Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Semantic ambiguity norms for 530 Spanish words

  • JUAN HARO (a1), PILAR FERRÉ (a1), ROGER BOADA (a1) and JOSEP DEMESTRE (a1)
Abstract

This study presents semantic ambiguity norms for 530 Spanish words. Two subjective measures of semantic ambiguity and two subjective measures of relatedness of ambiguous word meanings were collected. In addition, two objective measures of semantic ambiguity were included. Furthermore, subjective ratings were obtained for some relevant lexicosemantic variables, such as concreteness, familiarity, emotional valence, arousal, and age of acquisition. In sum, the database overcomes some of the limitations of the published databases of Spanish ambiguous words; in particular, the scarcity of measures of ambiguity, the lack of relatedness of ambiguous word meanings measures, and the absence of a set of unambiguous words. Thus, it will be very helpful for researchers interested in exploring semantic ambiguity as well as for those using semantic ambiguous words to study language processing in clinical populations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Juan Haro, Department of Psychology and CRAMC, University Rovira i Virgili, Crta. De Valls s/n., 43007-Tarragona. Spain. E-mail: juan.haro@urv.cat
References
Hide All
Alonso, M. A., Fernández, A., & Díez, E. (2015). Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 7,039 Spanish words. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 268274. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0454-2
Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2011). Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition. In Carlson, L. A., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 22232228). Austin, TX: Cognitive Design Society.
Azuma, T. (1996). Familiarity and relatedness of word meanings: Ratings for 110 homographs. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 109124. doi:10.3758/BF03203645
Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than fAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484504. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2502
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In Schwanenflugel, P. J. (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 4959. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
Britton, B. K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 17. doi:10.3758/BF03205079
Domínguez, A., Cuetos, F., & de Vega, M. (2001). 100 Palabras polisémicas con sus acepciones. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada, 6, 6384.
Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M. A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 12461258. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1
Durkin, K., & Manning, J. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatednes and the salience of interword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 577612.
Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2015). How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: The current state of the literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1337. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0665-7
Eich, E. (1984). Memory for unattended events: Remembering with and without awareness. Memory & Cognition, 12, 105111. doi:10.3758/BF03198423
Estevez, A. (1991). Estudio normativo sobre ambigüedad en castellano. Psicológica, 3, 237271.
Ferraro, F., & Kellas, G. (1990). Normative data for number of word meanings. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 22, 491498. doi:10.3758/BF03204432
Gawlick-Grendell, L. A., & Woltz, D. J. (1994). Meaning dominance norms for 120 homographs. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 26, 525. doi:10.3758/BF03204557
Gee, N. R., & Harris, S. L. (2010). Homograph norms: An alternative approach to determining meaning dominance. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 976986. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.4.976
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256281. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256
Gómez Veiga, I., Carriedo López, N., Rucián Gallego, M., & Vila Cháves, J. O. (2010). Estudio normativo de ambigüedad léxica en castellano, en niños y en adultos. Psicológica, 31, 2547.
Gorfein, D. S., Viviani, J. M., & Leddo, J. (1982). Norms as a tool for the study of homography. Memory & Cognition, 10, 503509. doi:10.3758/BF03197654
Griffin, Z. M. (1999). Frequency of meaning use for ambiguous and unambiguous words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 520530.
Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Fraga, I. (2015). Spanish norms for affective and lexico-semantic variables for 1,400 words. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0684-y
Hala, S., Pexman, P. M., & Glenwright, M. (2007). Priming the meaning of homographs in typically developing children and children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 329340. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0162-6
Hayes, S., Hirsch, C. R., Krebs, G., & Mathews, A. (2010). The effects of modifying interpretation bias on worry in generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 171178.
Hertel, P. T., & El-Messidi, L. (2006). Am I Blue? Depressed mood and the consequences of self-focus for the interpretation and recall of ambiguous words. Behavior Therapy, 37, 259268. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.01.003
Hino, Y., Kusunose, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2010). The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: When does relatedness matter? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 180196. doi:10.1037/a0020475
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 13311356. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1331
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 686713. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.686
Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 247273. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.001
Hutchison, K. A., & Balota, D. A. (2005). Decoupling semantic and associative information in false memories: Explorations with semantically ambiguous and unambiguous critical lures. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 128. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.08.003
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 278305. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90011-6
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 601609. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.601
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 124. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001
Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123, 1121. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007
Lin, C.-J. C., & Ahrens, K. (2005). How many meanings does a word have? Meaning estimation in Chinese and English. In Minett, J. W. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (Eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics (pp. 437464). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Lin, C.-J. C., & Ahrens, K. (2010). Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 119. doi:10.1007/s10936-009-9120-8
Mathews, A., Richards, A., & Eysenck, M. (1989). Interpretation of homophones related to threat in anxiety states. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 3134. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.98.1.31
Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don't. Memory & Cognition, 17, 141147. doi:10.3758/BF03197064
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., & Wheeler, J. W. (1980). The University of South Florida homograph norms. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 1637. doi:10.3758/BF03208320
Nickerson, C. A., & Cartwright, D. S. (1984). The University of Colorado meaning norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 16, 355382. doi:10.3758/BF03202462
Panman, O. (1982). Homonymy and polysemy. Lingua, 58, 105136. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(82)90059-6
Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 12521270. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1252
Real Academia Española. (1984). Diccionario de la lengua española (20th ed.). Madrid: Author.
Real Academia Española. (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Madrid: Author.
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245266. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89104. doi.10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.08.002
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487494. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80091-3
Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359374). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Swinney, D. A. (1991). The resolution of interdeterminacy during language comprehension: Perspectives on modularity in lexical, structural and pragmatic process. In Simpson, G. B. (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 367385). North Holland: Elsevier Science.
Syssau, A., & Laxén, J. (2012). The influence of semantic richness on the visual recognition of emotional words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 7078. doi:10.1037/a0027083
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727779. doi:10.1080/01690960601057068
Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22, 111126. doi:10.3758/BF03202766
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 188208. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90123-9
Wollen, K. A., Cox, S. D., Coahran, M. M., Shea, D. S., & Kirby, R. F. (1980). Frequency of occurrence and concreteness ratings of homograph meanings. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 815. doi:10.3758/BF03208319
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Applied Psycholinguistics
  • ISSN: 0142-7164
  • EISSN: 1469-1817
  • URL: /core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed