The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation prim(12)

12M.Finkbeineretal./JournalofMemoryandLanguage51(2004)1–22

semanticcategorization,despitebeingclearlyasymmet-ricalinlexicaldecision(Experiment4).Wetestthishypothesisinthepresentexperiment.

Themaskingprocedureadoptedinthisexperimentdi ersfromthepreviouscross-languagesemanticcate-gorizationexperiments(Experiments1and3)inthatthedurationoftheinterpolatedmaskisreducedfrom150to13.7ms.ThiswasnecessarybecausetheprimeswerenowpresentedinL1ratherthanL2,andwitha150mspost-primemask,theprimemayhavebeenvisible(i.e.,primevisibilitydependsonlanguagecompetence).Thereasonforincludinganinterpolatedmaskatallwasthatareviewoftheliteraturerevealedthatthisisthetypicalpresentationsequenceemployedinmaskedsemanticprimingexperimentsusingsemanticcategorizationwithnativespeakers(Bueno&Frenck-Mestre,2002;Frenck-Mestre&Bueno,1999).Italsomakesthesewithin-languageexperimentsmorecomparabletotheearlierbetween-languageexperiments.However,becauseofconcernsaboutthevisibilityoftheprimespresentedinL1,wealsoincludedatestofprimeawarenessthatwasgivenaftertheexperimentproper.Participants

FortyundergraduateparticipantsattheUniversityofArizonaparticipatedforcoursecredit.Twentyoftheparticipantsweretestedinthemany-to-one(‘‘L1–L2’’)direction(Experiment5a)and20weretestedintheone-to-many(‘‘L2–L1’’)direction(Experiment5b).Materials

ItemswereselectedinlargelythesamewaythatitemsforExperiment1hadbeenselected.Forty-twowordstakenfrom8di erentsemanticcategorieswereselectedtoserveasmany-sense(or‘‘L1’’)targetsintheone-to-manyprimingdirection.Thesewerechosenaccordingtotwodi erentcriteria:one,theyhadtobeamongthe rst10exemplarsofthecategory(Battig&Montague,1969;Uyeda&Mandler,1980)and,two,theyhadtohaveatleast5semanticsensesassociatedwiththem(WordNet1.6).Thesemanticcategorieswereasfollows:articleofclothing,articleoffurniture,bird,carpenter’stool,color,four-footedanimal,kitchenutensil,bodypart.Addition-ally,42wordswereselectedtoserveasone-sense(‘‘L2’’)primes.Selectionoftheseprimewordswasdoneac-cordingtothesamecriteriausedinExperiment4:thatis,itemshadonlyonesense(WordNet)andthatsensehadtobesharedwiththetarget.Anexampleofaprime–targetpairis‘‘skull–HEAD.’’Here,‘‘skull’’onlyhasonesense,whichissharedwith‘‘head.’’‘‘Head,’’ontheotherhand,hasmorethan20senses,onlyoneofwhichconstitutesthemeaningof‘‘skull.’’Inadditiontothese42prime–targetpairs,additionalexemplarswereselectedforatotalof10exemplarspercategory.These

lleritemswerealsofromthe rst10exemplarsforeachcategory,butthenumberofsensesassociatedwiththemwasnotcontrolledfor.Eightynon-exemplarswerealsoselected.Thesewerematchedwiththeexemplarsonlengthandfrequency,butcarewastakentoensurethatnoneoftheseitemscouldbeconstruedashavingex-emplarstatusinanyofthecategoriesintheexperiment.Finally,160additionalwordswereselectedtoserveasprimewordsforthe llerexemplars,thenon-exemplars,andforthecriticaltargetsinthecontrolcondition.Thesewerematchedwiththeexperimentalprimesonlengthandfrequency,butagaincouldnotbeconstruedashavingexemplarstatusinanyofthecategoriespresentintheexperiment.Designandprocedure

ThedesignandprocedurewasidenticalforExperi-ments5aand5b.MuchlikeExperiment1,itemswereblockedaccordingtosemanticcategory.Foreachcate-gory,therewere10exemplarand10non-exemplartri-als.Itemswerepresentedinadi erentrandomorderforeachparticipantwiththeconstraintthatthecriticalitemsfollowedthe lleritemsineachcategory.Criticaltargets(e.g.,‘‘HEAD’’)werematchedwitharelatedprime(e.g.,‘‘skull’’)aswellasacontrolprime(e.g.,‘‘shop’’).TwolistswereconstructedforbothExperi-ments5aand5binordertocounterbalanceacrosstheprimefactor.TargetsthatwereprecededbytheirrelatedprimeonListAwereprecededbyacontrolprimeonListBandviceversa.AsinExperiments1and3,eachtrialconsistedofthefollowingsequenceofevents: rst,aforwardmask(##########)waspresentedfor500ms,followedbytheprimeword(relatedorcontrol)inlowercaselettersfor41ms,followedbyabackwardmaskforonerefreshcycle(13.7ms),andthenthetargetwordinuppercaselettersfor500ms.Becauseofcon-cernsaboutthevisibilityoftheprimespresentedinL1,wealsoincludedatestofprimeawarenessthatwasgi-venaftertheexperimentproper.Thistestrequiredparticipantstoindicatewhetherornottheprimewordcontainedtheletter‘‘e.’’Participantswere rstshownseveralpracticetrialsatamuchslowerpresentationratesothattheycouldseetheprimeword.Afteritwasclearthattheyunderstoodtherequirementsofthisnewtask,theywerepresentedwith42trialsinadi erentrandomorderforeachparticipant.Halfofthesetrialshadprimewordsthatcontainedtheletter‘‘e,’’andhalfdidnot.Thetargetswerecompletelyunrelatedwords,andnoneofthetargetscontainedtheletter‘‘e.’’Thirty-twoofthetrialswerepresentedusingthesametemporalcharac-teristicsusedintheexperimentproper;onthe10re-mainingtrials(5withtheletter‘‘e’’and5without),theprimewordwaspresentedfor10refreshcycles(137.3ms).Onthesetrials,theprimewordwasvisible,thoughonlyverybrie y.Thepurposeofpresenting