Effects of referential ambiguity,time constraints and addressee orientation on the production of morphologically complex words

In five experiments, participants were asked to describe unambiguously a target picture in a picture–picture paradigm. In the same-category condition, target (e.g., water bucket) and distractor picture (e.g., ice bucket) had identical names when their preferred, morphologically simple, name was used (e.g., bucket). The ensuing lexical ambiguity could be resolved by compound use (e.g., water bucket). Simple names sufficed as means of specification in other conditions, with distractors identical to the target, completely unrelated, or geometric figures. With standard timing parameters, participants produced mainly ambiguous answers in Experiment 1. An increase in available processing time hardly improved unambiguous responding (Experiment 2). A referential communication instruction (Experiment 3) increased the number of compound responses considerably, but morphologically simple answers still prevailed. Unambiguous responses outweighed ambiguous ones in Experiment 4, when timing parameters were further relaxed. Finally, the requirement to name both objects resulted in a nearly perfect ambiguity resolution (Experiment 5). Together, the results showed that speakers overcome lexical ambiguity only when time permits, when an addressee perspective is given and, most importantly, when their own speech overtly signals the ambiguity.