The retrieval and mental representation of biased and balanced irregular polysemes: Evidence from
priming and eye-fixations
We investigated the retrieval and mental representation of irregular polysemes with either one more frequent,
dominant sense (biased, e.g. OIL: car; cooking) or two equally frequent senses (balanced, e.g. CROSS: church;
street). The different readings of irregular polysemes are semantically related but cannot be derived via productive
rules. We compared irregular polysemes with biased and balanced homonyms (BANK: financial institution; side of
river) whose meanings are semantically unrelated. Duffy et al. (1988) have shown for biased homonyms that only
dominant meanings are accessed in the absence of context whereas prior context supporting the less frequent,
subordinate meaning leads to meaning competition. Balanced homonyms, on the other hand, yield competition in
the absence of context and lead to only marginally longer reading times when following biasing context. These
results indicate that (a) the meanings of homonyms are stored separately and (b) relative frequency between
meanings differently affects retrieval. Evidence regarding irregular polysemes is mixed. Some studies support
separate entries (Klein & Murphy, 2001; 2002). Others support a single-entry account (Beretta et al., 2005).
Crucially, most studies have failed to carefully control the relative frequency and degree of semantic relatedness
of irregular polysemes senses. These factors were controlled in priming and eye-tracking experiments.
In Experiment 1, participants made lexical decisions to single words on the computer screen. Experimental trials
consisted of a homonymous or polysemous biased (BANK, OIL) or balanced (CALF, CROSS) prime and a target
instantiating the dominant (ROB, TRADE | GOAT, CHURCH) or subordinate (SWIM, KITCHEN | SHIN, STREET)
interpretation. We fully crossed ambiguity (homonymy vs. polysemy), dominance (dominant vs. subordinate), and
bias (biased vs. balanced). The SOA was 200ms. We found that only dominant targets of biased homonyms and
neither target of biased polysemes were primed. In contrast, both targets of balanced homonyms and polysemes
were facilitated by the respective primes. These results suggest that without context only shared semantic features
of biased irregular polysemes are initially activated whereas non-shared features are additionally activated for
balanced polysemes (hence the resemblance to balanced homonyms).
We tested this hypothesis by eye-tracking sentences containing biased and balanced homonyms and irregular
polysemes that were preceded (context-first) or followed (context-last) by a subordinate-reading context clause.
We substituted matched words to provide a baseline. In the absence of prior context for balanced items, first
fixations and total reading times were longer on homonyms but not polysemes. This indicates meaning
competition between a homonym’s but not a polyseme’s readings of equal frequency. The following
(disambiguating) context word had longer first fixations, gaze durations, and total times for polysemes but not
homonyms. The slow-down suggests that both senses of the polyseme were activated whereas only one of the
homonym’s meanings had been retrieved in the preceding clause (which turned out to be correct 50% of the time).
For biased items in the context-first condition, the spillover of homonyms but not polysemes yielded longer first
fixations, gaze durations, and total times. Likewise in the context-last condition, the disambiguating word had
longer first fixations and total times when following a homonym but not a polyseme. This reflects competition
between context and frequency for a homonym’s but not a polyseme’s readings of unequal frequencies.
The consistent difference between homonyms and irregular polysemes suggests that (a) irregular polysemes are
stored under one lexical entry and (b) the availability of shared semantic features prevents the processor from
fully committing to either sense when no supporting context is provided. Furthermore, when one sense of a
polyseme is more frequent, only shared meaning features are activated. However, when both senses are equally
frequent, non-shared features of both readings are additionally activated at the ambiguous word’s encounter
leading to sense competition only when one interpretation has to be selected for meaning integration.
Example sentences for eye-tracking (biased):
Polyseme, Context-Before: The skilled spy of the agency remained undetected because the wire/bomb was well hidden.
Homonym, Context-Before: Saying the ring was perfect for her wedding Julia fell in love with the band/gold right away.
Polyseme, Context-After: Because the wire/bomb was well hidden the skilled spy of the agency remained undetected.
Homonym, Context-After: Julia fell in love with the band/gold right away saying the ring was perfect for the wedding.