Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Mem Lang. 2009 Nov;61(4):538–555. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003

Table 3.

Mean values of (1) lexical features of the two subgroups of NV-homographs (when the contextually favored meaning is the dominant meaning sense vs. the non-dominant meaning sense) and (2) sentential features of the sentences ending with the two sub-groups of NV-homographs in Experiment 2.

Dominant meaning sense Non-dominant meaning sense Overall NV-homographs Unambiguous words
Lexical features of sentence-final words Log frequency 1.5
(0.4)		 1.6
(0.6)		 1.6
(0.6)		 1.6
(0.5)
Word length 4.8
(1.4)		 4.7
(1.2)		 4.8
(1.2)		 5.2
(1.1)
Concreteness (1=very abstract; 7=very concrete) 5.1
(1.0)		 4.6
(0.9)		 4.7
(1.0)		 4.8
(0.9)
Semantic distinctiveness (1=very different; 7=very similar) 2.8
(0.9)		 2.7
(0.8)		 2.7
(0.8)		 N/A
Sentential features Sentence length 14.3
(3.3)		 14.4
(3.8)		 14.4
(3.7)		 13.8
(3.2)
Plausibility (1=least plausible; 7=most plausible) 6.5
(0.4)		 6.4
(0.7)		 6.4
(0.6)		 6.6
(0.3)
Cloze probability 56%
(30%)		 47%
(34%)		 50%
(33%)		 50%
(33%)