Literature DB >> 35556197

Speaker-Specific Cues Influence Semantic Disambiguation.

Catherine Davies1, Vincent Porretta2, Kremena Koleva3, Ekaterini Klepousniotou4.   

Abstract

Addressees use information from specific speakers' previous discourse to make predictions about incoming linguistic material and to restrict the choice of potential interpretations. In this way, speaker specificity has been shown to be an influential factor in language processing across several domains e.g., spoken word recognition, sentence processing, and pragmatics. However, its influence on semantic disambiguation has received little attention to date. Using an exposure-test design and visual world eye tracking, we examined the effect of speaker-specific literal vs. nonliteral style on the disambiguation of metaphorical polysemes such as 'fork', 'head', and 'mouse'. Eye movement data revealed that when interpreting polysemous words with a literal and a nonliteral meaning, addressees showed a late-stage preference for the literal meaning in response to a nonliteral speaker. We interpret this as reflecting an indeterminacy in the intended meaning in this condition, as well as the influence of meaning dominance cues at later stages of processing. Response data revealed that addressees then ultimately resolved to the literal target in 90% of trials. These results suggest that addressees consider a range of senses in the earlier stages of processing, and that speaker style is a contextual determinant in semantic processing.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Polysemy; Semantic ambiguity; Speaker specificity; Spoken word recognition; Visual world eye tracking

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35556197      PMCID: PMC9579068          DOI: 10.1007/s10936-022-09852-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  28 in total

1.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  S Frisson; M J Pickering
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 2.  Thinking the voice: neural correlates of voice perception.

Authors:  Pascal Belin; Shirley Fecteau; Catherine Bédard
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English.

Authors:  Constance M Clarke; Merrill F Garrett
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The neural integration of speaker and message.

Authors:  Jos J A Van Berkum; Danielle van den Brink; Cathelijne M J Y Tesink; Miriam Kos; Peter Hagoort
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap.

Authors:  Ekaterini Klepousniotou; Debra Titone; Carolina Romero
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Deferred Interpretations: Why Starting Dickens is Taxing but Reading Dickens Isn't.

Authors:  Brian McElree; Steven Frisson; Martin J Pickering
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-01-02

7.  Anticipating who will say what: the influence of speaker-specific memory associations on reference resolution.

Authors:  William S Horton; Daniel G Slaten
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-01

8.  Processing of irregular polysemes in sentence reading.

Authors:  Andreas Brocher; Stephani Foraker; Jean-Pierre Koenig
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Learning individual talkers' structural preferences.

Authors:  Yuki Kamide
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2012-04-11

10.  Empathy matters: ERP evidence for inter-individual differences in social language processing.

Authors:  Daniëlle van den Brink; Jos J A Van Berkum; Marcel C M Bastiaansen; Cathelijne M J Y Tesink; Miriam Kos; Jan K Buitelaar; Peter Hagoort
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.