論語境對模糊語意義獲取的影響

項秀珍

【摘要】模糊語的意義獲取過程一直是心理學家與語言學家研究的課題。本文從一個全新的語境角度，即從上下文語境和個人語境兩方面研究模糊語的意義獲取過程。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)這兩個因素在人們獲取模糊語的正確含義的過程中的影響不容小覷。

【關(guān)鍵詞】模糊語 語境 意義獲取

【Abstract】Lexical ambiguity， particularly meaning access of lexical ambiguity， has long been the study object of psychologists and scholars. However， some individual factors are ignored when they are searching for the influence of context on meaning access of lexical ambiguity. The article tries to study ambiguous words meaning access from a new context concept， which includes textual context and personal context. It is found that both contexts should be taken into consideration when dealing with the issue.

【Key words】Lexical Ambiguity； Context； Meaning Access

1. Introduction

Lexical ambiguity， mostly due to polysemy and homonymy， is “the form of ambiguity in which a single word may be interpreted to have more than one meaning” （Carroll， 2008：124）. It seems that most of the time people are able to pick up the appropriate or right meaning when a multi-meaning lexicon is presented. Therefore， people have long been exploring the mechanism and factors that affects peoples select of meaning.

2. Literature Review

Foss （1970） once designed an experiment and found hat lexical ambiguity affects peoples understanding of sentence. Kramer and Stevens design a reading experiment to study the same issue and the result is accordance with that of Fosss. Cairns and Kamerman （1975） find out that such kind of delay caused by multiple meanings is transient or disappears if the phoneme occurs two syllables down.

Some experts wonder whether a prior semantic context can override the process of choosing meaning. Is only the appropriate meaning activated or some meanings are activated at the same time？ Swinney （1979） examines the influence of context on the selection of meaning by applying a cross-modal lexical decision task. The results suggest that even in the presence of a strong biasing context， multiple meanings of ambiguous words are briefly activated.

Besides context， relative dominance or frequency of usage of various word meanings is also taken into consideration by psycholinguists. The multiple meanings of a word stands in difference levels in terms of usage frequency. It is understandable that common meaning is easier to access than uncommon meanings.

Hogaboam and Perfetti （1975） make sentences with ambiguous words in which either the primary or the secondary meaning of the word was appropriate. It is found that when the sentence requires the secondary meaning decision times are faster than that when it requires the primary meaning. The experiment of Rayner and Frazier （1989） indicate that successful integration of one meaning with prior context terminates the search for alternative meanings of that word. This results in selective access when integration of a dominant meaning is fast and identification of a subordinate meaning is slow.

3. Context and Meaning Access in Ambiguous Words

3.1 Textual Context

A textual context， also called linguistic context， is the sentence or discourse that surrounds an ambiguous unit. From experiments mentioned above we are well aware that a textual context helps to determine the appropriate meaning of an ambiguous unity. For example， in the following sentence，

（1）John put the pot inside the dishwasher， because the police is coming.

The word “ pot” could mean a cooker or drug， however， due to the textual context “ because the police is coming” the meaning of drug is appropriate here.

Nevertheless， textual context is not a master key in every case. Sometimes an appropriate meaning is not available in spite of a textual context. Gui Shichun （1985： 166） used an example to elaborate it：

（2）Shall I put the electric blanket on？

He says that the exact meaning of the phrase “ put on” cannot be settled down. Since “ put on” means to make an equipment to start working or to place an object above a certain thing and both meanings are acceptable here. Under such a circumstance， a textual context is far from enough.

3.2 Personal Context

Besides textual context， personal context is another issue that we are discussing. As the phrase shows， personal context is concerned with individuality. It refers to the personal factor which affects the understanding of ambiguous words. To make the point clear， it is clarified into two groups： word knowledge and world knowledge.

Word knowledge refers to a persons knowledge on language， including vocabulary and grammar. Word knowledge plays an almost decisive role in choosing the appropriate meaning of an ambiguous word. Faced with the same discourse， a well-educated man absolutely understands the ambiguous words better than a man having little schooling.

There are two situations， namely meaning null and meaning dominance， in word knowledge that may interfere meaning access in ambiguous words. Meaning null means that a meaning of ambiguous word is not stored in a persons mind while meaning dominance means that a meaning stands out of all other meanings of an ambiguous word. Here is an example to explain two definitions.

（3）The knob would make a perfect ski slope.

A person with meaning null cannot totally understand the sentence because in his mind “snob” just equals to a rounded handle while a person with meaning dominance may feel puzzled when he first see the sentence although later on he is able to make sense. Because the first meaning he draws from his mind is the dominant one： a rounded handle. Then he finds that the meaning is nonsense here so he goes back to draw another suitable meaning： a small， isolated hill or moutain， which makes sense here. The processing is somehow similar to the garden path mode.

Both of meaning null and meaning dominance interferes meaning access. To only way to minimize this interference is enriching ones vocabulary. However， we still need to take another factor into consideration， that is， a persons world knowledge.

World knowledge makes contribution to disambiguation， especially when more than one meaning of an ambiguous word are seemingly semantically and grammatically suitable in a sentence or discourse.

（4）The fugitive surrendered to the marshal.

The word “marshal” gets three meanings： A）a person who directs and oversees ceremonial gatherings； B）a federal official in charge of prisoners or having certain judicial duties； C）an administrative head of a citys police department. It seems that meaning B and meaning C are both acceptable. But according to our world knowledge， it is policeman who pursues and captures fugitives therefore fugitives can only surrender to a policeman instead of an official. Therefore， meaning C is appropriate.

World knowledge works not only in disambiguation but also in achieving the implied meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase here we have. Another example makes this point more clear.

（5）King ： …my cousin， Hamlet， and my son.

How is it that the clouds still hang on you？

Hamlet： Not so， my lord， Im too much in the sun.

This is a dialogue from Shakespeares Hamlet， the evil King asks Hamlet why he is not happy and Hamlet answers that he is too much in the sun. The word “sun” here shares the same pronunciation with the word “son”. The ambiguity of “sun” and “son” lead to puzzlement. However， once people understand the whole story， that is to say， once people have enough world knowledge of the story， they will be well aware that Hamlet is expressing his hatred of being the son of the evil King by using such kind of ambiguous word.

4. Conclusion

This article has discussed the influence that context has on meaning access of lexical ambiguity. The context here consists of textual context and personal context. The textual context， also called linguistic context， is the sentence or discourse surrounding the ambiguous words and personal context is about a persons word knowledge and world knowledge. It is easy to find that both textual context and personal context are variables that affect peoples meaning access ambiguous words.

References：

[1]Carroll，D.W.（2008）Psychology of Language.Beijing：Foreigh Language Teaching and Research Press.

[2]Foss，D.J.，& Jenkins，C.M.（1973）.Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，12，577-589.

[3]Foss，K.J.（1970）.Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，9，699-706.

[4]Hogaboam，T.W.，& Perfetti，C.A.（1975）.Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，14，265-274.

[5]Rayner，K.，& Frazier，L.（1989）.Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology：Learning，Memory，and Cognition，15，779-790.

[6]Swinney，D.A.（1979）.Lexical access during sentence comprehension：（Re）consideration of context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，18，645-659.

[7]桂詩春.心理語言學[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社，1985.

[8]彭聃齡.語言心理學[M].北京：北京師范大學出版社，1991.

[9]朱曼殊.心理語言學[M].上海：華東師范大學出版社，1988.