the
second clause of the sentence). This sum
can be thought of as the total time needed
to understand the information in the posttarget region in the context of the information which preceded it in the sentence. This
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
sum included any regressions made from
the region to other parts of the sentence.
Regressions were not treated separately
because we wanted a measure of the time
needed to comprehend the post-target information regardless of where the eyes
were moved to achieve comprehension.
Because the length of the post-target region
varied across sentences, the sum was divided by the number of characters in the
post-target region to yield a millisecond per
character measure.
The third region was the disambiguating
region, defined as the region which began
with the word in the disambiguating clause
which first disambiguated the ambiguous
target word and extending to the end of the
clause. Time spent on the disambiguating
region was calculated as the sum of all fixations beginning with the first fixation in the
disambiguating region and ending either
when the subject moved on to the second
clause (in the Before condition) or when
the subject pressed the response button (in
the After condition). This sum included any
regressions from that region to any other
part of the sentence. The sum was divided
by the number of characters in the disambiguating region to yield the millisecond
per character measure.
Gaze durations. Mean gaze durations for
the target words are presented in Table 2.’
An overall analysis of variance indicated
that more time was spent on ambiguous
words compared with their controls
[F1(1,39) = 5.44, MS, = 1677, p < .024;
ZQ(1,70) = 8.11, MS, = 1099, p < .006].
The size of this effect varied, as indicated
by a three-way interaction between word
type, bias, and position of disambiguating
information [&‘1(1,39) = 7.60, MS, = 912,
p < .009; F2(1,70) = 4.36, MS, = 983, p <
.04]. Pairwise comparisons of the ambig’ It should be noted that the same pattern of results
was obtained when the duration of the first fixation on
the target word was examined. However, since gaze
duration represents the total amount of time that the
reader fwates on the target word on first encounter,
we will limit our discussion to that measure.
AND FIXATIONS
437
uous targets with their controls indicated
that the mean gaze duration on the equibiased ambiguous words in the After condition was longer than on their controls
[F1(1,39) = 4.96, MS, = 1384, p < .03;
K!(1,35) = 4.48, MS, = 1297, p < .04].
Time spent on the non-equibiased ambiguous targets did not differ from that on
their controls (both F’s < 1). The pattern
changed in the Before condition. The equibiased ambiguous mean did not differ from
its control (both F’s < 1). However, more
time was spent on the non-equibiased ambiguous targets than on their controls
[F1(1,39) = 5.70, MS, = 1615, p < .021;
E?!(1,35) = 6.06, MS, = 1153, p < .018].
The pattern of results in the After condition replicated that of Rayner and Duffy
(1986). Gaze durations on the equibiased
ambiguous targets were lengthened, presumably because of the initial access and/
or integration of two meanings. Gaze durations on the non-equibiased targets were
not longer than on their controls because
the most likely meaning was made available first and was integrated with the prior
context before the second meaning became
available; thus a time consuming selection
process was avoided.
In contrast to the pattern of results in the
After condition, in the Before condition it
was the non-equibiased ambiguous words
which provided evidence of processing difficulty. The equibiased target words were
no more time consuming to process than
their controls. This is exactly the pattern
predicted by the reordered access model.
Under this model, prior disambiguating
context serves to increase the availability
of the appropriate meaning without inhibiting the inappropriate meaning. As a result, for the equibiased ambiguous targets,
the appropriate meaning becomes available
first and the word is processed as though it
had only one meaning. For the non-equibiased ambiguous targets, the inappropriate meaning becomes available earlier
than usual (since it is the less frequent
meaning). As a result, both meanings are
438
DUFFY, MORRIS,
AND RAYNER
TABLE 2
MEAN GAZE DURATIONS (IN MS) ON TARGET WORDS
Position of disambiguating
clause
Before
Equibiased
Non-equibiased
After
Ambiguous
Control
Ambiguous
Control
264
276
264
255
279
261
261
259
likely to become available simultaneously.
The availability of two meanings causes
processing difficulty here as it does for the
equibiased ambiguous words in the After
condition.
This pattern of gaze durations is not consistent with the original predictions of the
autonomous access model. This model is
able to account for the pattern in the After
condition by assuming that multiple
meanings only cause processing difficulty
when they become available simultaneously (or close enough in time that the
integrative process is forced to make a selection among meanings). As a result, there
is evidence of processing difficulty for the
equibiased ambiguous targets in the After
condition but not for the non-equibiased
ambiguous targets. The model has trouble
accounting for the reversal of the pattern in
the Before condition. Under this model,
access of meaning is not modified by the
disambiguating contexts used here. As a
result, since processing two meanings
causes difliculty for the equibiased ambiguous targets in the After condition, then it
should also cause difficulty in the Before
condition. Although the selection process
may be easier in the Before condition because of the presence of clearly disambiguating prior context, nevertheless a selection process should be required. One might
try to account for the lack of effect of ambiguity in the equibiased Before condition by
claiming that most unambiguous words
have several senses. Thus, the control
word times include time to select among
senses. Given this assumption, however, it
would be difficult to account for the difference which does exist between the equibiased ambiguous targets and their controls
in the After condition.
Post-target
region. Time spent on the
post-target region is presented in Table 3.
An overall analysis of variance indicated
that subjects spent more time in this region
when the disambiguating clause preceded
the target word and the post-target region
ended the sentence [F1(1,39) = 39.2, MS,
= 744, p -=c.OOl; E2(1,70) = 130.0, MS, =
205, p < .OOl]. This effect may reflect end
of sentence wrap-up processes (Just & Carpenter, 1980). In addition, because the
measure includes time spent on regressions
from the post-target region, this effect may
reflect the fact that there are more words to
which regressions can be made when the
region ends the sentence. Within the equibiased condition, there was no difference in
time spent in the post-target region as a
function of word type [Fl < 1; F2( 1,35) =
1.14, MS, = 67, p > .29]. Thus, the initial
processing of equibiased ambiguous words
did not spill over to the next few fixations.
For the non-equibiased condition, word
type interacted with position of disambiguating information; this was significant
within the subjects analysis [Fl(1,39) =
4.78, MS, = 73,~ < .033;&?2(1,35) = 1.95,
MS, = 134,p < .17]. Pairwise comparisons
indicated that readers spent longer in this
region only when the disambiguating information preceded the target word [Fl( 1,39)
= 4.08, MS, = 111, p < .05].
There was no evidence that the initial access and integration in the absence of dis-
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
439
AND FIXATIONS
TABLE 3
MEAN TIME (IN MS PER CHAMCTER) SPENT ON THE P’~sT-TARGET REGION
Position of disambiguating
clause
Before
Ambiguous
Equibiased
Non-equibiased
51
59
ambiguating context spilled over into the
post-target region. This is reasonable given
that the target words were on average preceded by only 2.6 words in the After condition. Thus, there was very little context to
evaluate, and it was consistent with either
meaning.
The pattern of results in the Before condition is easily accounted for by the reordered access model. In the case of the
equibiased ambiguous target, the appropriate meaning has become available first.
It is integrated smoothly with the prior
context. As a result , there is no evidence
of integration difficulty in the post-target
region. In the case of the non-equibiased
ambiguous target, the reader is likely to be
working with the inappropriate meaning either because it was the first accessed or because it became available along with the
appropriate meaning. As a result, the integration process becomes more difficult.
The other two models have more trouble
accounting for the full pattern. The autonomous access model can account for the
evidence of difficulty for the non-equibiased ambiguous words. Some evidence
of difficulty in the equibiased ambiguous
condition would be more consistent with
the model, since both the inappropriate and
appropriate meanings have been accessed.
The selective access model predicts no evidence of difficulty in the post-target region
because the appropriate meaning is always
accessed.
Disambiguating
region. Time spent in
the disambiguating region is presented in
Table 4. Within the Before condition, there
After
Control
50
54
Ambiguous
35
33
Control
3s
34
were no significant effects (all F’s < 1).
This is reasonable since the ambiguous and
control conditions were identical to this
point. The pattern of means in the After
condition replicates that of Rayner and
Duffy (1986). Readers spent longer on this
region when it followed an ambiguous word
than when it followed a control word
[F1(1,39) = 15.20, MS, = 313, p < .OOl;
F2(1,70) = 10.19, MS, = 305, p < .003].
Subjects also spent more time on the nonequibiased disambiguating
regions,
whether they followed an ambiguous or
control word [F1(1,39) = 22.13, MS, = 95,
p < .OOl; F2(1,70) = 3.27, MS, = 1399, p
< .072]. This seems to reflect a difference
in the actual items used in the equibiased
and non-equibiased conditions. Although
the effect of ambiguity was larger in the
non-equibiased condition than in the equibiased, replicating Rayner and Duffy
(1986), the interaction of word type and
bias did not reach significance.
The finding that readers spent longer on
the disambiguating region when it followed
an ambiguous target word is easily accounted for by all of the models. When the
disambiguating information follows the
target word, the context preceding the ambiguous target is neutral with respect to the
appropriate meaning. As a result the reader
will frequently initially select the inappropriate meaning of the ambiguous word. In
the case of the equibiased targets, one
would expect readers to have selected the
inappropriate meaning about half the time.
In the case of the non-equibiased ambiguous targets, one would expect readers to
440
DUFFY,
MORRIS,
AND
TABLE
RAYNER
4
MEAN TIME (IN MS PER CHARA~ER) SPENT ON THE DISAMBIGUATING REGION
Positionof disambiguating
clause
Equibiased
Non-equibiased
Before
Ambiguous
36
37
have selected the inappropriate meaning on
almost all of the trials. Thus, a time consuming reanalysis is frequently required
once the disambiguating region is encountered.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of the present experiment are
relevant to a number of issues concerning
lexical ambiguity. We will discuss, in the
following order, the relevance of the data
for (1) comparing exhaustive vs. selective
access models, (2) mechanisms for context
effects, and (3) the locus of the increased
gaze durations for equibiased ambiguous
words preceded by neutral context and for
non-equibiased ambiguous words preceded
by disambiguating context.
Exhaustive
vs. selective models. Although the selective access model has received some recent support in the literature
(Glucksberg et al., 1986; Van Petten 8z
Kutas, 1987), it does not easily account for
the full pattern of data presented here.
First, it does not give a well-motivated account of the shift in the pattern of gaze durations on the target words themselves in
the Before vs. After conditions. Second,
because it predicts that disambiguating
context allows the selective access of the
appropriate meaning, it cannot account for
the evidence of difficulty in the post-target
region following the non-equibiased ambiguous targets in the Before condition.
The data support an exhaustive model of
lexical access for ambiguous nouns
whether preceded by neutral or disambig-
After
Control
36
36
Ambiguous
57
68
Control
50
54
uating context. Under such a model, it is
assumed that all meanings of an ambiguous
word are activated during the access process. As a result, the integration process
which follows access must frequently select the appropriate meaning. The particular exhaustive access model which best
accounts for the current data is one in
which it is assumed that access takes place
over time, with both frequency of meaning
and prior context influencing the time at
which a particular meaning becomes available for use by the integration process.
When the ambiguous word is preceded by
neutral context, only frequency of meaning
influences the timing of access. Thus, in
the case of equibiased ambiguous nouns,
two equally likely meanings become available close enough in time that the integration process must carry out a time consuming selection between them. This is reflected in longer gaze durations on these
targets. In the case of non-equibiased ambiguous nouns, the dominant meaning becomes available so much earlier than the
other meanings that the integration process
proceeds with the dominant meaning; the
other meanings become available too late
to be considered. As a result, gaze durations are not lengthened on these targets.
When the ambiguous word is preceded by a
disambiguating context (which does not
contain any strong priming word), the
timing of access is influenced both by frequency and context. Thus, equibiased ambiguous targets become non-equibiased,
with the appropriate meaning becoming
available earlier than other meanings. As a
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
result, gaze durations are no longer lengthened on these targets. On some trials, the
non-equibiased ambiguous targets may resemble equibiased targets, with the appropriate meaning and the dominant meaning
becoming available close enough in time to
require a time consuming selection. On
other trials, the context may not be sufftcient to modify greatly the timing of access. On those trials, the integration process initially attempts to integrate the
wrong meaning. The result of all of this is
additional time spent both on the target
word and in the post-target region.
We have presented the reordered access
model as a model in which frequency and
prior context influence the time it takes a
given meaning to become available for
post-access processing. It is also possible
to conceptualize this model as one in which
frequency and context affect the amount of
evidence accruing for each meaning of an
ambiguous word. Under such a conceptualization, all meanings would become available simultaneously to post-access processing. Each meaning would be weighted,
however, according to the evidence available to support it. Selection would be relatively fast when the evidence clearly supported one meaning; it would be slow when
equal amounts of evidence accrued for
both meanings. Under this conceptualization, gaze durations on equibiased ambiguous words in neutral contexts were long
because there was little difference in the
amount of evidence accruing for both
meanings on the basis of frequency and
context information. Gaze durations on
non-equibiased ambiguous words preceded
by disambiguating context were long because the evidence based on frequency
strongly supported one meaning while the
evidence based on context strongly supported the other meaning. The two conceptualizations of the reordered access model
differ in their assumptions about what is
delivered for post-access processing.
Under both conceptualizations, however, it
AND
FIXATIONS
441
is assumed that all meanings of an ambiguous word are exhaustively accessed and
that both frequency and context affect the
output of lexical access.
Mechanisms for context effects. A major
assumption of the reordered access model
is that a preceding disambiguating context
can influence the lexical access process for
ambiguous target words. Within the literature, there are two contrasting proposals
about the mechanisms by which such context effects might occur. These proposals
differ in their assumptions about the autonomy of lexical access (Forster, 1979).
Under the assumptions of interactive
models (e.g., Marslen-Wilson & Tyler,
1980), the outputs of syntactic and message
level processing can influence the lexical
access process. A reordered access model
built on this assumption would make the
claim that the final representation of the
disambiguating information produced at the
message level could influence the availability of the appropriate meaning of the
ambiguous word. Such a model would violate the assumption of strict autonomy of
lexical access.
Autonomy of lexical access could be
preserved if it is assumed that context influences access through priming resulting
from an automatic spread of activation
from semantically related entries in the lexicon (Forster, 1979). A reordered access
model built on this assumption would claim
that the disambiguating contexts contained
lexical items which primed one meaning of
the ambiguous word. The simplest form of
intralexical priming is the doctor-nurse
sort, demonstrated in experiments in which
response time to a given target word is
speeded when it is immediately preceded
by a strong associate (e.g., Meyer &
Schvaneveldt, 1971). We cannot appeal to
this sort of priming, however, for two
reasons. First, words which were obviously associated with one meaning of the
ambiguous target word were avoided in
creating the stimulus sentences. Second,
442
DUFFV,
MORRIS,
the context words which might potentially
be primes were not immediately adjacent to
the ambiguous target word. Recent research, however, has suggested more complex kinds of intralexical priming which
might reasonably be involved here. Balota
and Larch (1986) found that activation
spread beyond the immediate associates of
a word. In their naming task, lion primed
stripes (presumably because of activation
spreading through tiger which is associated
with both). Thus, while our disambiguating
contexts did not contain obvious direct associates of one meaning of the ambiguous
target word, they may have contained lexical items which were indirectly associated.
Foss (1982) found that the facilitating effect
of a semantic prime decayed over time for
unrelated lists of words but not for sentences. Thus, a priming word early in a
sentence primed a related word 12 words
away. Such an effect presumably occurs
because the reader is holding in mind the
important concepts from early in the sentence, and as a result, they continue to be
activated in the lexicon.
In summary, it is possible to create a
reordered access model which either preserves the assumption of autonomy of lexical access or does not. The data we have
presented here do not allow us to distinguish between the two forms of the model.
Locus of gaze duration effect. A final
question remains. Why were gaze durations lengthened for the equibiased ambiguous targets preceded by neutral context
and for the non-equibiased ambiguous
targets preceded by disambiguating context? As indicated earlier, this additional
time could be spent in the lexical access
stage, in the post-access stage, or both.
Under the assumptions of the reordered
access model, all meanings of an ambiguous word are accessed under all of the
conditions used in this experiment. Thus, if
accessing multiple meanings per se is time
consuming, we should have found lengthened gaze durations across all conditions.
Alternatively, access may become difficult
AND
RAYNER
when two meanings become available simultaneously because processing capacity
must be divided
between the two
meanings. If we think of access as an automatic process operating to activate
meanings independently, however, this divided processing capacity account loses
force. The point at which processing capacity may come in to play is at the postaccess stage. It is at this point that two simultaneously available meanings may divide capacity since some consideration
must be given to both meanings and their
relationship to the earlier sentence context.
Thus, it seems most reasonable to assume
that the additional time on the target words
themselves is due to difficulty at the stage
which follows lexical access.
Conclusion. In summary, the results of
the experiment reported here are best explained by a model which suggests that
more that one meaning of an ambiguous
word is automatically activated, but that
the frequency of the alternative meanings
influences processing. Likewise, contextual information influences processing by
varying the availability of alternative
meanings of ambiguous words. Our results
are quite consistent with other data on lexical ambiguity collected using the crossmodal priming task (Onifer & Swinney,
1981; Seidenberg et al., 1982; Swinney,
1979) and eye movement recording (Carpenter & Daneman, 1981; Frazier &
Rayner, 1987; Rayner & Duffy, 1986).
However, the general conclusion that
readers often access more than one
meaning of a lexically ambiguous word
stands in marked contrast to data collected
in our laboratory dealing with syntactic ambiguity (Ferreira & Clifton, 1986, Frazier &
Rayner, 1982; Rayner, Carlson, & Frazier,
1983; Rayner & Frazier, 1987). Here, the
striking result is that readers are committed
to a single interpretation of a sentence, and
the alternative interpretation only becomes
available when disambiguating information
forces the reader to reparse the sentence.
Frazier and Rayner (1987) have suggested
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
that these differences may be due to the
fact that in the case of syntactic ambiguity
the reader must compute an interpretation
on-line, whereas in the case of lexical ambiguity the reader looks up pre-stored interpretations. In any event, the contrast
serves to demonstrate that all types of ambiguity in language are not treated the same
way by the language processing system.
APPENDIX
List of Stimulus Sentences
Note: Each ambiguous target word is italicized.
Control words are enclosed in parentheses,
Equibiased
la. Although it was wrinkled and worn, his case
(face) attracted attention.
Of course his case (face) attracted attention although
it was wrinkled and worn.
lb. Although it had a unique, weathered appearance, his case (face) was ignored.
Unfortunately his case (face) was ignored although it
had a unique, weathered appearance.
2a. Because everyone agreed it was so well performed, the deed (skit) was widely publicized.
Last year the deed (skit) was widely publicized because everyone agreed it was so well performed.
2b. Because it was performed so badly, the deed
(skit) was criticized.
Reportedly the deed (skit) was criticized because it
was performed so badly.
3a. Because it was kept on the back of a high shelf,
the pitcher (whiskey) was often forgotten.
Of course the pitcher (whiskey) was often forgotten
because it was kept on the back of a high shelf.
3b. Even though it had been in the refrigerator, the
pitcher
(whiskey) was warm.
Unfortunately the pitcher (whiskey) was warm even
though it had been kept in the refrigerator.
4a. Since it had been bruised in a fight, his chest
(flesh) was discolored.
Last month his chest (flesh) was discolored since it
had been bruised in a fight.
4b. After admitting the injured man to the hospital,
they found his chest (flesh) was burned.
They found his chest (flesh) was burned after admitting the injured man to the hospital.
5a. After spending most of the night celebrating, the
cast (cook) was in bad shape.
This morning the cast (cook) was in bad shape after
spending most of the night celebrating.
AND FXG4TIONS
443
5b. Even with the increasing demands of the
schedule, the cast (cook) held up well.
Amazingly the cast (cook) held up well even with the
increasing demands of the schedule.
6a. After smelling something strange in the kitchen,
he found the mold (meat) in the garbage can.
He found the mold (meat) in the garbage can after
smelling something strange in the kitchen.
6b. Since it entirely covered the slice of bread, the
mold (meat) caught their attention.
Then the mold (meat) caught their attention since it
entirely covered the slice of bread.
la. Because it sounded so high-pitched and hoarse,
the bark (howl) was unusual.
To their surmise, the bark (howl) was unusual because
it sounded so high-pitched and hoarse.
7b. Because they heard it from so far away, the bark
(howl) was difficult to identify.
Unfortunately the bark (howl) was difficult to identify
because they heard it from so far away.
8a. After a year in the hot southern sun, the board
(woman) looked old and weathered.
Not surprisingly, the board (woman) looked old and
weathered after a year in the hot southern sun.
8b. As a result of the magician’s magic trick, the
board (woman) appeared to be split in half.
Last night the board (woman) appeared to be split in
half as a result of the magician’s magic trick.
9a. Even though she had been looking forward to it
for a week, the date (tilm) was awful.
Unexpectedly the date (film) was awful even though
she had been looking forward to it for a week.
9b. After a lovely candlelight dinner at the tiny restaurant, the date (film) was memorable.
As she had hoped, the date (film) was memorable after
a lovely candlelight dinner at the tiny restaurant.
10a. After spending his summer vacation designing
it, he decided the yard (gate) would be tine.
He decided the yard (gate) would be fine after
spending his summer vacation designing it.
lob. Once the baby had finally begun to walk, they
felt a yard (gate) was necessary.
They felt a yard (gate) was necessary once the baby
had finally begun to walk.
1 la. Once its broken handle had been repaired, the
fin (pan) was in good shape.
At last thefan (pan) was in good shape once its broken
handle had been repaired.
1 lb. Once they decided to keep it on the countertop, the fan (pan) was easy to find.
Finally the fan (pan) was easy to find once they decided to keep it on the counter top.
12a. Although she had been careful to put it away,
the ruler (chalk) was missing.
Last week the ruler (chalk) was missing although she
had been careful to put it away.
12b. Although he was certain he had put it in his
pocket, the ruler (chalk) was not there.
444
DUFFY, MORRIS,
Today the ruler (chalk) was not there although he was
certain he had put it in his pocket.
13a. After warping and sagging for months, the
panel (fence) finally gave in.
Today the panel (fence) fmally gave in after warping
and sagging for months.
13b. Because it had been damaged in the tire, the
panel (fence) had to be replaced.
Of course the panel (fence) had to be replaced because
it had been damaged in the fire.
14a. After intently searching the sky for hours,
sighting the cardinal (airplane) was exciting.
Sighting the cardinal
(airplane) was exciting after
searching the sky for hours.
14b. As they watched it fly in over the trees, they
didn’t know the cardinal
(airplane) was in distress.
They didn’t know the cardinal (airplane) was in distress as they watched it fly in over the trees.
15a. Because it was piled high with supplies, the cell
(desk) looked small.
Of course the cell (desk) looked small because it was
piled high with supplies.
15b. Because it had not been cleaned recently, the
cell (desk) seemed cluttered.
Last week the cell (desk) seemed cluttered because it
had not been cleaned recently.
16a. Although he had raked it (them) into the barn
early, the straw (ashes) seemed wet.
Yesterday the straw (ashes) seemed wet although he
had raked it (them) into the barn early.
16b. After spreading some all over his garden, he
put the remaining straw (ashes) away in the box.
He put the remaining straw (ashes) away in the box
after spreading some all over his garden.
17a. After he played it with a great flourish, the
spade (flute) fell to the floor.
Unfortunately the spade (flute) fell to the floor after he
played it with a great flourish.
17b. Because he played it when no one was
watching, the spade (flute) surprised everyone.
Of course the spade (flute) surprised everyone because he played it when no one was watching.
18a. After waiting in the rain for the bus, the pupil
(nurse) was rather wet.
Today the pupil (nurse) was rather wet after waiting in
the rain for the bus.
18b. While bravely attempting to stop a tight, the
pupil (nurse) was injured.
Actually the pupil (nurse) was injured while bravely
attempting to stop a fight.
Non-equibiased
19a. Even though it had a strange flavor, the port
(soup) was popular.
Actually the port (soup) was popular even though it
had a strange flavor.
19b. When she finally served it to her guest, the port
(soup) was a great success.
AND RAYNER
Of course the port (soup) was a great success when
she finally served it to her guests.
20a. After it was carefully removed from his throat
with tweezers, the scale (stone) was taken away to be
analyzed.
Last night the scale (stone) was taken away to be analyzed after it was carefully removed from his throat.
20b. The dragon was no longer in pain, once the
scale (stone) was removed.
Once the scale (stone) was removed, the dragon was
no longer in pain.
21a. After starting to copy it into his notebook, he
found that the table (total) was too large.
He found that the table (total) was too large after
starting to copy it into his notebook.
21b. If you are concerned about having made an
error, the table (total) is worth looking at.
The other table (total) is worth looking at if you are
concerned about having made an error.
22a. Although they had built it according to plans,
the new diamond (parkway) was too small.
The new diamond (parkway) was too small although
they built it according to plans.
22b. Since the town had appropriated money for
outdoor lighting, the old diamond (parkway) was well
lit.
The old diamond (parkway) was well lit since the town
had appropriated money for outdoor lighting.
23a. Although the head of the animal had been well
sketched, the bill (hair) was not quite right.
Now the bill (hair) was not quite right although the
head of the animal had been well sketched.
23b. Although the rest of the platypus was clear in
the picture, the bill (hair) was hard to see.
Unfortunately the bill (hair) was hard to see although
the rest of the platypus was clear in the picture.
24a. Although he was impressed with the apartment, the racket (tenant) was unacceptable.
Yesterday the racket (tenant) was unacceptable although he was impressed with the apartment.
24b. Even though he plugged up his ears with
cotton, the racket (tenant) ruined his afternoon.
Unfortunately the racket (tenant) ruined his afternoon
even though he plugged up his ears with cotton.
25a. Because it was too dirty for the animals to live
in, the pen (zoo) was abandoned.
Last year the pen (zoo) was abandoned because it was
too dirty for the animals to live in.
25b. Because it was too small to hold all the new
animals, the old pen (zoo) was replaced.
The old pen (zoo) was replaced because it was too
small to hold all the new animals.
26a. Because it was always so well attended, the
ball (test) was moved.
This time the ball (test) was moved because it was
always so well attended.
26b. Although attendance was not required, the ball
(test) was very important.
The last ball (test) was very important although attendance was not required.
LEXICAL
AMBIGUITY
27a. While the town took care to keep the river itself
clean, the bank (edge) was rather dirty.
Unfortunately the bank (edge) was rather dirty even
though the town took care to keep the river itself
clean.
27b. If you want to catch a fish in this stream, the
bank (edge) is not the place to start.
Usually the bank (edge) is not the place to start if you
want to catch a fish in this stream.
28a. Because it (he) brought such good news, the
wire (pope) was received with smiles.
Today the wire (pope) was received with smiles because it (he) brought such good news.
28b. Although it (he) brought a message that was
encouraging, the wire (pope) was not appreciated.
Yesterday the wire (pope) was not appreciated although it (he) brought a message that was encouraging.
29a. After it was cut off the dead animal, the horn
(tail) was mounted on the wall.
Yesterday the horn (tail) was mounted on the wall
after it was cut off the dead animal.
29b. All the children laughed at the new goat, because its horn (tail) was so strange.
Because its horn (tail) was so strange all the children
laughed at the new goat.
30a. Even though he had read it many times before,
the yarn (tale) seemed new.
This time the yarn (tale) seemed new even though he
had read it many times before.
30b. Given the age of the children who were listening to it, the yarn (tale) was much too long.
Actually the yarn (tale) was much too long given the
age of the children who were listening.
31a. Because it was hiring twenty new employees,
the mint (jail) was welJ advertised.
Last year the mint (jail) was well advertised because it
was hiring twenty new employees.
31b. Although it was by far the largest building in
town, the mint (jail) was seldom mentioned.
Until recently the mint (jail) was seldom mentioned
although it was by far the largest building in town.
32a. Because it was always too hot to sleep in, the
coach (cabin) needed air-conditioning.
Unfortunately the coach (cabin) needed air conditioning because it was always too hot to sleep in.
32b. Because it was much too small for them to
sleep in, the first coach (cabin) was rejected.
Of course the first coach (cabin) was rejected because
it was much too small for them to sleep in.
33a. After it accidentally fell into the tire, the poker
(sword) was abandoned.
Last night the poker (sword) was abandoned after it
accidentally fell into the fire.
33b. After it was used as a murder weapon, the
poker (sword) was hidden.
Evidently the poker (sword) was hidden after it was
used as a murder weapon.
34a. After its hind legs were injured in the accident,
the boxer (puppy) was miserable.
445
AND FIXATIONS
Yesterday the boxer (puppy) was miserable after its
hind legs were injured in the accident.
34b. By the time they got it back on its leash, the
boxer (puppy) was exhausted.
Gf course the boxer (puppy) was exhausted by the
time they got it back on its leash.
35a. After attentively listening to the president’s
speech, the cabinet (tourist) was finished.
At last the cabinet (tourist) was finished after attentively listening to the president’s speech.
35b. After spending the day talking with miners in
the mines, the cabinet (tourist) was covered with dust.
Last night the cabinet (tourist) was covered with dust
after spending the day talking with miners in the
mines.
36a. After it suddenly fell off her finger, the band
(gold) was lost.
Unfortunately the band (gold) was lost after it suddenly fell off her finger.
36b. Because it had such beautiful engraving, the
band (gold) was her favorite.
Of course the band (gold) was her favorite because it
had such beautiful engraving.
REFERENCES
BALOTA, D. A., & LORCH, R. E (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming
effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal
of Experimental
Psychology:
Learning,
Memory,
and Cognition,
12, 336-345.
BURGESS, C., SEIDENBERG, M., & TANENHAUS,
M. K. (November 1986). Nonword
inter$erence
and lexical ambiguity
resolution.
Paper presented
at the meeting of the Psychonomics Society, New
Orleans.
CARPENTER, P. A., & DANEMAN, M. (1981). Lexical
retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model
based on eye fixations.
Journal
of Verbal
Learning
and Verbal Behavior,
20, 137-160.
FERFUXIRA, F., & CLIFTON, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory
and Language,
25, 348-368.
FORSTER, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the
structure of the language processor. In W. E.
Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing:
Merrill
Psycholinguistic
Garrett
(pp.
studies
27-85).
presented
Hillsdale,
to
NJ: Erl-
baum.
FOSS, D. J. (1982). A discourse on semantic priming.
Cognitive
Psychology,
14, 590-607.
FRAZIER, L., & RAYNER, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension:
Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive
Psychology.
14,
178-210.
FRAZIER, L., & RAYNER, K. (1987). Resolution of
syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in
446
DUFFY, MORRIS, AND RAYNER
RAYNER,K., & DUFFY,S. A. (1986).Lexical complexity and fixation timesin reading:Effects of
GLUCKSBERG,
S., KREUZ, R. J., & Rho, S. H.
word frequency,verb complexity,andlexicalam(1986).Context canconstrainlexical access:Imbiguity.Memory and Cognition, 14, 191-201.
plicationsfor modelsof language
comprehension. RAYNER,K., & DUFFY,S. A. (1987).Eyemovements
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
and lexical ambiguity.In J. K. O’ReganL A.
Memory, and Cognition, 12,323-335.
Levy-Schoen(Eds.),Eye movements: From physJUST,M. A., & CARPENTER,
P.A. (1980).A theory of
iology to cognition (pp. 521-529).Amsterdam:
reading:From eye fixations to comprehension.
North-Holland.
Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
RAYNER,K., & FRAZIER,L. (1987).ParsingtempoKUCERA,H., & FRANCIS,W. (1967). Computational
rarily ambiguous
complements.
Quarterly Journal
analysis of present-day American English. Proviof Experimental Psychology, 39A,657-673.
dence,RI: Brown Univ. Press.
SCHUSTACK,
M. W., EHRL~CH,
S. E, & RAYNER,K.
MARSLEN-WILSON,
W. D., & TYLER, L. K. (1980).
(1987).Local andglobalsourcesof contextualfaThe temporalstructureof spokenlanguage
undercilitationin reading.Journal of Memory and Lanstanding.Cognition, 8, 1-71.
guage, 26, 322-340.
MEYER,D. E., & SCHVANEVELDT,
R. W. (1971).FaSEIDENBERG,
M. S., TANENHAUS,
M. K., LEIMAN,
cilitation in recognizingpairsof words:Evidence
J. M. 8z BIENKOWSKI,
M. (1982).Automatic acof a dependencebetweenretrieval operations.
cessof the meanings
of ambiguous
wordsin conJournal
of Experimental
Psychology,
90,
text:
Some
limitations
of
knowledge-based
pro227-234.
cessing.
Cognitive
Psychoiogy,
14,
489-537.
MORRISON,
R. E. (1984).Manipulationof stimulus
G. B. (1984).Lexical ambiguityandits role
onsetdelay in reading:Evidencefor parallelpro- SIMPSON,
in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulgrammingof saccades. Journal of Experimental
letin, 96, 316-340.
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10,667-682.
SIMPSON,
G. B., & BURGESS,
C. (1985).Activation
ONIFER,W., & SWINNEY,D. A. (1981).Accessing
and selectionprocesses
in the recognitionof amlexical ambiguitiesduring sentencecomprehenbiguouswords. Journal of Experimental Psysion:Effectsof frequencyof meaningandcontexchology: Human Perception and Performance,
tual bias.Memory and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
11,28-39.
RAYNER,K. (1984).Visual selectionin reading,pic- SWINNEY,D. A. (1979).Lexical accessduring senture perception,and visualsearch:A tutorial retencecomprehension:
(Re)consideration
of conview. In H. Bouma& D. W.Bouwhuis(Eds.),Attext effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and
tention andperformance X (pp.67-96).Hillsdale,
Verbal Behavior, 18,645-659.
NJ: Erlbaum.
VAN PENMEN,
C., & KUTAS,M. (1987).Ambiguous
RAYNER,K., CARLSON,
M., & FRAZIER,L. (1983).
wordsin context: An event-relatedpotentialanalThe interactionof syntax and semanticsduring
ysis of the time courseof meaningactivation.
sentenceprocessing:
Eye movements
in the analJournal of Memory and Language, 26, 188-208.
ysisof semanticallybiasedsentences.
Journal of
Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior,
22, (ReceivedAugust7, 1987)
358-374.
(RevisionMarch 10, 1988)
parsinglexicahyambiguous
sentences.
Journal of
Memory and Language, 26505-526.