Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.


New from Brill!

ad

Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin


Query Details


Query Subject:   Request for material about deictic localization / local cases
Author:   Matthias Deja
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Linguistic LingField(s):  Psycholinguistics

Query:   Dear LINGUISTs,

I've done a pretty thorough reveiw of the psycholinguistic literature
on lexical ambiguity, but I'm left with a question that doesn't seem
to be addressed directly in any of the empirical studies I've
read. It's this: if an ambiguous word has a strongly dominant sense,
is that sense most likely to be the one actually selected in neutral
contexts? Of course the intuitive answer seems obivously to be ''yes,''
but I haven't found any formal studies affirming this, as most studies
do not explicitly relate dominance bias or strength of activation with
the processes of sense selection.

Two more general questions: have the findings of Tabossi (refs. below)
pretty much spelled an end to a purely modularist view of lexial
processing?

And finally, to what extent are connectionist explanations of lexical
processing like Kawamoto's (see below) gaining credence among
psycholinguists?

- ----------------
References
- ----------------

Kawamoto, Alan (1993). `Nonlinear Dynamics in the Resolution of
Lexical Ambiguity: A Parallel Distributed Processing Account,' Journal
of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516.

Tabossi, P. 1988. `Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of
sentential context.' Journal of Memory and Language 27, 324-340.

Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. 1987. `Accessing lexical
ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance.' Psychological Research
49, 161-167.

Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. 1993. `Processing ambiguous
words in context.' Journal of Memory and Language 32, 359-372.

- -----------------

Thanks,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wharton
Department of Classical Studies
237 McIver Building
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27412-5001
email: whartond@uncg.edu tel. (910)334-5214
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
LL Issue: 8.981
Date posted: 02-Jul-1997



Back

Sums main page