Apresjan J.

Caramazza A.

Ferreira V. S.

Lakoff G.

Murphy G. L.

Pustejovsky J.

Uleman J. S.

 Words mean different things in different contexts, a phenomenon called polysemy. People talk about lines of both people and poetry, and about both long distances and long times. Polysemy lets a limited vocabulary capture a great variety of experiences, while highlighting commonalities. But how is this achieved? Are polysemous senses contextually driven modifications of core meanings, or must each sense be memorized separately? We show that participants’ ability to avoid referentially ambiguous descriptions of pictures named by polysemous words provides evidence for both possibilities. When senses followed a regular pattern (e.g., animals and the foodstuffs derived from them; noisy chicken, tasty chicken), participants avoided using ambiguous labels in referentially ambiguous situations (e.g., both types of chicken were present), a result indicating that they noticed a common meaning. But when senses were idiosyncratically related (e.g., sheet of glass, drinking glass), participants frequently produced ambiguous labels, a result indicating that the meanings were separately stored. We discuss implications for the relationship between word meanings and concepts. </jats:p

Hugh Rabagliati

Jesse Snedeker

Crossref

Psychological Science

The Truth About Chickens and Bats

Words mean different things in different contexts, a phenomenon called polysemy. We talk about lines of both people and poetry, and long distances or times. Polysemy lets a limited vocabulary capture the great variety in our experiences, while highlighting commonalities. But how? Are polysemous senses contextually-driven modifications of core meanings, or must each sense be separately memorized? We provide evidence for both accounts: Core meanings are used when senses follow a regular pattern (e.g., animal names for foodstuffs; noisy/tasty chicken), while separate representations are used when senses are idiosyncratically related (e.g., sheet of/drinking glass). Polysemy-type predicts participantsʼ ability to avoid referential ambiguity when naming aloud pictures that are sometimes accompanied by same-name foils (e.g., both types of chicken/glass). Participants fail to avoid ambiguity for idiosyncratically-related foils, indicating separate meanings, but succeed for regularly-related foils, indicating a common core. We discuss implications for the relationship between word meanings and concepts

Rabagliati, Hugh

Snedeker, Jesse

Edinburgh Research Explorer

The Truth About Chickens and Bats Ambiguity Avoidance Distinguishes Types of Polysemy

The Truth About Chickens and Bats Ambiguity Avoidance Distinguishes Types of Polysemy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Edinburgh Research Explorer