Lexical Ambiguity In Sentence Comprehension-PDF Free Download

Keywords: lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, humor Introduction . These prior studies found that ambiguity is a source which is often used to create humor. There are two types of ambiguity commonly used as the source of humors, i.e. lexical and syntactic ambiguity. The former one refers to ambiguity conveyed

ambiguity. 5.1.2 Lexical Ambiguity Lexical ambiguity is the simplest and the most pervasive type of ambiguity. It occurs when a single lexical item has more than one meaning. For example, in a sentence like "John found a bat", the word "bat" is lexically ambiguous as it refer s to "an animal" or "a stick used for hitting the ball in some games .

3.1 The Types of Lexical Ambiguity The researcher identified the types of lexical ambiguity from the data and found 2 types based on types of lexical ambiguity framework used by Murphy (2010) which are absolute homonymy and polysemy. The researcher found 38 utterances which were lexically ambiguous. 3.1.1 Absolute

lexical ambiguity on the movie based on the theory. 4.1 Findings The finding of this study is divided into two parts based on the research problems. The first partis about lexical ambiguity that found in Zootopia movie. In this part the writer also analyzes the types of lexical ambiguity in the words that categorize as lexical ambiguity.

Resolving ambiguity through lexical asso- ciations Whittemore et al. (1990) found lexical preferences to be the key to resolving attachment ambiguity. Similarly, Taraban and McClelland found lexical content was key in explaining people's behavior. Various previous propos- als for guiding attachment disambiguation by the lexical

A. Use of Ambiguity Ambiguity is widely used as a way to produce a humorous effect both in English and Chinese humor because ambiguity can make a word or sentence understood more than one level of meaning. In this part, two kinds of ambiguity will be analyzed, including phonological ambiguity and lexical ambiguity. 1.

ambiguity. This paper also tackles the notion of ambiguity under the umbrella of Empson's (1949) and Crystal (1988). There are two types of ambiguity identified and they are as follows: a. Syntactic or structural ambiguity generating structure of a word in a sentence is unclear. b. Lexical or semantic ambiguity generating when a word has

There are three types of ambiguities: structural ambiguity lexical ambiguity and semantic ambiguity. 2.1.1. Lexical Ambiguity The Words and phrases in one language often have multiple meaning in another language. . be found for a particular word or phrase of one language in another. Consider the sentence,

ambiguity and then describing the causes and the ways to disambiguate the ambiguous sentences by using different ways from some linguists. The finding shows that the writer finds lexical ambiguity (23,8%) and structural or syntactic ambiguity (76,2%). Lexical ambiguity divided into some part of speech;

RESOLVING LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN A DETERMINISTIC PARSER Robert Milne Intelligent Applications 10 Charlotte Square Edinburgh EH2 4DR Scotland Lexical ambiguity and especially part-of-speech ambiguity is the source of much non-determinism in . found to be very effective for the following reason. Each word has all the possible relevant features .

causative constructions found in languages viz. non-lexical and lexical. The non-lexical causative, . The non-lexical causative shows ambiguity when used with adverbs Downloaded by [Kenyatta University] at 00:03 08 March 2016 . 388 but the lexical causative does not have this ambiguity (Cooper, 1976:323). To illustrate,

This research focuses on the case of ambiguity found in Hooray textbook which is used by the sixth grade of elementary school students. The research is aimed at analyzing: 1) the types of ambiguity found in Hooray textbook, 2) the . lexical ambiguity (29, 7%), 94 referential ambiguity (53, 7%) and 29 surface .

No. Type of Ambiguity Finding Percentage 1. Lexical 39 data 78% 2. Structural 8 data 16% 3. Deep Surface Structural 3 data 6% 4. CONCLUSION. The result of this research is to answer the problem statements which are formulated. There are three types of ambiguity in workbook. Lexical ambiguity classifies into

of grammatical ambiguity in Jakarta Post headlines, in which all of it functioned as noun phrases. The table also indicates ambiguity in New York Times headlines. There are 10 cases of lexical ambiguity which are functioned as noun and verb. Moreover, there are grammatical ambiguity are found in New York Times news headlines.

Generally, two types of ambiguity are distinguished, lexical and structural ambiguity. Lexical ambiguity, which is so common, indicates that the word itself has more than one meaning. The word 'hard', . it has been found out that adverbs are preferentially attached to the lower verb (Kimball, 1973 and Altmann, et al. 1998). For example .

The most salient form of lexical ambiguity is found in homonyms such as "trunk" that have multiple unrelated meanings (e.g., "the trunk of a car/tree/elephant). This form of ambiguity is relatively rare, and is present for . by lexical ambiguity on word-meaning access, is the 'Reordered Access' model (Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988 .

The issue of lexical ambiguity has been of great interest because it addresses founda tional issues regarding the nature of the mental lexicon and lexical access. It has been found in a number of studies that in visual lexical decision tasks, ambiguous words yield faster reaction times than unambiguous words.

test whether temporal speech processing limitation in SLI could interfere with the autonomous pre-lexical process (Montgomery, 2002) -lexical contact and lexical . It is worth noting that the auditory lexical decision task and the receptive vocabulary measure taps two different levels of processing; the last one. Lexical decision in children .

contain a word with multiple meanings (lexical ambiguity) or a phrase that could have different grammatical roles (syntactic ambiguity). Ambiguity is usually quickly resolved by subsequent infor-mation in the sentence, which adults use to revise incorrect predictions (e.g., Spivey et al., 2002).

CCG ambiguity A sentence might have more than one valid parse tree and logical form. Ambiguity can be caused by: One source of ambiguity is lexical items having more than one entry in the lexicon. Multiple lexical items are mapped to same word/phrase. For example, New York might have entries NP : new york city and NP : new york state.

sentence comprehension skills of children and how these skills may impact reading comprehension. Although there is evidence that children’s sentence comprehension may also relate to accurate decoding(e.g.,Nation &Snowling,2004),myfocuswillbeon the relationship between sentence comprehension and reading com-

I. ambiguity (ambiguous)The general sense of this term, referring to a WORD ORSENTENCE with expresses more than one MEANING, is found in LINGUISTICS, but several types of ambiguity are recognised. The m'ost widely discussed type in recent years is grammatical (or struc-tural) ambiguity.In PHRASE-STRUCTURE ambiguity, alternative

ambiguity i.e. lexical/syntactic/syntax ambiguity is detected. 2.4 Ambiguities in SRS Ambiguity is the possibility to interpret a phrase/word in several ways. It is one of the problems that occur in natural language texts. An empirical study by Kamsties et al [12] depicts that "Ambiguities are misinterpreted more often

the ambiguity advantage. To do so, we compared the amplitude of the N200 and the N400 elicited by ambiguous and unambiguous words while participants performed a LDT. A second aim relates to the existence of distinct types of ambiguity. Indeed, semantic ambiguity is not a homogenous phenomenon, as not all ambiguous words are qualitatively similar.

the integration of incoming lexical information (i.e., an incoming word) with sentence context informa-tion (i.e., from preceding words in an unfolding utterance). In 2 simulations, we show that the framework predicts both classic results concerned with lexical ambiguity resolution (Swinney, 1979; Tanenhaus,

interpretation is found to be no longer appropriate Ambiguity avoidance is the idea that we, as speakers, avoid these ambiguities so as to make ourselves as clear as possible *Ferreira, V.S. & Dell, G.S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.)

Similarly, Rogers et al. (2017) found increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) when phonetic ambiguity also led to lexical ambiguity (e.g., a blend between "blade" and "glade") but not when lexical information could resolve that ambiguity (e.g., in a blend be-

Visual lexical decisions are often found to be quicker for words which are ambiguous, even when controlling for word familiarity, this nding is called the ambiguity advantage (Rodd, . 2.2 Ambiguity advantage During lexical decision tasks, ambiguous words are processed more quickly than unambigu-ous words with the same familiarity. This was .

The Lexical Ambiguity Interruptor Final Report Maria Boritchev Boumediene Brikci Sid Victor Hublitz Simon Mauras Pierre Ohlmann Ievgeniia Oshurko Samir Tendjaoui Thi Xuan Vu . Part of the answer lies in the existing ambiguity of words; the same word, depending on its context,canhaveseveralmeanings .

resolving attachment ambiguity. Similarly, Taraban and McClelland found that lexical content was key in explaining people's behavior. Various previous proposals for guid- ing attachment disambiguation by the lexical content of specific words have appeared (e.g. Ford, Bresnan, and Kaplan 1982; Marcus 1980).

1998). In an auditorily-presented lexical decision task, Bilenko et al. (2008) found that lexical information such as the frequency of a word affects the access routes and speed of lexical processing within the brain. In the case of ambiguity, the two meanings are rarely balanced in

ABSTRACT: This paper analyses lexical ambiguity occurrence in comic texts and describes the different meanings from lexical items that generates ambiguity, and identify each case as occurrence homonymy or . and that phenomenon found in a basic structural level is an important element from construction global coherence of comics wherein .

lexical collocations, and using the correct lexical collocations continuously in oral and written communication. The study of lexical collocation has been conducted by many researchers in the past few decades. The first previous study was by Martelli (2004) about a study of English lexical collocations written by Italian

Reasons to Separate Lexical and Syntax Analysis Simplicity - less complex approaches can be used for lexical analysis; separating them simplifies the parser Efficiency - separation allows optimization of the lexical analyzer Portability - parts of the lexical analyzer may not be portable, but the parser is always portable

Lexical analyzer generator -It writes a lexical analyzer Assumption -each token matches a regular expression Needs -set of regular expressions -for each expression an action Produces -A C program Automatically handles many tricky problems flex is the gnu version of the venerable unix tool lex. -Produces highly .

A. Compound sentence B. Complex sentence C. Simple sentence D. Compound complex sentence 13. The students left the classroom although their teacher told them not to. A. Simple sentence B. Compound complex sentence C. Compound sentence D. Complex sentence 14. Five of the children in my

4. LEXICAL MAPPING THEORY (LMT) A-structures represent thematic information of sentences which can be used to form a link between lexical seman-tics and syntactic structures [4]. Lexical mapping theory defines how this link can be established by mapping each thematic role within an a-structure to one, and only one, syntactic function of a sentence.

Prior eye-tracking studies of spoken sentence comprehension have found that the presence of two potential referents, e.g., two frogs, can guide listeners toward a Modifier interpretation . Keywords: Parsing; Syntactic ambiguity resolution; Lexical constraints; Visual-world paradigm; Contex-tual constraints; Reading time measures; Individual .

Reading Comprehension Task 15 mins. 4.Strategy Inventory for Reading Comprehension Accepting Ambiguity 10 mins. Local Strategies Global Strategies . A sample text selected from iBT TOEFL sample reading comprehension task ! 688 words consisting of 6 multiple-choice reading comprehension questions 2014. 4. 5.

Lippman and Rumelt (1982) The first to propose a definition of causal ambiguity: ‘ambiguity surrounding the linkage between action and performance’ (p. 421) Reed and DeFillipi (1990) Explained that tacitness, complexity and specificity were sources of causal ambiguity. Suggested tha