Limits...
Listening to Puns Elicits the Co-Activation of Alternative Homophone Meanings during Language Production.

Rose SB, Spalek K, Rahman RA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Recent evidence suggests that lexical-semantic activation spread during language production can be dynamically shaped by contextual factors.Specifically, we tested whether the processing of linguistic ambiguities, presented in the form of puns, has an influence on the co-activation of unrelated meanings of homophones in a subsequent language production task.In a picture-word interference paradigm with word distractors that were semantically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of homophones we found facilitation induced by related words only when participants listened to puns before object naming, but not when they heard jokes with unambiguous linguistic stimuli.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Recent evidence suggests that lexical-semantic activation spread during language production can be dynamically shaped by contextual factors. In this study we investigated whether semantic processing modes can also affect lexical-semantic activation during word production. Specifically, we tested whether the processing of linguistic ambiguities, presented in the form of puns, has an influence on the co-activation of unrelated meanings of homophones in a subsequent language production task. In a picture-word interference paradigm with word distractors that were semantically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of homophones we found facilitation induced by related words only when participants listened to puns before object naming, but not when they heard jokes with unambiguous linguistic stimuli. This finding suggests that a semantic processing mode of ambiguity perception can induce the co-activation of alternative homophone meanings during speech planning.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Trial structure for prime and target stimuli and combinations of the prime and distractor conditions.(A) The target picture set consisted of objects with homonymous names. For example: a picture of a lock called “Schloss” (also denoting a castle). Prior to target presentation, a prime stimulus was presented that was categorical related to the non-depicted meaning of the homonymous name. Here, the picture of bower called “Laube” is categorically related to the non-depicted meaning (castle) of the following target. -150 ms before picture presentation a distractor word was presented for the prime and target stimuli. The distractor word was categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of target stimuli (e.g. “Palast” (palace) related to the non-depicted meaning of a castle). In the prime condition distractor words were always unrelated. (A) The prime stimulus presented one trial before the targets could be categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meaning of the target‘s homophone name and was always unrelated to the depicted meaning. Each prime condition (related: “Laube” (bower), unrelated: “Heizlüfter” (heater)) was crossed with the two distractor conditions of the target stimuli (related: “Palast” (palace); unrelated: “Bein” (leg)).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482729&req=5

pone.0130853.g002: Trial structure for prime and target stimuli and combinations of the prime and distractor conditions.(A) The target picture set consisted of objects with homonymous names. For example: a picture of a lock called “Schloss” (also denoting a castle). Prior to target presentation, a prime stimulus was presented that was categorical related to the non-depicted meaning of the homonymous name. Here, the picture of bower called “Laube” is categorically related to the non-depicted meaning (castle) of the following target. -150 ms before picture presentation a distractor word was presented for the prime and target stimuli. The distractor word was categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of target stimuli (e.g. “Palast” (palace) related to the non-depicted meaning of a castle). In the prime condition distractor words were always unrelated. (A) The prime stimulus presented one trial before the targets could be categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meaning of the target‘s homophone name and was always unrelated to the depicted meaning. Each prime condition (related: “Laube” (bower), unrelated: “Heizlüfter” (heater)) was crossed with the two distractor conditions of the target stimuli (related: “Palast” (palace); unrelated: “Bein” (leg)).

Mentions: The goal of this study was to examine whether the planning of ambiguous messages or, more specifically, the co-activation of homophone meaning alternatives, can be elicited by the processing of ambiguities during prior comprehension. To do so, we asked two groups of participants to name pictures of objects with homonymous names in a PWI task, presenting distractor words that were categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings. For example, for the German homonym “Schloss” (meaning alternatives: lock and castle) we presented a picture of a lock and the distractor word “Palast” (palace; categorically related to non-depicted meaning) or “Bein” (leg; unrelated; see Fig 2 and S1 Table: Used stimuli material). As previously discussed, differences between these distractor conditions can be accounted for on the basis of the shared word form and without assuming concomitant co-activations of the unrelated meanings at the conceptual level during production [5].


Listening to Puns Elicits the Co-Activation of Alternative Homophone Meanings during Language Production.

Rose SB, Spalek K, Rahman RA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Trial structure for prime and target stimuli and combinations of the prime and distractor conditions.(A) The target picture set consisted of objects with homonymous names. For example: a picture of a lock called “Schloss” (also denoting a castle). Prior to target presentation, a prime stimulus was presented that was categorical related to the non-depicted meaning of the homonymous name. Here, the picture of bower called “Laube” is categorically related to the non-depicted meaning (castle) of the following target. -150 ms before picture presentation a distractor word was presented for the prime and target stimuli. The distractor word was categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of target stimuli (e.g. “Palast” (palace) related to the non-depicted meaning of a castle). In the prime condition distractor words were always unrelated. (A) The prime stimulus presented one trial before the targets could be categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meaning of the target‘s homophone name and was always unrelated to the depicted meaning. Each prime condition (related: “Laube” (bower), unrelated: “Heizlüfter” (heater)) was crossed with the two distractor conditions of the target stimuli (related: “Palast” (palace); unrelated: “Bein” (leg)).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482729&req=5

pone.0130853.g002: Trial structure for prime and target stimuli and combinations of the prime and distractor conditions.(A) The target picture set consisted of objects with homonymous names. For example: a picture of a lock called “Schloss” (also denoting a castle). Prior to target presentation, a prime stimulus was presented that was categorical related to the non-depicted meaning of the homonymous name. Here, the picture of bower called “Laube” is categorically related to the non-depicted meaning (castle) of the following target. -150 ms before picture presentation a distractor word was presented for the prime and target stimuli. The distractor word was categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of target stimuli (e.g. “Palast” (palace) related to the non-depicted meaning of a castle). In the prime condition distractor words were always unrelated. (A) The prime stimulus presented one trial before the targets could be categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meaning of the target‘s homophone name and was always unrelated to the depicted meaning. Each prime condition (related: “Laube” (bower), unrelated: “Heizlüfter” (heater)) was crossed with the two distractor conditions of the target stimuli (related: “Palast” (palace); unrelated: “Bein” (leg)).
Mentions: The goal of this study was to examine whether the planning of ambiguous messages or, more specifically, the co-activation of homophone meaning alternatives, can be elicited by the processing of ambiguities during prior comprehension. To do so, we asked two groups of participants to name pictures of objects with homonymous names in a PWI task, presenting distractor words that were categorically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings. For example, for the German homonym “Schloss” (meaning alternatives: lock and castle) we presented a picture of a lock and the distractor word “Palast” (palace; categorically related to non-depicted meaning) or “Bein” (leg; unrelated; see Fig 2 and S1 Table: Used stimuli material). As previously discussed, differences between these distractor conditions can be accounted for on the basis of the shared word form and without assuming concomitant co-activations of the unrelated meanings at the conceptual level during production [5].

Bottom Line: Recent evidence suggests that lexical-semantic activation spread during language production can be dynamically shaped by contextual factors.Specifically, we tested whether the processing of linguistic ambiguities, presented in the form of puns, has an influence on the co-activation of unrelated meanings of homophones in a subsequent language production task.In a picture-word interference paradigm with word distractors that were semantically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of homophones we found facilitation induced by related words only when participants listened to puns before object naming, but not when they heard jokes with unambiguous linguistic stimuli.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Recent evidence suggests that lexical-semantic activation spread during language production can be dynamically shaped by contextual factors. In this study we investigated whether semantic processing modes can also affect lexical-semantic activation during word production. Specifically, we tested whether the processing of linguistic ambiguities, presented in the form of puns, has an influence on the co-activation of unrelated meanings of homophones in a subsequent language production task. In a picture-word interference paradigm with word distractors that were semantically related or unrelated to the non-depicted meanings of homophones we found facilitation induced by related words only when participants listened to puns before object naming, but not when they heard jokes with unambiguous linguistic stimuli. This finding suggests that a semantic processing mode of ambiguity perception can induce the co-activation of alternative homophone meanings during speech planning.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus