Multiple Lexical Codes in Reading: Evidence From ...

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1995, Vol. 21, No. 6,1412-1429

Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0278-7393/95/$3.00

Multiple Lexical Codes in Reading: Evidence From Eye Movements, Naming Time, and Oral Reading Jocelyn Reppert Folk and Robin K. Morris University of South Carolina The role of semantic, orthographic, and phonological codes in word recognition and text integration in reading was investigated in 4 experiments. Participants read sentences containing words that had multiple semantic codes (e.g., calf), multiple semantic and orthographic codes (e.g., brake-break), or multiple semantic and phonological codes (e.g., tear). Converging evidence from fixation time, naming time, and oral reading indicated that phonological, semantic, and orthographic information about words are sources of early constraint in word processing. Evidence was also found that indicated that phonological codes play an important role in text integration in reading.

Accessing and integrating information about a word's meaning are fundamental to reading comprehension. This process is complicated by the multiple sources of lexical ambiguity present in our written and spoken language. For example, a word may have multiple semantic interpretations associated with it, as is the case with words such as bill. In addition, some words have more than one possible pronunciation, as in wind, and multiple semantic interpretations. Conversely, the word sale shares a common pronunciation with the word sail, yet, there are different semantic interpretations associated with each word. Several recent models of word recognition have proposed that multiple sources of constraint interact to achieve word identification (Kawamoto, 1993; Van Orden, Pennington, & Stone, 1992). However, little work has been done that directly compares effects of the various proposed sources of constraint. In the experiments reported in this article we compared processing of semantic, phonological, and orthographic ambiguity to learn more generally about word processing during reading. With converging evidence from eye fixation time, naming time, and oral reading studies, we attempted to provide a fuller picture of the relative contribution of each of these factors to the reading process. A number of eye movement studies have addressed the issue of how semantically ambiguous words are processed in reading (Binder & Morris, 1995; Dopkins, Morris, & Rayner, 1992; Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988; Rayner & Duffy, 1986; Rayner Jocelyn Reppert Folk and Robin K. Morris, Psychology Department, University of South Carolina. Parts of this research were done to fulfill the requirements of a master's thesis for Jocelyn Reppert Folk at the University of South Carolina. Portions of the data were presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, May, 1994. This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 9110115. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Randall W. Engle and Alexander Pollatsek for helpful comments on a version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robin K. Morris, Psychology Department, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to [email protected]. 1412

& Frazier, 1989; Rayner, Pacht, & Duffy, 1994; Sereno, 1995; Sereno, Pacht, & Rayner, 1992), and the following general pattern of results has emerged. When the context preceding the ambiguous word is neutral, readers fixate longer on a balanced homograph (a word with two equally likely interpretations) than on a biased homograph (one that has a dominant interpretation) or on a neutral control word matched for length and frequency. However, when information that disambiguates in favor of the less likely interpretation is encountered later in the sentence, the opposite pattern emerges. Readers are slower to read the disambiguating information following the biased homographs than the balanced homographs. The inflated time on the balanced words in neutral context has been taken as evidence that multiple semantic codes are accessed on the reader's initial encounter with the target word. These findings are consistent with findings from other tasks (Kintsch & Mross, 1985; Onifer & Swinney, 1981; Seidenberg, Tanenhaus, Leiman, & Bienkowski, 1982; Swinney, 1979; Tanenhaus, Leiman, & Seidenberg, 1979). When the disambiguating context precedes the target word, a different pattern of data emerges. Readers fixate longer on a biased ambiguous word when prior context instantiates the less likely meaning than on a balanced ambiguous word or a length and frequency matched control word. The difference in processing time on the biased compared with the balanced ambiguous words suggests that meaning dominance influences the order in which the meanings are accessed. Again, these findings are consistent with results from other tasks (Simpson & Burgess, 1985; Simpson & Kellas, 1988; Simpson & Krueger, 1991). Finally, the fact that the pattern of results changes with changes in the context that precedes the target suggests that contextual factors may influence the process of accessing and integrating ambiguous words (see also Paul, Kellas, Martin, & Clark, 1992; Simpson, 1984; Tabossi, 1988; Tabossi, Colombo, & Job, 1987). There is also an extensive literature leading to the conclusion that phonological codes are used in word processing, with some researchers demonstrating that the phonological code associated with a word plays a role in lexical access (Daneman & Stainton, 1991; Inhoff & Topolski, 1994; Lesch & Pollatsek, 1993; Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Perfetti, Bell, & Delaney, 1988;

MULTIPLE LEXICAL CODES IN READING

Pollatsek, Lesch, Morris, & Rayner, 1992; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch, & Pollatsek, 1995; Rubenstein, Lewis, & Rubenstein, 1971; Van Orden, 1987; Van Orden, Johnston, & Hale, 1988), and others showing that phonological codes are used to maintain the word in an active state for the purpose of integrating the word into the sentence context (Daneman & Carpenter, 1983; Daneman & Reingold, 1993; Daneman, Reingold, & Davidson, 1995; Kleiman, 1975). Much of the research investigating the role of phonological codes in early word recognition has examined the processing of words in isolation by having participants respond to words that are potentially orthographically ambiguous, or heterographic homophones (e.g., sale-sail). The logic is that if the primary code used in word recognition is orthographic, then sharing a phonological representation, as heterographs do, would not affect the processing of those words; presented in their visual form, the heterographs are unambiguous because each orthographic form uniquely specifies one interpretation. On the other hand, if phonological codes are important in lexical access, orthographically ambiguous words that share a phonological representation may be processed differently than unambiguous words. The dominant conclusion drawn from heterographic research using techniques including semantic categorization1 (Van Orden, 1987; Van Orden et al., 1988), priming (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1993), backward masking (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Perfetti et al., 1988), parafoveal preview (Pollatsek et al., 1992), and fast priming (Rayner et al., 1995) is that phonological codes are important in the early stages of word processing. Using an on-line eye movement measure, Pollatsek et al. (1992) found evidence that phonological codes are used in initial stages of word processing in reading. They found that participants fixated for less time on a target word when a homophone of the target was presented in the parafovea relative to when a word matched in visual similarity with the homophone was presented in the parafovea. These findings are consistent with Van Orden's (1987) verification model, which claims that the primary means by which lexical entries are activated or computed is by phonology. Before a lexical candidate is selected, an entry must first pass a spelling check that continues on all of the activated candidates until a match is found. Thus, there is an interaction between phonology and orthography such that the phonology activates meanings and orthography constrains which meaning is ultimately selected (see Rayner et al., 1995, for similar results with a fast priming paradigm). In contrast, Daneman and Reingold (1993) and Daneman et al. (1995) have taken the position that phonological codes are used in error recovery processes in reading, but not in early processing. In their experiments participants' eye movements were monitored as they read text that contained homophonic errors (e.g., "He wore blew jeans") and nonhomophonic errors ("He wore blow jeans"). Daneman and Reingold predicted that if phonology were used in lexical access, homophonic errors would cause less disruption to the reading process because the phonological code of a heterograph (e.g., Iblul) would access both meanings associated with that code (e.g., blue and blew). Readers would spend less time on the homophonic errors, and more of the errors would go undetected.

1413

Contrary to this prediction, these researchers found that readers had as much initial processing difficulty on the homophonic errors as on the nonhomophonic errors, but they had an easier time recovering the correct interpretation of a homophone error than a nonhomophone error. These results were interpreted as supporting a model in which phonological codes influence word processing only after lexical access has been achieved. However, we suspected that these results could also be explained with the verification model (Van Orden, 1987) if it is assumed that the spell-checking procedure can be initiated within the time course of a single fixation (see Fleming, 1993; Lesch & Pollatsek, 1993). Although in many studies a lot of evidence has been found that phonological codes are used early in word processing, many other researchers have found evidence suggesting that phonological codes are involved in text integration and text comprehension. A variety of tasks have been used to demonstrate this, including articulatory suppression (Baddeley, 1986; Baddeley, Lewis, & Vallar, 1984; Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975), shadowing (Kleiman, 1975), and concurrent subvocalization (Slowiaczek & Clifton, 1980). Phonologically ambiguous words, or homographic heterophones (e.g., tear-ripcry), have also been used as one vehicle to demonstrate the role of phonological codes in text integration and text comprehension. These words have multiple semantic and phonological codes but a single orthographic representation. In an oral reading study in which readers' eye movements were monitored, Carpenter and Daneman (1981) found that the pronunciation of homographic heterophones {tear-rip-cry) was influenced by prior biasing context, and they found that if that initial interpretation was later found to be incorrect, there was a costly reanalysis process. Daneman and Carpenter (1983) examined this issue more closely. They compared readers' comprehension for passages containing homographic homophones and homographic heterophones in an oral and a silent reading study. Participants read short passages in which the intended meaning of a heterophone (e.g., sewer) or a semantically ambiguous word (e.g., bat) was switched (e.g., from the drain meaning of sewer to the tailor meaning of sewer) and then answered comprehension questions that required them to retrieve the initial interpretation of the ambiguous word. Daneman and Carpenter found that participants answered comprehension questions about passages containing a phonologically ambiguous word less accurately than when passages contained a word that was only semantically ambiguous. These results were taken as evidence that the two phonological representations of the word were kept active in working memory, thus creating interference. There is evidence that semantic, orthographic, and phonological codes each mediate access, although the relationship among these codes has not thoroughly been investigated. There is evidence that meaning dominance and context influence the resolution of semantic ambiguity, but researchers do

1

Note that Jared and Seidenberg (1991) found only an effect of phonology in a semantic categorization task by using heterographs for low-frequency words.

1414

JOCELYN REPPERT FOLK AND ROBIN K. MORRIS

not know if these factors influence the resolution of phonological ambiguity in the same way. Finally, there are inconsistencies in the views of the role of phonological codes in reading. This may stem in part from the fact that the majority of research investigating the role of phonological codes in lexical access, and later integration stages of reading, has examined these issues independently. These inconsistencies may also be due in part to the types of the tasks that have been used. Many of the tasks used were secondary to the reading process; tasks such as proofreading (e.g., Daneman & Stainton, 1991), semantic categorization (e.g., Van Orden 1987; Van Orden et al., 1988), shadowing (e.g., Kleiman, 1975), and articulatory suppression (e.g., Baddeley, 1986; Baddeley et al., 1984; Baddeley et al., 1975) have all been used. The extent to which the role of phonological codes in such tasks reflects the role of those codes in normal reading situations is not clear.

Current Experiments In our research, we intended to investigate how phonological, orthographic, and semantic codes interact in word recognition and text integration. Participants read sentences containing three types of biased ambiguous words: homographic homophones (multiple meanings), homographic heterophones (multiple phonological codes and multiple meanings), and heterographic homophones (multiple orthographic representations and multiple meanings), each paired with an unambiguous control word that was matched in length and frequency with the target word. Both the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) and the heterophones (e.g., tear) have multiple meanings associated with a single orthographic representation. However, the heterophones are also phonologically ambiguous. Thus, we assumed that processing differences between the homographic homophones and the heterophones can be attributed to the multiple phonological codes of the heterophones. Furthermore, the heterographs (e.g., brake-break) are not ambiguous when presented in their visual form, as only one meaning is associated with each spelling. However, they do have the ambiguity of multiple meanings associated with a single phonological code, providing further opportunity for the examination of how orthographic, phonological, and semantic information interacts. Three different paradigms were used to evaluate reading behavior: eye movement monitoring, rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) naming, and oral reading. In the eye movement studies, participants read at their own pace without interruption, and on-line measures of text processing, including measures of access, resolution, and text integration, were obtained. In the RSVP-naming study, a speeded oral response was required; in the oral reading study, participants read at their own pace and were asked comprehension questions.

Experiment 1 We designed Experiment 1 to investigate the interaction between phonological, orthographic, and semantic codes in reading when the preceding context was neutral with respect to the intended interpretation of a biased ambiguous word. In

this experiment, disambiguating information, which was consistent with the least frequent interpretation of an ambiguous word with one highly dominant interpretation, followed the word. Three types of biased ambiguous words were embedded in sentences: homographic homophones, which have multiple semantic codes (e.g., calf); homographic heterophones, which have multiple semantic and phonological codes (e.g., tear); and heterographic homophones, which have multiple semantic and orthographic codes (e.g., brake-break). Because all three types of ambiguous words had one highly dominant interpretation, no initial processing difficulty was expected on these words. Consistent with previous research with semantically ambiguous words, we expected that with prior neutral context, readers would initially select the dominant interpretation, with no processing cost associated with this selection (Duffy et al., 1988; Rayner & Duffy, 1986; Rayner et al., 1994). However, because phonological codes have also been implicated in text integration processes (Daneman & Carpenter, 1983; Daneman et al., 1995; Daneman & Reingold, 1993; Kleiman, 1975), we expected to find more processing difficulty associated with the phonologically ambiguous words (e.g., tear) than with the words that were only semantically ambiguous (e.g., calf) when we examined later processing measures, such as time in the disambiguating region or total time on the target word. Method Participants The participants were 44 graduate and undergraduate members of the University of South Carolina community who received course credit for participation in the study. All participants were native speakers of English with normal uncorrected vision.

Procedure When a participant arrived for the experiment, a bite bar was prepared for that participant, which served to eliminate head movements during testing. Participants were informed that they were participating in a reading experiment and were encouraged to read as they normally would for sentence comprehension. They were also informed that, periodically throughout the testing, they would be asked yes-no comprehension questions by the experimenter. The eye tracking system was aligned and calibrated for each participant. This procedure took approximately 5 min. At the start of each trial, a row of target boxes was displayed on the computer screen. The participant was instructed to look at the left target box, which marked the position in which the first letter of a sentence would appear, and the experimenter presented a sentence. After reading the sentence, the participant pushed a button that removed the sentence from the screen, replacing it with the row of target boxes. Participants read a series of four practice sentences to familiarize themselves with the routine before the experimental materials were presented. During the reading of experimental materials, the experimenter asked a comprehension question after every sixth sentence on average.

Apparatus Eye movements were recorded by a Fourward Technologies Dual Purkinje Image eye movement monitoring system. Viewing was binocu-

1415

MULTIPLE LEXICAL CODES IN READING lar, with eye location recorded from the right eye. The eye tracking system was interfaced with an IBM PS/2 model 80 computer that controlled the stimulus display and data storage. The sentences were each presented on a single line with up to 70 characters per line and 4 character spaces per degree of visual angle. The eye tracker sampled the position of the participant's eye every millisecond with a resolution of 10 min of arc. The sentences were presented on an IBM PS/2 8512 color display monitor. All of the characters, with the exception of the first letter of the sentence and the first letter of proper names, were presented in lowercase.

Materials University of South Carolina undergraduates participated in a series of three norming tasks to provide information from the local language population about the frequency and syntactic category for the meaning of each word. Three groups of words were included: 32 homographic heterophones (e.g., tear), 59 homographic homophones (e.g., calf), and 65 heterographic homophones (e.g., brake-break). To assess the two groups of homographs, we instructed 72 undergraduates to write down thefirstassociated word that came to mind for each of 122 words (91 homographs and 31fillers)and then to use the original word in a sentence. The 32 heterophones from the original set of 91 homographs were also included in a pronunciation task in which a new group of 72 undergraduate participants were given a list of 64 words and were required to read each word aloud. The results of the pronunciation task for the heterophones were consistent with the results of the cloze task. The heterographic homophones were normed in an auditory word recognition task. In this task, 76 undergraduate participants listened to a tape recorded list of 107 words (65 heterographic homophones and 42 fillers) and were required to write down each word. When the list ended, participants were instructed to return to the beginning of their list and to write the first associated word that came to mind and then to use the original word in a sentence. Twelve biased ambiguous words were chosen for this experiment on the basis of the results of the three tasks. Only words that met the following criteria were selected for inclusion in the experimental materials: (a) each word had one highly dominant interpretation, (b) there were two meanings that shared syntactic category yet had distinctly different semantic interpretations, (c) pronunciation differences for the heterophones were phonologically based and not merely stress-based differences, and (d) both meanings were cited in a standard dictionary of English usage and were familiar to our population (e.g., the subordinate interpretation was selected by at least 1 participant in the norming task). There were four heterophones that met this criteria, and this then constrained the matched set of items chosen from the other two word types. The mean probability of the dominant meaning for the homographic homophones was .76 (range: .68-.87). The dominant meaning of the homographic heterophones had a mean probability of .85 (range: .70-.91), and the mean probability of the dominant meaning of the heterographic homophones was .83 (range: .73-.88). Each ambiguous word was paired with an unambiguous control word that was matched for number of syllables, length, and overall frequency with the ambiguous word by using the Francis and Kucera (1982) norms. The average word frequency count of the homographic homophones was 77 (range: 13-224) for the target words and 70 (range: 3-199) for the control words, and the average frequency count of the heterophones was 38 (range: 13-94) for the target words and 45 (range: 2-95) for the control words. The average frequency of the heterograph targets was 16 (range: 1-48), and for their control words it was 22 (range: 4-51). Each target and control word had no more than two syllables, and word length ranged from four to seven letters. Two sentence frames were constructed for each target word such

that both the target and control word of each pair fit smoothly into each sentence frame. The sentence frames biased toward the least frequent meaning of each target word. Each sentence consisted of two phrases that could be reversed with only minimal changes in the wording of the sentence so that the biasing phrase could be presented either before or after the target word. The clause that contained the target word was neutral with respect to the meaning of the ambiguous target. In Experiment 1, the biasing information followed the target word. The stimuli are provided in Appendix A. To be sure that the sentences were equally biasing, 51 participants took part in a context norming study. They were given booklets containing all 12 ambiguous words in both sentence frames. The sentence frames were those from Experiment 2 in which the biasing context preceded the ambiguous word. In each sentence, the ambiguous word was underlined, and participants were instructed to provide a synonym of that underlined word. Participants provided a synonym of the contextually appropriate subordinate interpretation of an ambiguous word 99% of the time, indicating that the sentences were effective in establishing a bias and were equally biasing across the three types of ambiguity. There were a total of six within-subject conditions formed by the crossing of two variables: type of ambiguity (homographic heterophone, homographic homophone, or heterographic homophone) and word type (target or control word). The variables were counterbalanced by using a Latin square design, and the order of presentation of the sentences was randomized for each participant. Each participant saw a total of 72 sentences: 24 experimental sentences (4 sentences in each of the six conditions) and 48 filler sentences. Of the 24 experimental sentences, only 12 contained an ambiguous word (16% of the total number of trials). Each participant saw every ambiguous word, its matched control word, and each sentence frame, but no target word or sentence was ever repeated for a given participant.

Results Measures of processing time were examined in two regions of each sentence: the target word region, which consisted of only the target word, and the disambiguating region, which consisted of the first word or phrase in the sentence that biased toward one interpretation of the ambiguous word. Initial processing time on the target word was measured by first fixation duration and gaze duration. First fixation duration was calculated as the duration of a reader's initial fixation on the target word, regardless of how many fixations were made on that word. Gaze duration was calculated as the sum of all consecutivefixationson the target word, from thefirstfixation until the reader left the word. If the reader made only one fixation on that word, then that was the gaze duration. If there was no fixation on the target word, but there was a fixation within three character spaces to the left of the target, then that fixation was included in the first fixation and gaze duration data. If the reader did not look at the word or did not fixate within three characters to the left of the target, then that trial was omitted from the analysis. Fixations less than 140 ms in duration were eliminated from the analysis, as such short fixations are thought primarily to reflect oculomotor programming (Morrison, 1984). Fixations longer than 800 ms in duration were assumed to be the result of momentary track

1416


losses or eye blinks and were also eliminated. Approximately 13% of the data were lost, and data loss was equally distributed across conditions. Rereading of the target word was measured in terms of the frequency of occurrence (number of regressions) and processing time (total reading time); regressions onto the target word were calculated as the sum of the looks back to the target word after the reader's initial encounter with the word; and total time on the target word was calculated as the sum of the duration of all thefixationson the target word, including regressions to the word. Gaze duration in the disambiguating region was measured as the sum of all consecutive fixations in the disambiguating region beginning with the first fixation in the region until the reader left the region; and total time in the disambiguating region was measured as the sum of all fixation time in the disambiguating region, including regressions to that region. No participant performed at less than 90% accuracy on the comprehension questions. All of the analyses were performed by using subject variability. Given the small number of items per condition and the fact that the set of heterophones used in this experiment was exhaustive with respect to our criteria for inclusion, analyses in which item variability was used were deemed inappropriate (see Clark, 1973). Instead, the individual item means are presented in Appendix B. Initial Processing on the Target Word Gaze duration and first fixation duration. Both the first fixation duration and gaze duration measures showed the same pattern of results, by subjects and by items, as indicated in Table 1 and Appendix B. A 3 (type of ambiguity: heterographs [e.g., brake-break], homographic homophones [e.g., calf-legcow], and heterophones [e.g., tear-rip-cry]) x 2 (word type: target or control word) analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a main effect of word type in both the first fixation duration, F(\, 43) = 7.25, MSE = 2945, p < .01, and gaze duration measures, F(l, 43) = 8.09, MSE = 9,362,p < .01. The main effect of type of ambiguity was not significant (Fs < 1), but the Type of Ambiguity x Word Type interaction was significant, F(2,86) = 4.72, MSE = 9,187,/? < .05, for the gaze duration measure. No initial processing differences were expected for the homographic homophones, as previous research has shown that readers simply take the dominant interpretation (e.g., Dopkins et al., 1992; Duffy, et al., 1988; Rayner & Frazier, 1989). Consistent with previous findings, no gaze duration or

Table 1 Experiment 1: Mean Gaze Duration and First Fixation Times (in Milliseconds) on Target Versus Control Words Heterographic homophones'1

Homographic homophones'5

Homographic heterophones0

GD FFD GD FFD GD Word 389 286 342 351 297 Target 286 308 322 349 284 Control Note. GD = gaze duration; FFD =firstfixationduration. a Brake-break. bCalf. Tear.

FFD 299 259

first fixation duration differences were found for the homographic homophones compared with unambiguous control words (Fs < 1). However, we found a different pattern of processing on the words that had multiple phonological representations, as the planned comparisons revealed that readers spent more time on the heterophone target words than their control words in both the gaze duration measure, F ( l , 43) = 21.69, MSE = 6,662, p < .01, and the first fixation duration measure, F(l, 43) = 13.08, MSE = 2,692, p < .01. Because both the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) and the heterophones (e.g., tear) have multiple meanings associated with a single orthographic representation, the fact that initial slowing was found on the heterophones, but not on the homographic homophones, was attributed to the multiple phonological codes of the heterophones. If this slowing was a result of a single orthographic representation accessing two meanings, then the slowing should also have been found for the homographic homophones, and it was not. To assess the effects of phonological ambiguity over and above the effects caused by semantic ambiguity, we performed a test of the 2 x 2 interaction between the homographic homophones and the heterophones. The results revealed that the increased fixation time on the heterophones relative to the unambiguous control words was greater than the fixation time difference between the homographic homophones and the matched control words in both gaze duration and first fixation, respectively: F(\, 43) = 8.76, MSE = 9,750,/? < .01;F(l,43) = 5.11,MS£ = 3,368,/) < .05. Effects of phonological information in word processing in reading could also be found by examining the processing of the heterographs (e.g., brake-break); initial processing difficulty on the heterographs might be expected if the phonological code is active early, as there are two meanings associated with the common phonological code of a heterograph. There was a suggestive, 29-ms difference in gaze duration between the heterographs and their controls, F(\, 43) = 1.95, MSE = 9,658, p > .15. However, the item means in Appendix B reveal that this difference may primarily be due to the word knead, which has a particularly unusual orthography.

Reanafysis and Text Integration To assess the role of lexical codes in recovering an unselected interpretation and in text integration, we examined what happened when readers encountered the disambiguating information (which was consistent with the subordinate interpretation of the target word). If readers experienced difficulty, it might be expressed in the reading pattern in several different ways: (a) increased processing time spent in the disambiguating region, (b) an increased number of regressions to the ambiguous word, or (c) inflated total processing time (total time) on the ambiguous word. Gaze duration in the disambiguating region. An overall

ANOVA performed on readers' gaze durations on the disambiguating region revealed marginal main effects: type of ambiguity, F(2, 86) = 3.05, MSE = 8,677, p < .06, and word

1417


type, F(l, 43) = 4.04, MSE = 6,688,p < .06. The interaction was not significant, F(2, 86) = 1.63, MSE = 8,998,p > .3. Inflated processing times in the disambiguating region were expected when the region followed a homographic homophone (e.g., calf), compared with a control word, as participants would have to retrieve the nondominant meaning to integrate it successfully into the sentence representation (Dopkins et al., 1992; Duffy et al., 1988; Rayner & Frazier, 1989; for a review, see Rayner & Morris, 1991). Such a pattern was found, as planned comparisons demonstrated that participants, on their first pass through the disambiguating region, spent more time in the region when it followed a homographic homophone than a control word, F(l, 43) = 9.85, MSE = 5,490, p < .01, see Table 2. This suggests that readers initially selected the contextually inappropriate interpretation of the homographic homophones, with the cost of having to reanalyze their selection once they encountered the disambiguating region. Although there was a trend of inflated processing time in the disambiguating region following heterophones (e.g., tear) relative to controls, it was not significant (F < 1). The heterographs (e.g., brake-break) did not differ from controls (F < 1). Total time in the disambiguating region. An overall ANOVA on readers' total time spent in the disambiguating region found a main effect of type of ambiguity, F(2, 86) = 6.68, MSE = 36,335,/> < .01. The main effect of word type, F(l, 43) = 2.05, MSE = 28,041, p > .2, and the Type of Ambiguity x Word Type interaction, F(2, 86) = 1.09, MSE = 24,288, p > .4, were not significant. Planned comparisons revealed that participants spent more total time in the disambiguating region of the sentences containing homographic homophones (e.g., calf) relative to their unambiguous controls, F(l, 43) = 4.48, MSE = 19,456,;? < .05; see Table 3. This is further evidence that readers initially selected the contextually inappropriate dominant interpretations of the homographic homophones and had to reanalyze their selection in the disambiguating region (Duffy et al., 1988). Although there was a 31-ms difference in the disambiguating region of the sentences containing heterophones compared with controls, the effect was not significant (F < 1). We were somewhat surprised by the relatively weak heterophone effects in the disambiguating region, given the initial processing difficulty observed in this study and the claims in prior literature regarding the role of phonological codes in text integration. However, the rereading data, reported in the following section, act to clarify the situation. Regressions. An overall ANOVA on the number of regressions to the target words revealed a significant type of Ambiguity x Word Type interaction, F(2, 86) = 6.98, MSE = 458, p < .01. The main effects were not significant: type of

Table 3 Experiment 1: Mean Total Time (in Milliseconds) in the Disambiguating Region of the Target Versus Control Sentences Sentence

Heterographic homophones"

Homographic homophones6


Target Control

448 454

585 522

498 467

"Brake-break.

b

Calf. Tear.

ambiguity (F < 1); word type, F(l, 43) = 1.43, MSE = 539, p>.3. We found that participants reread the heterophones (e.g., tear) more often than unambiguous control words (see Table 4), F(l, 43) = 17.34, MSE = 377, p < .01. This suggests that readers may have initially selected the dominant interpretation of a heterophone and that they had a difficult time recovering the subordinate phonological code. The analogous contrasts were not significant for the other two ambiguity types (Fs < 1), which provides further evidence that it was particularly difficult for readers to recover the alternative interpretation of words with multiple phonological codes. Total time. The total time analysis revealed that participants not only reread the heterophones more often than the other two types of ambiguity but also spent more total processing time on the heterophones (see Table 5). A 3 (type of ambiguity) x 2 (word type) ANOVA revealed a main effect of type of ambiguity F(2,86) = 7.94, MSE = 33,442,/? < .01. The main effect of word type was reliable, F(l, 43) = 16.35, MSE = 31,109,/? < .01, as participants spent more time overall on the ambiguous words than on the control words. More important, the interaction between type of ambiguity and word type was also significant, F(2,86) = 12.10, MSE = 37,664,/? < .01. Readers spent more total time on the heterophones compared with control words, F(l, 43) = 34.91, MSE = 40,264, p < .01. However, the time spent on the other types of ambiguous words and their controls did not differ (Fs < 1). Furthermore, a 2 x 2 ANOVA, including only the heterophones and their control words and the homographic homophones and their control words, indicated that the difficulty associated with the heterophones relative to unambiguous control words was greater than the difference between the homographic homophones and their controls, F(l, 43) = 13.80, MSE = 42,292, p < .01. Again, this suggests that the difficulty that readers had with the heterophones was a result of the multiple phonological codes associated with those words, and not with their multiple semantic codes, because both the heterophones and homographic homophones had multiple semantic codes.

Table 2 Table 4 Experiment 1: Mean Gaze Duration (in Milliseconds) in the Experiment 1: Total Number of Regressions Onto the Target Disambiguating Region of the Target Versus Control Sentences and ControlWords Sentence Target Control

Heterographic homophones8

347 345 "Brake-break. bCalf. Tear.



Word

398 348

383 373

Target Control "Brake-break.

Heterographic homophones" 24 29 b

Calf. Tear.



24 26

35 18

1418


Table 5 Experiment 1: Mean Total Time (in Milliseconds) on the Target Versus Control Words

a

Word

Heterographic homophones"


Homographic heterophonesc

Target Control

485 496

562 539

727 474

Brake-brake.

"Calf.

Tear.

Discussion Experiment 1 replicated previous findings with respect to both initial and later processing measures on the homographic homophones (Dopkins et al., 1992; Duffy et al, 1988; Rayner & Frazier, 1989). Having established this, the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) were then used as a baseline to measure the effects of multiple phonological and orthographic codes because all three word types included in this study were ambiguous with respect to meaning. In the initial processing measures, no processing differences were found for the homographic homophones (e.g., calf), suggesting that the subordinate interpretation was easily discarded. In contrast, initial processing difficulty was associated with the heterophones (e.g., tear-cry-rip). Because both word types have multiple meanings associated with a single orthographic representation, the initial processing difficulty on the heterophones was attributed to phonological conflict at early stages of word processing, regardless of meaning bias. In the case of the heterographs (e.g., brake-break), the orthography was unambiguous with respect to which meaning to select, and thus any difficulty associated with these words was easily resolved within the time course of a typical fixation. The results of Duffy et al. (1988) and others were also replicated in the disambiguating region of sentences containing homographic homophones (e.g., calf). Participants spent more time in the disambiguating region when it followed a homographic homophone than an unambiguous control word, with no significant differences in the number of regressions to the target words or total time on the target words. In contrast, when phonological ambiguity was added to the picture, we found that participants made many more regressions to the heterophones (e.g., tear) and spent more total time on the heterophones than on their controls. Participants had to reread to recover the subordinate interpretation of the heterophones, whereas the alternative interpretation of the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) could be recovered on-line. This suggests that phonological information was active at text integration and that readers used phonology to recover the contextually appropriate subordinate interpretation of the ambiguous words. In the case of the homographic homophones (e.g., calf), the recovery process occurred on-line because both meanings were associated with a single phonological code. However, for the phonologically ambiguous heterophones (e.g., tear), only one meaning was associated with each phonological code. Thus, to recover the correct meaning, readers had to read the word to access the alternative phonological code and the meaning associated with it.

Experiment 2 In Experiment 1 when disambiguating information followed target words, participants experienced both initial and later processing difficulty associated with the heterophones (e.g., tear). This processing difficulty could not be accounted for solely by the multiple meanings associated with the words because a different pattern of effects was found for the homographic homophones (e.g., calf). Furthermore, readers experienced initial processing difficulty on the phonologically ambiguous heterophones when prior context was neutral, even though one meaning was highly dominant. On the other hand, meaning dominance was sufficient to reduce initial selection competition for the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) so that there was no observable difference between the target and control word processing time. This indicates that the subordinate interpretation of the heterophones may be more salient than that of the homographic homophones, thus creating early competition. Therefore, context may affect the processing of heterophones differently than the other word types. We designed Experiment 2 to investigate the role of context in ambiguity resolution. The same procedure and materials were used as in Experiment 1, with the exception that the sentences were modified so that the disambiguating information, which was biased toward the subordinate interpretation, preceded the ambiguous words. Method Participants The participants were 40 members of the University of South Carolina community who received course credit for participation in the study. All participants were native speakers of English with normal uncorrected vision, and none had participated in Experiment 1.

Apparatus and Procedure The same apparatus and procedure were used in Experiment 2 as were used in Experiment 1.

Materials The materials were the same as in Experiment 1, with the exception that the disambiguating information preceded the ambiguous words. Some of the sentences had to be modified slightly to make the movement of the disambiguating information grammatical. For example, the sentence "When he took the brake off the race car, the auto mechanic smiled" from Experiment 1 was changed to "The auto mechanic smiled when he took the brake off the race car" in Experiment 2. Participants saw a total of 60 sentences: 24 experimental sentences and 36 filler sentences. A sentence containing an ambiguous word was presented in only 12 trials (20% of the trials). Participants saw each ambiguous word and its matched control, but they saw them in different sentence frames. Thus, each target word and each sentence frame were presented only once to a given participant.

Results First fixation duration, gaze duration, regressions onto the target word, and total time on the target word were assessed in

1419


the same manner as in Experiment 1. The same cutoffs were also used in Experiment 2, resulting in a loss of approximately 15% of the data. Again, data loss was equally distributed across conditions. All participants were at least 90% accurate on the comprehension questions. In this experiment, the biasing context, which was referred to as the disambiguating region in Experiment 1, preceded the target words. All of the analyses were performed by using subject variability. The item means are reported in Appendix B. Initial Processing Measures on the Target Word Gaze duration andfirstfixationduration. The pattern of results was consistent in both the gaze duration and first fixation measures, for both subjects and items, as shown in Table 6 and Appendix B. The first fixation measure is only reported when it is significant. An overall ANOVA found a main effect of type of ambiguity: gaze duration, F(2, 78) = 3.21, MSE = 6,083, p < .05, and first fixation duration, F(2,78) = 4.74, MSE = 3,447,p < .05. The main effect of word type was also significant in the gaze duration measure, F(l, 39) = 8.73, MSE = 3,921, p < .01. However, the Type of Ambiguity x Word Type interaction did not reach significance, F(2, 78) = 1.37, MSE = 4,109,p > .3. Longer gaze durations on the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) would be consistent with those in previous literature, which suggested that context boosts the activation of the subordinate interpretation, causing it to become available close in time with the dominant interpretation (Duffy et al., 1988; Rayner et al., 1994). A similar effect was expected with the heterophones because they were difficult to process initially in Experiment 1, even without prior context biasing toward the nondominant interpretation. Consistent with these predictions, we found that on their first encounter with the heterophones and the homographic homophones, participants experienced processing difficulty. Inflated gaze durations were found on the heterophones (e.g., tear-rip-cry) relative to unambiguous control words, F(l, 39) = 6.02, MSE = 5,263, p < .05, and on the homographic homophones relative to control words, F(l, 39) = 4.49, MSE = 2,909,/J < .05, although there was some variability across items within each of these word types. The 40-ms gaze duration effect on the heterophones was compared with the 26-ms gaze duration effect on the homographic homophones, but this difference was not reliable (F < 1). No effects were expected for the heterographs because both context and orthography now converged unambiguously on a single interpretation; mean gaze duration Table 6 Experiment 2: Mean Gaze Duration and First Fixation Duration Times (in Milliseconds) on Target Versus Control Words Heterographic homophones'1



Word

GD

FFD

GD

FFD

GD

FFD

Target Control

316 309

290 293

323 297

283 273

358 318

309 304

Note. GD = gaze duration; FFD = first fixation duration. a Brake-break. bCalf. Tear.

on the heterographs (e.g., brake-break) did not differ from the controls {F < 1). Appendix B shows that three of the four items show virtually no difference from their matched controls. Text Integration Regressions into the target word region. A 3 (type of ambiguity) x 2 (word type) ANOVA was performed on the regressions measure, and the condition means are presented in Table 7. The analysis indicated that participants made more regressions onto the target words than onto the unambiguous control words, F(l, 39) = 5.46, MSE = 402, p < .05, with only a marginal effect of type of ambiguity, F(2, 78) = 2.52, MSE = 438, p < .09. The Type of Ambiguity x Word Type interaction was not significant (F < 1). Planned comparisons revealed only suggestive differences between the number of regressions made onto any particular ambiguity type: heterophones relative to their controls, F(l, 39) = 2.12, MSE = 521,/> > .15, the heterographs relative to their controls F(l, 39) = 2.17, MSE = 451, p > .14, or the homographic homophones relative to their controls (F < 1). Total time. A 3 (type of ambiguity) x 2 (word type) ANOVA found a main effect of type of ambiguity, F(2, 78) = 9.66, MSE = 17,420, p < .01, and a marginal word type effect, F(l, 39) = 3.31, MSE = 22,854, p < .08. The Type of Ambiguity x Word Type interaction did not reach significance, F(2,78) = 2.03, MSE = 15,952,/? > .13. No later processing effect was expected with the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) compared with their controls, as readers were expected to select initially the context appropriate interpretation of these words (Duffy et al., 1988), and none was found (F < 1). However, later processing difficulty associated with the heterophones (e.g., tear-rip-cry) was expected because the phonological ambiguity was difficult for participants to overcome in Experiment 1. Such difficulty was found, as planned comparisons demonstrated that participants spent more total time on the heterophones relative to their unambiguous control words, F(l, 39) = 4.88, MSE = 26,735, p < .05; see Table 8. Furthermore, readers spent more total time on the heterophones relative to controls than the homographic homophones relative to controls, though the interaction was marginal, F(l, 39) = 2.99, MSE = 19,835, p < .09. The processing difficulty on the heterophones was attributed to their multiple phonological interpretations because the inflated total processing time measure was unique for this type of ambiguity. Again, we expected no processing difficulty on the heterographs (e.g., brake-break), as orthography and context both converged unambiguously on a single interpretation, and no Table 7 Experiment 2: Total Number of Regressions Onto Target Versus Control Words Word

Heterographic homophonesa



Target Control

21 14

12

19 12

"Brake-break.

"Calf.

Tear.

1420


Table 8 Experiment 2: Mean Total Time (in Milliseconds) on Target Versus Control Words Word

Heterographic homophones3

Homographic homophonesb


Target Control

440 418

390 387

520 440

a

Brake-break. "Calf. Tear.

difficulty was found (F < 1). An overall ANOVA of gaze duration in the disambiguating region, which preceded the target word in this experiment, yielded no significant effects (Fs < 1). Discussion The inflated initial processing time on the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) suggests that the context boosted the activation of the nondominant interpretation, resulting in both meanings becoming available close to the same time and competing for selection (Duffy et al., 1988; Rayner et al., 1994). Similarly, inflated gaze durations were found on the heterophones (e.g., tear) in this experiment. If the inflated processing time on the heterophones was simply a result of competition between the two meanings because the context boosted the activation of the contextually relevant subordinate interpretation, as it seems to be for the homographic homophones, then the competition should not have occurred in Experiment 1 because the context preceding the target word was neutral, and there was one highly dominant interpretation. The initial processing difficulty in Experiment 1 suggests that both the subordinate and dominant heterophone interpretations were active initially, regardless of meaning dominance. However, the reduction in the size of the effect in Experiment 2 (40 ms) compared with Experiment 1 (80 ms) suggests that contextual information may mediate the competition. The total time measure provided further evidence that the heterophones (e.g., tear) and homographic homophones (e.g., calf) were more difficult to initially process than their control words for different reasons. No more total time was spent on the homographic homophones than their control words, suggesting that readers initially selected the context appropriate interpretation and integrated it into the sentence representation with no further processing difficulty (e.g., no inflated total time and no increase in the number of regressions). However, despite the prior biasing context, participants had more difficulty maintaining the correct interpretation of the heterophones than either the unambiguous controls or the homographic homophones, as evidenced by the inflated total time measure on the heterophones. It is not clear why participants spent more time rereading the heterophones relative to control words and other ambiguous word types. Readers may have had difficulty integrating the heterophones because they originally selected the incorrect dominant interpretation of the heterophones some of the time, despite the prior biasing context, or it could be that regardless of successfully selecting the context appropriate interpretation, readers could not easily rid themselves of the

more dominant phonological representation. The purpose of Experiment 3 was to investigate initial phonological processing by using a more direct and transparent measure. Experiment 3 In Experiment 2, when biasing context preceded the ambiguous words, inflated initial processing time was found for the heterophones relative to control words and inflated total time. Because naming is a speeded oral response, if participants were selecting between two competing pronunciations of the heterophones, they would be expected to make more pronunciation errors in response to the heterophones or to show inflated naming latencies on the heterophones as compared with control words. Seidenberg, Waters, Barnes, and Tanenhaus (1984) found the latter when participants named heterophones in the absence of context. No such processing time or error differences were expected for the heterographs or the homographic homophones because any activation of competing interpretations would converge on a single pronunciation. Method Participants Sixty-four University of South Carolina undergraduates participated in this experiment for course credit. All participants were native speakers of English, and none had participated in the previous experiments.

Materials The materials were the same as those used in Experiment 2, with the exception that the last phrase of each sentence was deleted so that the target word was always the final word in the sentence. Each participant saw 24 experimental sentences and 36fillersentences.

Apparatus The stimuli were presented on an IBM PS/2 8512 color display monitor that was controlled by an IBM PS/2 Model 70 386 computer. Naming latencies were collected by a microphone connected to a voice-activated relay and interfaced with a digital I/O port on the computer.

Procedure At the beginning of each trial, a fixation cross appeared at the center of the computer screen for 1,000 ms. Participants were presented with the words in a sentence, one word at a time in the center of a computer screen at the rate of 250 ms per word. The next to last word appeared on the computer screen with a plus sign above and below it. The plus signs served as a signal to the participant to name the next word aloud and remained on the screen for an additional 150 ms after the word disappeared. The target word then appeared and remained on the screen until the participant responded. Participants were instructed to read the sentences silently and to name the last word in the sentence aloud as quickly and as accurately as possible. After each trial, the question "OK?" appeared on the screen. Participants were asked to press the yes button if they had responded appropriately and the voice key had been activated. If some type of error was made, such as a stumble on the word or the voice key

1421

MULTIPLE LEXICAL CODES IN READING did not work on that trial, then participants were instructed to press the no button. The experimenter sat in the room with a participant and scored any pronunciation errors made by a participant. After a participant responded, the fixation cross for the next trial appeared on the screen. Each participant received 10 practice trials before the experimental trials began. Each participant was individually tested, and a session lasted approximately 15 min.

Results Both naming latency data and error data were collected for each participant. For the heterophones, a response was scored as an error by the experimenter on the basis of the following criteria: If the participant said the contextually inappropriate dominant interpretation, stumbled or hesitated on the target word, or said the wrong word, that trial was scored as an error. The same procedure was used for the other types of target and control words, with the exception that the selection of the dominant interpretation could not be scored because only the heterophones had different pronunciations for their different interpretations. Other errors that were scored included whenever the participant pressed the no button after the OK? prompt that appeared after each trial. Overall, 10% of the total responses were errors. For the heterophone target words, 45% of the responses were errors (including starting the incorrect pronunciation and correcting it, saying the contextually inappropriate pronunciation, and stumbling on the word), and for the otherfiveconditions combined (heterograph target and controls, homographic homophone target and controls, and heterophone controls) only 3% of the responses were errors. All error trials were eliminated from the naming latency analyses. A subset of participants made so many pronunciation errors on the heterophones that their naming latency data could not be analyzed (e.g., made errors on over half of the heterophones). Therefore, the naming latency analyses included only those 40 participants who made errors on no more than half of the heterophone trials. The error analyses were performed on the data from all 64 participants. To establish interrater reliability, two raters scored the pronunciation errors for 14 participants (22% of the participants). The two raters were consistent on 96% of the trials. To remove outliers from the naming time data, we eliminated any response that was 2.5 standard deviations above or below a participant's overall mean. Overall, 4% of the trials were eliminated. As done previously, all of the analyses were performed by using subject variability, and the item means are presented in Appendix B. Naming Latencies A 3 (ambiguity type: heterophone, homographic homophone, or heterograph) x 2 (word type: target or control word) ANOVA was performed on the naming times for the 40 participants who had made errors on no more than half of the heterophone trials. This analysis revealed main effects of type of ambiguity, F(2, 78) = 8.48, MSE = 3,781, p < .01, and word type, F(l, 39) = 18.11, MSE = 3,476,p < .01. The interaction between type of ambiguity and word type also reached significance, F(2,78) = 14.79, MSE = 1,754,/? < .01. As indicated in Table 9, the pattern of data for the entire set of 64 participants,

Table 9 Experiment 3: Mean Naming Latencies (in Milliseconds) Heterographic homophones'1 Word Target Control

N=40 605 597


N = 64 619 608


40 N = 64 iV = 40 N = 64 670 678 615 604 606 596 602 588

Note. Forty participants made errors on half or fewer of the heterophone trials. Means are presented for that subgroup and for the sample as a whole. a Brake-break. bCalf. Tear.

including the 24 participants who made errors on over half of the heterophone trials, was consistent with the pattern for the 40 participants who had sufficient data to analyze. Planned comparisons found that participants had initial processing difficulty on the heterophones; naming latencies to the heterophone target words were slower than to control words, t(39) - 5.75, p < .01. The responses to the homographic homophones and their control words, t (39) = 1.45, p > .15, and to the heterographs and their controls (f < 1) did not statistically differ. Pronunciation Errors A 3 (ambiguity type: heterophone, homographic homophone, or heterograph) x 2 (word type: target or control word) ANOVA performed on all 64 participants' data revealed a significant main effect of type of ambiguity, F(2,126) = 80.16, MSE = 0.33, p < .001, and a significant main effect of word type was also found, F(l, 63) = 108.99, MSE = 035,p < .001. The interaction also reached significance, F(2, 126) = 100.82, MSE = 0.29, p < .001. Planned comparisons revealed that participants made significantly more errors to the heterophone target words than to their control words, f(63) = 11.84, p < .001, and more errors on the heterograph target words than on their control words, f(63) = 3.21, p < .01, see Table 10. This suggests that the heterophones (e.g., brake-break) and heterophones (e.g., tear) caused processing difficulty for the participants, and this difficulty took the form of more errors on those words than on their control words. There was no statistical difference between the number of errors made in response to the homographic homophone targets (e.g., calf) as compared with control words (t < 1). Discussion The data from the naming time study were consistent with the previous eye movement studies, as once again initial Table 10 Experiment 3: Mean Number of Pronunciation Errors in the Naming Time Study Word Target Control a

Brake-break.

Heterographic homophones11 0.25 0.06 b

Calf.

Tear.



0.11 0.14

1.8 0.06

1422


difficulty on the heterophones (e.g., tear) was found. This difficulty took the form of inflated naming latencies,2 an increased number of errors on the heterophones relative to control words, or both, indicating that both pronunciations of the heterophones were active initially. The error data that were based on responses from all 64 participants demonstrated that participants stumbled in pronouncing a heterophone (i.e., started the contextually incorrect pronunciation and then corrected it) or said the incorrect (dominant) interpretation of a heterophone approximately one third of the time. An increased number of errors were also found in response to the heterographs (e.g., brake-break), but it is not clear why this occurred in the absence of any naming latency effects. The effect appears to be a result of participants simply having trouble articulating the word knead (see Appendix B). It is apparent from Experiments 1-3 that regardless of which interpretation of a heterophone is selected, there is early competition between heterophone interpretations. In Experiment 1 in which the massive rereading data indicated that the majority of the time readers did initially select the dominant interpretation, the first fixation and gaze duration data indicated that this selection occurred after initial competition. Thus, even selecting the dominant interpretation is difficult initially. Experiment 4 In Experiments 1-3, we found evidence for early competition between the two interpretations of heterophones (e.g., tear), and in addition, the eye movement experiments revealed massive later processing difficulty associated with those words. One piece of information that is missing is whether participants ultimately were able to overcome this difficulty such that they left a sentence with a correct interpretation. Thus, more pointed comprehension data are needed. Therefore, in Experiment 4, participants read aloud the same sentences that were used in Experiment 2 and then answered a comprehension question that targeted which interpretation of an ambiguous word participants ultimately retained. Comprehension errors and pronunciation errors in oral reading were scored to assess which interpretation of a phonologically ambiguous word the readers took when they left the word and to establish that all readers ultimately ended up with the subordinate interpretation at sentence completion. Method Participants The participants were 40 members of the University of South Carolina community who participated in exchange for course credit. All participants were native speakers of English, and none had participated in the previous studies.

Materials The experimental sentences were the same as those used in Experiment 2, with context that was consistent with the subordinate interpretation of the ambiguous words preceding the words. Booklets were compiled that contained the 24 experimental sentences and the

40 filler sentences. Only 1 sentence appeared on each page of a booklet. The comprehension questions were formulated such that a correct answer would include the ambiguous word or a synonym.

Apparatus A Sony tape recorder and microphone were used to record the participants as they read the sentences aloud.

Procedure Each participant was individually tested. When a participant arrived for the experiment, he or she was given a booklet with one sentence on each page. The participant was instructed to read each sentence in the booklet out loud for comprehension and was told not to read the sentences silently first. Participants were asked a comprehension question after theyfinishedreading a sentence on half of the trials; a question was asked after each target and control sentence and after eight filler sentences as well. The purpose of the questions was to test which interpretation of the ambiguous words each participant had ultimately chosen. For example, when the sentence was "The auto mechanic smiled when he took the brake off the race car," the question was "What did the mechanic take off the car?" Participants were instructed to answer each question orally, without looking back at the sentence, and then to write their answer down. The oral responses allowed the experimenter to know which interpretation of the heterophones a participant had chosen, and the written answer allowed the experimenter to check which interpretation of the heterographs a participant had chosen. Because one cannot distinguish between the two interpretations of the homographic homophones (e.g., calf) on the basis of either the pronunciation or the written word alone, the participants were asked to restate their answer if the intended meaning was not clear to the experimenter.

Results Two types of errors were scored on each experimental trial (both for the target and control words): comprehension and pronunciation errors. The comprehension errors were scored as incorrect oral or written answers in response to the comprehension questions, including giving the contextually inappropriate dominant interpretation of any ambiguous word. A pronunciation error was scored any time a participant stumbled on a target word, mispronounced it, or hesitated during pronunciation. For the heterophones, a pronunciation error was also scored any time the contextually inappropriate dominant interpretation was given. Pronunciation errors for 9 participants (23% of the participants) were scored by two raters so that interrater reliability could be established. The two raters were consistent on 99% of the trials. All of the analyses were performed by using subject variability, and the item data are presented in Appendix B. 2

On the basis of the naming time study alone, an alternative explanation that the inflated naming latencies and errors on the heterophones (e.g., tear: rip/cry) were the result of a production effect associated with having multiple articulatory codes could be made. However, when this data is interpreted in the context of the two previous eye movement studies in which inflated initial processing time on the heterophones in silent reading was found, it seems doubtful that a production effect explanation could account for the full pattern of data.

1423


Comprehension Errors The comprehension question error data indicated that participants left a sentence with the contextually appropriate interpretation of an ambiguous word (see Table 11). An overall 3 (type of ambiguity) x 2 (word type) ANOVA revealed a marginal main effect of word type, F(l, 39) = 3.81, MSE = 0.07,p < .06. The main effect of type of ambiguity was significant, F(2, 78) = 5.82, MSE = 0.08, p < .01, and the interaction was not significant (F < 1). More important, planned comparisons of each type of ambiguous word to its control revealed no significant effects: heterographs (/ < 1); heterophones, t(39) = 1.22, p > .3; and homographic homophones (t < 1). Pronunciation Errors Overall, participants made more pronunciation errors in response to the heterophones than to their control words, as shown in Table 12. A 3 (ambiguity type: Heterophone, heterograph, or homographic homophone) x 2 (word type: Target or control word) ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ambiguity type, F(2, 78) = 34.24, MSE = 0.20,/? < .001, and a significant main effect of word type, F(l, 39) = 63.30, MSE = 0.15,p < .001, as more errors were made in response to target words than to controls. The interaction was also significant, F(2, 78) = 33.46, MSE = 0.19,p < .001. An examination of the planned comparisons replicated Experiments 1-3 in that initial processing difficulty was found on the heterophone target words. Participants made more pronunciation errors on the heterophone targets than on their controls, f(39) = 7.86, p < .001. However, we found that participants initially left a heterophone with the correct interpretation on 90% of the trials, as they corrected their initial mistakes by correctly saying the subordinate interpretation. Participants made no more pronunciation errors on the homographic homophones compared with controls (t < 1) or on the heterographs compared with controls, t(39) = 1.71, p > .10. Discussion The results of the oral reading study add to the picture that emerged from Experiments 1-3. The most important finding from Experiment 4 was that the comprehension question data indicated that participants ultimately left the sentences with the contextually appropriate interpretation of each type of ambiguous word. This indicates that participants were able to

Table 11 Experiment 4: Mean Number of Comprehension Errors in the Oral Reading Study Sentence Target Control a

Heterographic homophones'1 0.05 0.03

Brake-break. "Calf. Tear.

Homographic homophones1"


0.13 0.08

0.25 0.13

Table 12 Experiment 4: Mean Number of Pronunciation Errors in the Oral Reading Study Word Target Control a Brake-break.

Heterographic homophones8 O20 0.08 b Calf. Tear.

Homographic homophonesb


O08 0.05

U3 0.08

overcome the initial ambiguity by the time that they were finished reading each sentence. Once again, initial processing difficulty was found for the heterophones, and this difficulty took the form of an increased number of pronunciation errors on the heterophones (e.g., tear) compared with control words. When participants made pronunciation errors, they corrected their initial mistakes immediately on 90% of the trials. This suggests that in the presence of biasing context, both interpretations of the heterophones were initially available, replicating the previous three experiments. General Discussion The results of the four experiments presented in this article provide evidence that semantic, phonological, and orthographic codes all provide sources of constraint in word processing. However, it is clear from these data that each of these sources of constraint operate somewhat differently. The homographic homophone results are consistent with a reordered access model of lexical ambiguity processing in which both meaning bias and contextual bias influence the order of availability of the meanings of semantically ambiguous words (Duffy et al., 1988). In Experiment 1 with preceding neutral context, the dominant interpretation of a homographic homophone was initially selected, with little or no competition from the subordinate interpretation. This was demonstrated by the absence of any initial processing differences between homographic homophones and their control words. Readers then had to reanalyze their selection when they later encountered disambiguating information that was consistent with the subordinate interpretation. This reanalysis took the form of inflated gaze duration time and total time in the disambiguating region, suggesting that readers were able to reanalyze their selection on-line, without having to reread. In Experiment 2 when context that was consistent with the subordinate interpretation preceded the ambiguous words, inflated initial processing time was found on the homographic homophones. This effect has been termed the subordinate bias effect (Rayner et al., 1994) and was taken as evidence that the context acted to boost the activation of the contextually appropriate subordinate interpretation. This caused the subordinate interpretation to become active close in time with the dominant interpretation, resulting in a time-consuming competition between the two semantic interpretations. These results served as the baseline from which the impact of other sources of lexical constraint were assessed. The processing pattern on the heterographs (e.g., brakebreak) indicated that orthography provides constraints in word

1424


recognition. The contextually appropriate orthographic form of a heterograph was used in all of the experiments. In Experiment 1 with prior neutral context, the orthography was unambiguous with respect to which meaning to select, and thus any difficulty associated with the heterographs was easily resolved within the time course of a typical fixation. Furthermore, in Experiment 2 when both orthography and context converged on a single interpretation, no processing effects were expected, and none were observed. Contrary to the processing pattern on the other word types, both early and later processing difficulties were associated with the phonologically ambiguous words (e.g., tear). The results suggest that multiple representations of the heterophones were initially accessed, regardless of meaning bias; we found initial conflict for the heterophones when preceding context was neutral (Experiment 1). In contrast, no such conflict was found on the words that were only semantically ambiguous, as readers initially selected the dominant interpretation with no competition from the subordinate code. In addition, the data from Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that there was increased initial processing time on the heterophones, even when biasing context preceded the word.3 This initial difficulty took the form of inflated initial fixation durations (Experiment 2) as well as inflated naming latencies and an increased number of pronunciation errors on the heterophones relative to unambiguous control words (Experiment 3). In addition to the early processing difficulty on the heterophones, later text integration difficulty was also associated with the presence of multiple phonological codes. In Experiment 1 with prior neutral context, participants exhibited difficulty integrating the heterophones, and this difficulty took the form of increased rereading behavior (regressions) and an increase in total processing time on the heterophones. In contrast to the processing pattern on the homographic homophones (e.g., calf), it appears that participants were not able to reanalyze their selection on-line in the disambiguating region and instead had to reread the heterophone to recover the contextually appropriate subordinate code. One explanation for the pattern of early processing difficulty on the heterophones is that phonology can be used to access meaning. In the case of the homographic homophones (e.g., calf), orthography may activate a single phonological code that has two meanings associated with it. Researchers have shown that the availability of these meanings is frequency ordered, with the dominant interpretation available first in neutral context, with no interference from the subordinate meaning (see Rayner & Morris, 1991, for a review). However, in the case of the phonologically ambiguous heterophones, a single orthographic representation could activate multiple phonological codes, each of which has a single meaning associated with it. Thus, readers must choose between phonological codes and meaning. The finding of initial processing difficulty on the biased heterophones in neutral context suggests that the availability of the phonological codes is not frequency ordered (whether they are accessed or computed). Thus, both phonological codes (and both meanings) of a heterophone become active close in time, resulting in a competition between meanings that could not be resolved on the basis of orthogra-

phy (because the orthography is the same for both pronunciations). The pattern of rereading behavior on the heterophones is consistent with such an explanation. To recover successfully the correct interpretation of the heterophones, readers had to reread the word; with the incorrect phonological code active, there was no way to get back to the correct interpretation because only one meaning was associated with each phonological code of a heterophone. The homographic homophone (e.g., calf) data are also consistent with such an explanation. Both meanings of each homographic homophone were consistent with a single phonological code. Thus, if the phonological code remained active for the homographic homophones once readers left the word, the processing difficulty associated with having initially selected an interpretation that later turned out to be incorrect could be resolved without having to reread the word; the phonological information would be sufficient for recovering the contextually appropriate subordinate interpretation. This pattern of data was found as readers spent more time in the disambiguating region of sentences containing homographic homophones, but they did not have to look back to the target word, recovering the contextually appropriate interpretation on-line. Thus, the pattern of data associated with the heterophones and homographic homophones in Experiment 1 suggests that phonological codes are active at text integration and can be used as a route to meaning. In Experiment 2, with prior context biasing toward the subordinate interpretation, participants again experienced later processing difficulty with the heterophones. It is possible that the integration difficulty in Experiment 2 was a result of readers sometimes initially selecting the context inappropriate dominant interpretation and having to look back to recover the correct interpretation. The fact that about 10% of the time readers did not correct their initial pronunciation errors in Experiment 4 supports such an explanation. However, this does not change the basic interpretation of the data: When participants selected the incorrect interpretation of a heterophone in Experiment 1, they had to reread to recover the correct interpretation, whereas this recovery was done on-line for the words that were only semantically ambiguous. Thus, the evidence of reanalysis behavior in Experiment 2 is consistent with the claim that phonological codes are active at text integration and are used to recover an unselected meaning. The processing pattern on the heterophones (e.g., tear) is not inconsistent with the claims of researchers who have suggested that there may be two distinct phonological codes: those that mediate lexical access and those involved in postlexical processes (Besner, 1987; Besner & Davelaar, 1982). The results reported in this article provide support for a role of phonological codes in two different processes in reading, lexical access, and text integration, with the early effects of 3 Although there were processing difficulties on the heterophones in both eye movement experiments, it is important to note that the magnitude of the effect on the heterophones in neutral context in Experiment 1 was twice that observed in the presence of prior biasing context in Experiment 2 (80 vs. 40 ms). This difference suggests that context influenced the relative availability of the phonological codes in some way, making initial processing easier.


multiple phonological codes resulting in initial conflict and with the later effects of phonological ambiguity making it difficult for readers to recover a previously unselected phonological interpretation. The early conflict may be the result of an abstract phonological code that constrains word recognition processes, and the later recovery difficulties may be attributable to an articulatory working memory code that is involved in text integration processes. However, further research is needed to distinguish between the phonological codes used in text integration and lexical access in reading. The experiments presented here also provide evidence to suggest that phonology, semantics, and orthography all provide sources of constraint in word processing. However, the nature of the constraint may be different, depending on the type of code (Van Orden, 1991; Van Orden et al., 1992).

References Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. London: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A., Lewis, V., & Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 233252. Baddeley, A., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575-589. Besner, D. (1987). Phonology, lexical access in reading, and articulatory suppression: A critical review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 467-478. Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1982). Basic processes in reading: Two phonological codes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 701—711. Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1186-1196. Carpenter, P. A., & Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 137-160. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychology. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561584. Daneman, M., & Reingold, E. (1993). What eye fixations tell us about phonological recoding during reading. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 153-178. Daneman, M., Reingold, E. M., & Davidson, M. (1995). Time course of phonological activation during reading: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 884-898. Daneman, M., & Stainton, M. (1991). Phonological recoding in silent reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 618-632. Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461-476. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446. Fleming, K. K. (1993). Phonologically mediated priming in spoken and

1425

printed word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 272-284. Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon andgrammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Inhoff, A. W., & Topolski, R. (1994). Use of phonological codes during eye fixations in reading and in on-line and delayed naming tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 689-713. Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). Does word identification proceed from spelling to sound to meaning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 358-394. Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516. Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 336-349. Kleiman, G. M. (1975). Speech recoding in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 323-339. Lesch, M. F., & Pollatsek, A. (1993). Automatic access of semantic information by phonological codes in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 285-294. Morrison, R. E. (1984). Manipulation of stimulus onset delay in reading: Evidence for parallel programming of saccades. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 667-682. 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. Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 703-717. Perfetti, C. A., & Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 473-485. Perfetti, C. A., Bell, L. C , & Delaney, S. M. (1988). Automatic (prelexical) phonetic activation in silent word reading: Evidence from backward masking. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 59-70. Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148-162. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779-790. Rayner, K., & Morris, R. K. (1991). Comprehension processes in reading ambiguous sentences: Reflections from eye movements. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence: Advances in psychology (Vol. 77, pp. 175-198). New York: Elsevier. 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. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C , Lesch, M. F., & Pollastsek, A. (1995). Phonological codes are automatically activated during reading: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Psychological Science, 6, 26-32. Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 645-657. Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meaning of ambiguous words in

1426


context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489-537. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 383^04. Sereno, S. C. (1995). The resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 582-595. Sereno, S. C , Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3, 296-300. Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 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, 28-39. Simpson, G. B., & Kellas G. (1988). Dynamic contextual processes and lexical access. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 40-56). New York: Springer-Verlag. Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627-644. Slowiaczek, M. L., & Clifton, C. (1980). Subvocalization and reading for meaning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 573-582.

Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659. Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. 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. 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, 427^140. Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15, 181-198. Van Orden, G. C. (1991). Phonological mediation is fundamental to reading. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, (pp. 238-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Van Orden, G. C , Johnston, J. C , & Hale, B. L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 371-386. Van Orden, G. C , Penhington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (1992). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522.

Appendix A Materials Used in Experiment 1 Homographic Heterophones la. Before the men wound (swept) the old and dusty clock, they ate lunch, lb. After the kids wound (swept) it, the music box was hidden. 2a. Mary knew that her bows (joke) needed practicing before the last performance. 2b. The woman gave her bows (joke) before the speech as the audience clapped. 3a. When the new sewer (pants) had arrived, alterations on the uniform were done. 3b. Since the old sewer (pants) was/were awful, the tailor's shop got a bad reputation. 4a. There was a tear (hole) in Jim's shirt after he caught his sleeve on a thorn. 4b. There was a tear (hole) in a corner of the paper after Jo took it from Tom.

Homographic Homophones 5a. Ron knew that lying (rising) in the kitchen was the bread that he was making. 5b. The other night lying (rising) on the horizon was where the harvest moon was. 6a. When Ann hurt her calf (shin) after she fell down the stairs, she cried. 6b. Jon's mother examined his calf (shin) for a bruise because Jon was limping. 7a. They looked for the ruler (witch) and then asked her to help as the war began. 7b. The old ruler (witch) was hidden in her castle from the angry mob. 8a. The big speaker (concert) was moved to the next town once it was dismantled. 8b. Since the speaker (concert) was not any good the music on the radio sounded bad.

Heterographic Homophones 9a. Because the boy did not knead (spoil) it as expected the pizza dough was good. 9b. Alix could not knead (spoil) the clay for her pottery since it was hard. 10a. When the brake (pedal) on her bike malfunctioned the cyclist failed to stop. 10b. When he took the~brake (pedal) off the race car, the auto mechanic smiled, l l a . Because the sole (bell) came off the toddler's little shoe, she began to cry. l i b . When the sole (befljon the cheerleader's sneaker cracked, she hurt her foot. 12a. Since Jan left the~rows (bags) of yellow toys on the bed, her room was messy. 12b. As he put the rows (bags) of bright red gems on the table, the thief smiled.

1427


Appendix B Individual Item Means Table Bl Experiment 1 Disambiguating region

Target word region Ambiguity type

First fixation

Gaze duration

Total time

Regressions to target

Gaze duration

Total time

Homographic homophones Lying Rising

265 308

297 394

486 718

17 35

358 347

608 572

Calf Shin

283 297

290 373

381 476

12 10

307 310

399 420

Ruler Witch

297 256

395 307

605 450

26 21

474 372

640 530

Speaker Concert

290 272

372 311

605 457

36 33

415 388

595 549

Mean Ambiguous Control

284 283

339 346

519 525

23 25

389 354

561 518

Homographic heterophones Wound Swept

287 269

376 313

848 578

60 17

408 414

420 495

Bows Joke

329 252

436 311

787 426

26 13

384 384

636 528

Sewer Pants

315 265

428 318

777 536

33 33

408 384

574 501

Tear Hole

272 232

296 268

473 303

23 10

332 309

412 355


301 255

384 303

721 461

36 18

383 373

511 470

Heterographic homophones Knead Spoil

348 272

409 299

625 549

23 25

297 322

375 447

Brake Pedal

262 271

311 332

438 477

31 29

379 396

525 466

Sole Bell

294 279

331 313

411 503

23 29

311 335

373 511

Rows Bags

308 304

325 325

465 440

25 29

376 359

511 408


303 282

344 317

485 492

26 28

341 353

446 458

{Appendix continues on next page)

1428


Table B2 Experiment 2 Target word region Ambiguity type

First fixation

Gaze duration

Total time

Regressions to target


284 252

331 307

406 345

21 11

Calf Shin

298 297

333 351

467 369

11 9

Ruler Witch

269 256

278 261

392 354

14 8

Speaker Concert

276 284

334 300

394 403

3 3


282 272

319 305

415 368

12 8

318 272

377 282

672 549

33 22

Bows Joke

287 342

393 355

574 450

20 8

Sewer Pants

292 289

324 327

465 431

19 16

Tear Hole

312 289

330 293

388 356

9 6


302 298

356 314

525 447

20 13

288 278

317 318

499 467

25 27

Brake Pedal

290 298

307 300

453 417

25 6

Sole Bell

321 275

348 299

388 400

7 18

Rows Bags

265 308

313 306

414 356

18 10


291 290

321 306

439 418

19 15



1429


Table B3

Table B4

Experiment 3

Experiment 4 Naming time

No. of errors


624 638

3 0

Calf Shin

585 621

1 6

Ruler Witch

571 540

Speaker Concert Means Ambiguous Control Homographic heterophones Wound Swept

Ambiguity type Homographic homophones Lying Rising

Comprehension errors

Pronunciation errors

0 0

0 0

Calf Shin

to to

Ambiguity type

1 2

1 1

Ruler Witch

1 0

2 0

639 581

2 1

Speaker Concert

3 1

0 0

605 595

1.8 2


1.5 0.8

0.8 0.5


1 2

11 2

Bows Joke

1 3

8 1

44 1

Sewer Pants

8 0

21 0

615 563

20 0

Tear Hole

0 0

5 0

676 601

28 0.5


2.5 1.3

11 0.8

668 674

13 4

1 1

8 2

Brake Pedal

559 587

0 0

Brake Pedal

0 0

0 0

Sole Bell

616 589

0 0

Sole Bell

1 0

0 1

Rows Bags

606 543

2 0

Rows Bags

0 0

0 0

Means Ambiguous Control

612 598

3.8 1


0.5 0.3

2 0.8

725 652

23 1

Bows Joke

650 583

26 0

Sewer Pants

714 605

Tear Hole Means Ambiguous Control Heterographic homophones Knead Spoil


Received June 16,1994 Revision received November 30,1994 Accepted December 19,1994

Multiple Lexical Codes in Reading: Evidence From ...

Multiple Lexical Codes in Reading: Evidence From ...

Suggest Documents

LEXICAL QUALITY AND READING COMPREHENSION 1 Lexical ...

evidence from a lexical decision study

Bilingual Lexical Access in Context: Evidence From Eye ... - CiteSeerX

Phonological factors in lexical access: Evidence from ... - Springer Link

Pre-lexical phonological processing in reading

LEXICAL ACCESS IN SPEAKING VERSUS READING ... - Core

Salience from multiple feature contrast: Evidence from

Lexical and Postlexical Phonology in Optimality Theory: Evidence from ...

Organising Principles in Lexical Representation: Evidence ... - CiteSeerX

Evidence for lexical competition - CiteSeerX

Lexical access of resyllabified words: Evidence from ... - Springer Link

Embodied Verbal Semantics: Evidence from a lexical ... - CiteSeerX

Evidence from Lexical Decisions and Eye Movements ... - Springer Link

Summarizing multiple spoken documents: finding evidence from ...

Evidence from Multiple Species that Spider Silk

Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects ...

Exploiting evidence from multiple user interests for

Coarse Strategic Control in Word Reading: Evidence from Tempo ...

Reading in Two Languages: Evidence from Miscue Analysis - Eric

Vocabulary Knowledge Predicts Lexical Processing: Evidence from a

Strategic Control in Word Reading: Evidence From ... - CiteSeerX

Prosodic expectations in silent reading: ERP evidence from rhyme ...

Lexical access codes in visual and auditory word ... - UNSW Psychology

The Psychological Reality of Hidden Lexical Entries Evidence from ...