Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T01:37:21.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolving homography: The role of post-homograph context in reading aloud ambiguous sentences in Hebrew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2019

Amalia Bar-On ,
Elitzur Dattner Open the ORCID record for Elitzur Dattner [Opens in a new window]  and
Oriya Braun-Peretz
Amalia Bar-On
Affiliation:
Tei Aviv University
Elitzur Dattner*
Affiliation:
Tei Aviv University
Oriya Braun-Peretz
Affiliation:
Tei Aviv University
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined whether the context immediately succeeding a heterophonic-homographic word (ht-homographic) plays a role in ambiguity resolution during voiced reading of Hebrew. A pretest was designed to find the preferred alternatives of 12 ht-homographic words: 20 adult subjects completed truncated sentences, each ending with a homographic word, preceded by a context allowing for both of its alternatives to be read. Following the pretest, each word was embedded in four research conditions determined by post-homographic context (keeping preceding context constant): two adjacent revealing contexts, one supporting the preferred alternative and the other the un-preferred alternative; and two distant revealing contexts, one supporting the preferred alternative and the other the un-preferred alternative. Four lists of 12 sentences, each including the four conditions, were then read aloud by four groups of 20 adults. Results from a generalized linear mixed-model analysis showed that the immediately succeeding context affected the deciphering of un-preferred alternatives in voiced reading. An item analysis further showed that highly preferred alternatives were less prone to the immediately succeeding context effect than slightly preferred alternatives. We conclude that the context immediately succeeding a ht-homographic word plays a role in ambiguity resolution during voiced reading, through interactions with the word’s lexical and syntactic characteristics.

Keywords

ambiguity resolutioncontext effectHebrewhomography
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 1405 - 1420
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 14, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H. (2007). Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. In Jarema, G. & Libben, G. (Eds.), The mental lexicon: Core perspectives (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bar-On, A. (2015). [in Hebrew] Reading in the shadow of homography: The problem is the solution. Oriyanut Ve’Safa, 5, 99–120.Google Scholar
Bar-On, A., Dattner, E., & Ravid, D. (2017). Context effects on heterophonic homography resolution in learning to read Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 30, 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-On, A., & Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological decoding in Hebrew pseudowords: A developmental study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 553–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dattner, E. (2019). The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics, Retrieved 10 Aug. 2019. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1515/ling-2019-0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In Gorfein, D. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faust, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 36, 827–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555–568.Google ScholarPubMed
Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Multiple lexical codes in reading: Evidence from eye movements, naming time, and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1412–1429.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 310–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2015). The eye-voice span during reading aloud. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leinenger, M., & Rayner, K. (2013). Eye movements while reading biased homographs: Effects of prior encounter and biasing context on reducing the subordinate bias effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 665–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2008). Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual information: Evidence from lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 105, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2012). Understanding written words: Phonological, lexical, and contextual effects in the cerebral hemispheres. In Faust, M. (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 59–76). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2004). Contextual strength: The whens and hows of context effects. In Noveck, I. A. & Sperber, D. (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 172–186). Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In Verhoeven, L., Elbro, C., & Reitsma, P. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2011). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In Gorfein, D. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Decade of behavior (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. (2005). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In Joshi, R. M. & Aaron, P. (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339–363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. (2012). Spelling morphology: The psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The EZ Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, S. C., Brewer, C. C., & O’Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science, 14, 328–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Share, D. L., & Bar-On, A. (2018). Learning to read a Semitic Abjad: The triplex model of Hebrew reading development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51, 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimron, J., & Sivan, T. (1994). Reading proficiency and orthography evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slattery, T. J., Sturt, P., Christianson, K., Yoshida, M., & Ferreirae, F. (2013). Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. PLOS ONE, 12, e0173720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snell, J., Vitu, F., & Grainger, J. (2017). Integration of parafoveal orthographic information during foveal word reading: Beyond the sub-lexical level? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1984–1996. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1217247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stites, M. C., Federmeier, K. D., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2013). Cross-age comparisons reveal multiple strategies for lexical ambiguity resolution during natural reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1823.Google ScholarPubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., & Sbisà, S. (2001). Methodological issues in the study of lexical ambiguity resolution. In Gorfein, D. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Decade of behavior (pp. 11–26). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka-Ishii, K., & Terada, H. (2011). Word familiarity and frequency. Studia Linguistica, 65, 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar