CHAPTER 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION
6.4 F UTURE S TUDY
Besides the potential improvements stated above, the future extensions of the study could done in the following ways:
84 In all the reanalyses I did, generally no effects of interest were found. Only when I selected 4 nominal items from highly metaphorical words which had metaphorical meanings consistently suggested as salient based on frequency and association did I find a likely instance. In that case, the four items’ literal meanings were activated in metaphorical contexts (p<.02). However, due to the limited amount of items, participants, and data, the results might be of peculiar cases and it was hard to make any claim based on this.
(1) Using Other Paradigms:
Further experiments could be done testing the stimuli in an eye-tracking paradigm to investigate whether salient meanings in incompatible contexts will lead to longer fixation times. Also, simple lexical decision tasks could be done on the metaphorical prime words and monosemous words to investigate issues concerning ambiguity advantage or disadvantage.
(2) Using Other Methods to Estimate Corpus Sense Frequency:
Calculation of corpus sense frequency can be done using Chinese Word Sketch, which can be a more time-saving method than coding all corpus data. It can be hypothesized that word meanings are determined by their collocates.85 And thus with the collocational information provided by Chinese Word Sketch, it might be possible to roughly estimate a lexical item’s dominant meaning in corpus.
(3) A Modified Model:
Based on the current hypothesis, it may be possible to postulate a modified lexical access model by incorporating the sense-facet differences into the graded salience hypothesis and conduct further experiments.
85 This idea was obtained from Professor Siaw-Fong Chung during a meeting at NCCU.
References
Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A. & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times.
Psychological Science, 17(9), 814-823.
Ahrens, K. (1995). The Mental Representation of Verbs. Ph. D. Dissertation, University
of California, San Diego.
Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Language, tasks and timing. In D.
Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 31. Sentence processing: A
cross-linguistic perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ahrens, K. (1999). The Mutability of Noun and Verb Meaning. Chinese Languages and
Linguistics, V. Interactions in Language, Y. Yin, I. Yang, & H. Chan (eds.), pp.
335-548. Taipei. Academia Sinica.
Ahrens, K. (2001). On-line sentence comprehension of ambiguous verbs in Mandarin.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10(4), 337-358.
Ahrens, K. (2002). When Love is not Digested: Underlying Reasons for Source to Target Domain Pairing in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In the
Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan.
Ahrens, K. (2006). The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics, 7, 677-696.
Ahrens, K. (2008). Examining Conceptual Worldviews Through Lexical Frequency Patterns: A Case Study of U.S. Presidential Speeches. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.),
Windows to the Mind. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Ahrens, K., Chang, L., Chen, K. & Huang, C. (1998). Meaning Representation and Meaning Instantiation for Chinese Nominals. Computational Linguistics and
Chinese Language Processing, 3, 45-60.
Ahrens, K., Huang, C.-R. & Chuang, S. (2003). Sense and Meaning Facets in Verbal Semantics: A MARVS Perspective. Language and Linguistics, 4/3, 468-484.
Ahrens, K., Liu, H. L., Lee, C. Y., Gong, S. P., Fang, S. Y. & Hsu, Y. Y. (2007).
Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese.
Brain and Language, 100(2), 163-171.
Alario, F. X., Segui, J. & Ferrand, L. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section
a-Human Experimental Psychology, 53(3), 741-764.
Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G. & Gerrig, R. J. (1995). METAPHOR-BASED SCHEMAS AND TEXT REPRESENTATIONS - MAKING CONNECTIONS THROUGH CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS. Journal of Experimental
Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 21(3), 612-625.
Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D. & Cappa, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language, 107(1), 1-10.
Anaki, D., Faust, M. & Kravetz, S. (1998). Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 36(4), 353-362.
Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 15, 802-814.
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34(4), 361-402.
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A. & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69-81.
Azuma, T. & VanOrden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and
Language, 36(4), 484-504.
Balota, D. A. & Paul, S. T. (1996). Summation of activation: Evidence from multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 827-845.
Barsalou, L. W. & Wiemer-Hasting, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D.
Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition : the role of perception and
action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK ; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57-65.
Besner, D. & Davelaar, E. (1983). PSEUDOHOMOPHONE EFFECTS IN VISUAL WORLD RECOGNITION - EVIDENCE FOR PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING. Canadian Journal of Psychology-Revue Canadienne De
Psychologie, 37(2), 300-305.
Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the Lexicon. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(1), 21 - 36.
Blasko, D. G. & Connine, C. M. (1993). EFFECTS OF FAMILIARITY AND APTNESS ON METAPHOR PROCESSING. Journal of Experimental
Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 19(2), 295-308.
Boring, E. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
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.
Brisard, F., Frisson, S. & Sandra, D. (2001). Processing Unfamiliar Metaphors in a Self-Paced Reading Task. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1), 87 - 108.
Bueno, S. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). Rapid activation of the lexicon: A further investigation with behavioral and computational results. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 120-130.
Bueno, S. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship, and task demands. Memory &
Cognition, 36(4), 882-898.
Burgess, C. & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2-3), 177-210.
Carreiras, M., Perea, M. & Grainger, J. (1997). Effects of orthographic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 857-871.
Chen, L. L. & Boland, J. E. (2008). Dominance and context effects on activation of alternative homophone meanings. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1306-1323.
Cheng, T.-y. (2002). Testing a model of word segmentation in the acquisition of Mandarin. MA Thesis, National Chung Cheng University.
Chung, S.-F. (2007). A Corpus-driven Approach to Source Domain Determination.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Taiwan University.
Cienki, A. (2005). Metaphor in the "Strict Father" and "Nurturant Parent" cognitive models: Theoretical issues raised in an empirical study. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 279-311.
Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). SPREADING ACTIVATION THEORY OF
SEMANTIC PROCESSING. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
Crepaldi, D., Aggujaro, S., Arduino, L. S., Zonca, G., Ghirardi, G., Inzaghi, M. G., Colombo, M., Chierchia, G. & Luzzatti, C. (2006). Noun-verb dissociation in aphasia: The role of imageability and functional locus of the lesion.
Neuropsychologia, 44(1), 73-89.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Deyne, S. & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Norms for 1,424 Dutch words in a continuous task. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 198-205.
Deese, J. (1965). The structure of associations in language and thought. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins.
Eviatar, Z. & Just, M. A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension.
Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348-2359.
Ferrand, L. & Alario, F. X. (1998). Word association norms for 366 names of objects.
Annee Psychologique, 98(4), 659-709.
Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a `preventive war' persuasion strategy. Discourse Society, 18(5), 603-625.
Flowerdew, J. (1997). Competing public discourses in transitional Hong Kong. Journal
of Pragmatics, 28(4), 533-553.
Flowerdew, J. & Leong, S. (2007). Metaphors in the discursive construction of patriotism: the case of Hong Kong's constitutional reform debate. Discourse &
Society, 18(3), 273-294.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind : an essay on faculty psychology.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Forster, K. I. & Bednall, E. S. (1976). TERMINATING AND EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH IN LEXICAL ACCESS. Memory & Cognition, 4(NA1), 53-61.
Frisson, S. & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and
Cognition, 25(6), 1366-1383.
Geiger, O. & Ward, L. M. (1999). Metaphors and the Mental Lexicon. Brain and
Language, 68(1-2), 192-198.
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.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind : figurative thought, language, and
understanding. Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge
University Press.Gibbs, R. W. (2001). Evaluating Contemporary Models of Figurative Language Understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3), 317 - 333.
Gibbs, R. W. & Colston, H. L. (2006). Figurative Language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A.
Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam:
Elsevier/Academic Press.
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980). MEANING-DEPENDENT RATINGS OF IMAGERY, AGE OF ACQUISITION, FAMILIARITY, AND CONCRETENESS FOR 387 AMBIGUOUS WORDS. Behavior Research
Methods & Instrumentation, 12(4), 428-450.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis (Psycholinguistics). Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183-206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919-929.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind : salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999a). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis.
Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 12(4), 425-436.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999b). On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1601-1618.
Giora, R., Peleg, O. & Fein, O. (2001). Resisting contextual information: You can't put a salient meaning down. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Towards an Experimental Pragmatics, University of Lyon.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92-96.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. & Bookin, H. B. (1982). ON UNDERSTANDING NON-LITERAL SPEECH - CAN PEOPLE IGNORE METAPHORS. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85-98.
Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, R. J. & Rho, S. H. (1986). CONTEXT CAN CONSTRAIN LEXICAL ACCESS - IMPLICATIONS FOR MODELS OF LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory
and Cognition, 12(3), 323-335.
Gomes, H., Ritter, W., Tartter, V. C., Vaughan, H. G. & Rosen, J. J. (1997). Lexical processing of visually and auditorily presented nouns and verbs: evidence from reaction time and N400 priming data. Cognitive Brain Research, 6(2), 121-134.
Gong, S. P. & Ahrens, K. (2007). Processing conceptual metaphors in on-going discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 313-330.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. . In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech
Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Grondin, R., Lupker, S. J. & McRae, K. (2009). Shared features dominate semantic richness effects for concrete concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 1-19.
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J. & Sears, C. R. (1997). The effects of word association and meaning frequency in a cross-modal lexical decision task: Is the priming due to
"semantic" activation? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue
Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 51(3), 195-211.
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.
Hirshman, E. & Durante, R. (1992). PRIME IDENTIFICATION AND SEMANTIC PRIMING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and
Cognition, 18(2), 255-265.
Hobbs, P. (2008). Surging ahead to a new way forward: the metaphorical foreshadowing of a policy shift. Discourse & Communication, 2(1), 29-56.
Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785-813.
Jared, D. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). DOES WORD IDENTIFICATION PROCEED FROM SPELLING TO SOUND TO MEANING. Journal of Experimental
Psychology-General, 120(4), 358-394.
Jones, M. N., Kintsch, W. & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2006). High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(4), 534-552.
Joordens, S. & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and
Cognition, 23(5), 1083-1105.
Joordens, S. & Besner, D. (1994). WHEN BANKING ON MEANING IS NOT (YET) MONEY IN THE BANK - EXPLORATIONS IN CONNECTIONIST MODELING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and
Cognition, 20(5), 1051-1062.
Kauschke, C., Lee, H. W. & Pae, S. (2007). Similarities and variation in noun and verb acquisition: A crosslinguistic study of children learning German, Korean, and Turkish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(7), 1045-1072.
Kauschke, C. & von Frankenberg, J. (2008). The differential influence of lexical parameters on naming latencies in German. A study on noun and verb picture naming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(4), 243-257.
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). NONLINEAR DYNAMICS IN THE RESOLUTION OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY - A PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED-PROCESSING ACCOUNT. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 474-516.
Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T. & Kello, C. T. (1994). WHEN 2 MEANINGS ARE BETTER THAN ONE - MODELING THE AMBIGUITY ADVANTAGE USING A RECURRENT DISTRIBUTED NETWORK. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 20(6),
1233-1247.Ker, S.-J., Huang, C.-R., Hong, J.-F., Liu, S.-Y., Jian, H.-L., Su, I.-L. & Hsieh, S.-K.
(2008). Design and Prototype of a Large-scale and Fully Sense-tagged Corpus.
Third International Conference on Large-scale Knowledge Resources (LKR2008), Tokyo, Tokyo Institute of Technology. March 3-5.
Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P. & Tugwell, D. (2004) Lorient, France, July: 105-116 (Reprinted in Lexicology: Critical concepts in Linguistics Hanks, editor.
Routledge, 2007).
Kintsch, W. & Mross, E. F. (1985). CONTEXT EFFECTS IN WORD IDENTIFICATION. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 336-349.
Klein, D. E. & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal
of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223.
Klepousniotou, E. & Baum, S. R. (2005a). Processing homonymy and polysemy:
Effects of sentential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage.
Brain and Language, 95(3), 365-382.
Klepousniotou, E. & Baum, S. R. (2005b). Unilateral brain damage effects on processing homonymous and polysemous words. Brain and Language, 93(3), 308-326.
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.
Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D. & Romero, C. (2008). Making Sense of Word Senses:
The Comprehension of Polysemy Depends on Sense Overlap. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(6), 1534-1543.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),
Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Edition. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Lakoff, G. (1996/2002). Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't
[2nd edition published as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lin, C.-J. C. & Ahrens, K. (forthcoming). Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research.
Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 618-630.
Lupker, S. J. (1984). SEMANTIC PRIMING WITHOUT ASSOCIATION - A 2ND LOOK. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(6), 709-733.
Marzo, D., Rube, V. & Umbreit, B. (2007). Salience and Frequency of Meanings:
Comparison of Corpus and Experimental Data on Polysemy. Pre-Conference
Proceedings of Corpus and Cognition Workshop, Corpus Linguistics Conference, 42-53.
Mashal, N. & Faust, M. (2008). Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the signal detection theory. Brain and Language, 104(2), 103-112.
Masson, M. E. J. & Borowsky, R. (1995). UNSETTLING QUESTIONS ABOUT SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY IN CONNECTIONIST MODELS - COMMENT.
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 21(2),
509-514.McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological
Review, 88, 375-407.
McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R. & Ward, G. (1994). TESTING THEORIES OF LANGUAGE PROCESSING - AN EMPIRICAL-INVESTIGATION OF THE ONLINE LEXICAL DECISION TASK. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning
Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1219-1228.
McRae, K. (2004). Semantic memory: Some insights from feature-based connectionist attractor networks. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in
Research and Theory, Vol 45.
McRae, K. & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(3), 558-572.
National Language Committee (1997). Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary (4th
TANet ed., v.2) '
重編國語辭典修訂本(
上灣化戰網走四版ver.2)'. Taipei:
Ministry of Education (教育部).
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. & Dennis, S. (2000). What is free association and what does it measure? Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 887-899.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402-407.
Nicol, J. L., Fodor, J. D. & Swinney, D. (1994). USING CROSS-MODAL LEXICAL DECISION TASKS TO INVESTIGATE SENTENCE PROCESSING. Journal
of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(5),
1229-1238.Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (1994). IDIOMS. Language, 70(3), 491-538.
Onifer, W. & Swinney, D. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory
and Cognition, 15, 225-236.
Peleg, O. & Eviatar, Z. (2008). Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual information: Evidence from lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 105(2), 71-82.
Peleg, O., Giora, R. & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and Context Effects: Two Are Better Than One. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 173-192.
Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2000). Repetition and form priming interact with neighborhood density at a brief stimulus onset asynchrony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 668-677.
Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 66(3), 180-194.
Piercey, C. D. & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage:
Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory and
Cognition, 28, 657-666.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17, 409-441.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
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.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and
Language, 46, 245-266.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L. & Millikan, J. A. (1970). HOMOGRAPHIC ENTRIES IN INTERNAL LEXICON. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487-&.
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S. & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). HOMOGRAPHIC ENTRIES IN INTERNAL LEXICON - EFFECTS OF SYSTEMATICITY AND RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF MEANINGS. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 10(1), 57-62.
Schmid, H. J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to
Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sears, C. R., Siakaluk, P. D., Chow, V. C. & Buchanan, L. (2008). Is there an effect of print exposure on the word frequency effect and the neighborhood size effect?
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(4), 269-291.
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M. & Bienkowski, M. (1982).
AUTOMATIC ACCESS OF THE MEANINGS OF AMBIGUOUS WORDS IN CONTEXT - SOME LIMITATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE-BASED PROCESSING. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 489-537.
Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Sanders, M. & Langer, P. (1984). PRELEXICAL AND POSTLEXICAL LOCI OF CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON WORD RECOGNITION. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 315-328.
Shelton, J. R. & Martin, R. C. (1992). HOW SEMANTIC IS AUTOMATIC SEMANTIC PRIMING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory
and Cognition, 18(6), 1191-1210.
Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R. & Owen, W. J. (2007). Multiple meanings are not necessarily a disadvantage in semantic processing: Evidence from homophone effects in semantic categorisation. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 22(3), 453-467.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). MEANING DOMINANCE AND SEMANTIC CONTEXT IN THE PROCESSING OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 120-136.
Simpson, G. B. (1984). LEXICAL AMBIGUITY AND ITS ROLE IN MODELS OF WORD RECOGNITION. Psychological Bulletin, 96(2), 316-340.
Simpson, G. B. & Burgess, C. (1985). ACTIVATION AND SELECTION PROCESSES IN THE RECOGNITION OF AMBIGUOUS WORDS. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28-39.
Simpson, G. B. & Krueger, M. A. (1991). SELECTIVE ACCESS OF HOMOGRAPH MEANINGS IN SENTENCE CONTEXT. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643.
Spence, D. P. & Owens, K. C. (1990). LEXICAL COOCCURRENCE AND ASSOCIATION STRENGTH. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(5), 317-330.
Svanlund, J. (2007). Metaphor and convention. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 47-89.
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-660.
Tabossi, P. (1987). CONTEXT TYPE DETERMINES WHETHER LEXICAL ACCESS IS EXHAUSTIVE OR SELECTIVE. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 25(5), 350-350.
Tabossi, P. (1988). ACCESSING LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF SENTENTIAL CONTEXTS. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340.
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L. & Job, R. (1987). ACCESSING LEXICAL AMBIGUITY - EFFECTS OF CONTEXT AND DOMINANCE. Psychological
Research-Psychologische Forschung, 49(2-3), 161-167.
Tabossi, P. & Zardon, F. (1993). PROCESSING AMBIGUOUS WORDS IN CONTEXT. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 359-372.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). EVIDENCE FOR MULTIPLE STAGES IN THE PROCESSING OF AMBIGUOUS WORDS IN SYNTACTIC CONTEXTS. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 427-440.
Tartter, V. C., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S. & Stewart, R. V. (2002). Novel Metaphors Appear Anomalous at Least Momentarily: Evidence from N400.
Brain and Language, 80(3), 488-509.
Thibodeau, P. & Durgin, F. H. (2008). Productive figurative communication:
Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors.
Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 521-540.
Tokowicz, N. & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness:
Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 22(5).
Tsai, S. P. (2005). Psycholinguistic Processing of Chinese Polysemy. MA Thesis,
National Taiwan University.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The
case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765.
Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Galpin, A. & Voice, J. K. (2002). Activating meaning in time:
The role of imageability and form-class. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(5), 471-502.
Tyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J. & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124, 1619-1634.
Vanhoy, M. & Van Orden, G. C. (2001). Pseudohomophones and word recognition.
Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 522-529.
Vigliocco, G. & Vinson, D. P. (2007). Semantic representation. In M. G. Gaskel (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and
Cognition, 28, 735-747.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K. & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236-252.
Vu, H., Kellas, G. & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 979-1001.
Weinreich, U. (1964). Webster's Third: A Critique of its Semantics. International
Journal of American Linguistics, (30), 405-409.
Wiley, J. & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1011-1021.
Williams, J. N. (1992). PROCESSING POLYSEMOUS WORDS IN CONTEXT - EVIDENCE FOR INTERRELATED MEANINGS. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 21(3), 193-218.
Williams, J. N. (1996). Is automatic priming semantic? European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 8(2), 113-161.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M. & Kluppel, D. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models. Journal of