The subjective familiarity of English homophones

College students rated 828 homophonic words (words with the same pronunciation but different spellings) in terms of subjective familiarity. High interrater reliability was obtained, and the ratings correlated well with other published familiarity measures (r=.85). The familiarity ratings also correlated highly with log transforms of Ku?era and Francis’s (1967) printed frequency measures (r= 75). However, many words of equal log frequency varied widely in rated familiarity, and vice versa. To determine which of these two factors was the better predictor of verbal performance, we orthogonally varied the two in a lexical decision task and found that, for words of moderate frequency, rated familiarity was by far the better predictor. We conclude that even though printed frequency and rated familiarity generally covary, printed frequency is a less reliable index of the underlying psychological construct, word familiarity.     

Subjective familiarity of English word/name homophones

The subjective familiarity of 40 homophone pairs was examined. The homophones consisted of monosyllabic English words (on one reading) and male first names (on the other)—for example,art andArt. Subjects heard these homophones embedded in two kinds of lists, one with 40 unambiguous words and one with 40 unambiguous names. Ratings were made for familiarity as words and as names. These correlated significantly with the log of printed frequency (.63 for words, .53 for names). In a final task, just the homophones were presented, and the subjects were asked for a comparative rating of whether the word usage or the name usage was more familiar. This direct comparison correlated well (.91) with the difference between the ratings for the name and word familiarities, but less well (.55) with the differences between the printed frequencies of the word and name meanings. This indicates either consistent biases in the judgments or true differences between printed frequencies and subjective familiarity.     

On the norming of homophones

Associative norms for homographs have been widely used in the study of language processing. A number of sets of these are available, providing the investigator with the opportunity to compare materials collected over a span of years and a range of locations. Words that are homophonic but not homographic have been used to address a variety of questions in memory as well as in language processing. However, a paucity of normative data are available for these materials, especially with respect to responses to the spoken form of the homophone. This article provides such data for a sample of 207 homophones across four different tasks, both visual and auditory, and examines how well the present measures correlate with each other and with those of other investigators. The finding that these measures can account for a considerable proportion of the variance in the lexical decision and naming data from the English Lexicon Project provides an additional demonstration of their utility. The norms from this study are available online in the Psychonomic Society Archive of Norms, Stimuli, and Data, at www .psychonomic.org/archive.     

Cross-modal repetition priming of heterographic homophones

In two cross-modal priming experiments in French, we investigated the effects of auditorily presented heterographic homophones (an English example is /meId/) on the subsequent visual recognition of the dominant (MADE) and subordinate (MAID) printed forms. When only pronounceable, regular nonwords were used as distractor items in the lexical decision task, both dominant and subordinate forms were facilitated by the homophone prime relative to an unrelated word prime. When pseudohomophones were added among the nonword distractors, dominant targets continued to show facilitation while subordinate targets showed an inhibitory trend. These results provide evidence for inhibition-based selection in the processing of ambiguous words in the absence of any biasing context.     

Lexical decisions with homophones and homonyms

In two experiments homophones, homonyms, and control words were presented aurally in a lexical decision task. Response times for homophones were significantly faster than those for homonyms and control words, whereas the latter two did not differ. It was concluded that lexical decision times do not provide evidence for multiple entries in the internal lexicon for homonyms. The possibility is considered that the superior performance with homophonic words also does not reflect activation of multiple entries corresponding to multiple meanings, but instead the utilization of orthographic information. This study was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.     

The role of lexical expertise in reading homophones

In Experiment 1, university students classified on lexical expertise on the basis of spelling plus nonword pronunciation accuracy made lexical decisions to homophones and control words. Homophones were accepted as words more slowly than control words, but lexical experts showed a smaller homophone cost than the less skilled group. In Experiment 2, similarly classified groups showed a large difference in their ability to detect homophones, with the low-expertise group showing a yes bias to high-frequency words, and having difficulty detecting homophones when mate-frequency was low. The results suggest superior use of orthography in the lexical experts and more reliance on semantic information in nonexperts, and support the importance of facility with orthography–phonology mappings in lexical expertise.     

Interpretation of homophones related to threat in anxiety states

In previous studies, we have established that anxiety states are characterized by an attentional bias that favors the processing of threatening stimuli. In the present study we extend this finding to ambiguous stimuli, specifically, homophones with spellings that correspond to either a threatening or a neutral meaning. As predicted, clinically anxious subjects used the threatening spellings relatively more than did controls, whereas recovered subjects were intermediate in this respect. Threatening words were associated with greater skin conductance responses than were neutral words, but the groups did not differ in their electrodermal reactions to homophones. We take these findings as evidence that, although the different meanings of ambiguous stimuli may be processed in parallel by all subjects, an interpretive bias operates such that anxiety-prone individuals tend to become preferentially aware of the more threatening meaning of such events.     

Recognition of interlingual homophones in bilingual auditory word recognition

How do bilinguals recognize interlingual homophones? In a gating study, word identification and language membership decisions by Dutch-English bilinguals were delayed for interlingual homophones relative to monolingual controls. At the same time, participant judgments were sensitive to subphonemic cues. These findings suggest that auditory lexical access is language nonselective but is sensitive to language-specific characteristics of the input. In 2 cross-modal priming experiments, visual lexical decision times were shortest for monolingual controls preceded by their auditory equivalents. Response times to interlingual homophones accompanied by their corresponding auditory English or Dutch counterparts were also shorter than in unrelated conditions. However, they were longer than in the related monolingual control conditions, providing evidence for online competition of the 2 near-homophonic representations. Experiment 3 suggested that participants used sublexical cues to differentiate the 2 versions of a homophone after language nonselective access.     

Ninety-three pictures and 108 questions for the elicitation of homophones

Homographs and homophones have interesting linguistic properties that make them useful in many experiments involving language. To assist researchers in the elicitation of homophones, this paper presents a set of 93 line-drawn pictures of objects with homophonic names and a set of 108 questions with homophonic answers. Statistics are also included for each picture and question: Picture statistics include name-agreement percentages, dominance, and frequency statistics of depicted referents, and picture-naming latencies both with and without study of the picture names. For questions, statistics include answer-agreement percentages, difficulty ratings, dominance, frequency statistics, and naming latencies for 60 of the most consistently answered questions.     

The representation of homophones: evidence from the distractor-frequency effect

Current models of word production offer different accounts of the representation of homophones in the lexicon. The investigation of how the homophone status of a word affects lexical access can be used to test theories of lexical processing. In this study, homophones appeared as word distractors superimposed on pictures that participants named orally. The authors varied distractor frequency, a variable that has been shown to modulate the interference that distractors produce on picture naming. The results of 3 experiments converged in showing that words interfered in proportion to their individual frequency in the language, even if they have high-frequency homophone mates. This effect of specific-word frequency is compatible with models that assume (a) distinct lexical representations for the individual homophones and (b) that access to such representations is modulated by frequency. The authors discuss the extent to which current models of word production satisfy these constraints.     

Phonological, semantic, and repetition priming with homophones

The current study investigated semantic, repetition, and phonological priming using heterographic homonyms (homophones) as stimuli in a lexical decision task. As in previous research, reliable semantic priming and repetition effects were found. In addition, the statistical additivity of these two effects was replicated using homophones as stimuli. Using homophones, a reliable phonological priming effect was found when 10-16 intervening trials were used. This effect was also statistically independent of semantic priming indicating the independence of the mechanisms responsible for semantic and phonological priming. The magnitude of the phonological priming effect was also significantly less than the magnitude of the repetition effect. This difference in effect magnitude was taken to indicate that the repetition of phonological information is not a primary contributor to the repetition effect.