Resolvinghomonymsincontext:understandingambiguityforautism

spectrumdisorder

August,2016

Nout(N.J.H.)vanDeijcknvandeijck@student.ru.nl

4057724

Supervisors:Dr.P.N.Barkhuysen(Pashiera)

Dr.F.A.Grootjen(Franc)

RadboudUniversityNijmegenFacultyofSocialSciences

Bachelorthesis–ArtificialIntelligence

2

Tableofcontents

Tableofcontents..............................................................................................................................................2

Foreword............................................................................................................................................................3

Abstract...............................................................................................................................................................4

1.Introduction..................................................................................................................................................5

2.Literature.......................................................................................................................................................72.1.Autismandsocialinteraction...........................................................................................................................7

2.1.1.History....................................................................................................................................................................................72.1.2.Characterisation.................................................................................................................................................................72.1.3.Prevalence.............................................................................................................................................................................8

2.2.Explanations...........................................................................................................................................................92.2.1.Researchandexplanatorystudies..............................................................................................................................92.2.2.CentralCoherence.............................................................................................................................................................92.2.3.FromCentralCoherenceonwards..............................................................................................................................92.2.4.Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................10

2.3.Languageandambiguity...................................................................................................................................112.3.1.Languagecomprehensionandtherepresentationofwordmeaning.......................................................112.3.2.Ambiguouswords............................................................................................................................................................122.3.3.Theadvantageofambiguity........................................................................................................................................122.3.4.Thedisadvantageofambiguity..................................................................................................................................13

2.4.Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................142.4.1.Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................142.4.2.Discussion...........................................................................................................................................................................14

3.Experiment.................................................................................................................................................153.1.Methods..................................................................................................................................................................15

3.1.1.Participants........................................................................................................................................................................153.1.2.Materials..............................................................................................................................................................................163.1.3.Questionnaire....................................................................................................................................................................163.1.4.Task........................................................................................................................................................................................173.1.5.Procedure............................................................................................................................................................................172.1.6.Pre-processing..................................................................................................................................................................18

3.2Results.....................................................................................................................................................................193.2.1.Experimentaldesign.......................................................................................................................................................193.2.3.Descriptivestatistics......................................................................................................................................................193.2.4.Assumptions.......................................................................................................................................................................203.2.5.Statisticalanalysis...........................................................................................................................................................213.2.6.Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................23

4.Discussion...................................................................................................................................................244.1.Researchquestions............................................................................................................................................24

4.1.1.Sub-question1..................................................................................................................................................................244.1.1.Sub-question2..................................................................................................................................................................24

4.2.Applicationofresults.........................................................................................................................................264.2.1.Sub-question3..................................................................................................................................................................264.2.2Diagnosis..............................................................................................................................................................................264.2.3.Therapy................................................................................................................................................................................28

4.3Limitations.............................................................................................................................................................294.3.1.CriticsonCentralCoherencetheory........................................................................................................................294.3.3.Experiment.........................................................................................................................................................................29

4.4.Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................304.4.1.Researchquestion...........................................................................................................................................................304.4.2.Futureresearch................................................................................................................................................................31

References.......................................................................................................................................................32

Appendices......................................................................................................................................................35AppendixA.Experimenttimeline..........................................................................................................................35AppendixB.Questionnaire(inDutch).................................................................................................................36AppendixC.SmallWorldofWordsdistributions(inDutch).......................................................................39AppendixD.Consentform(inDutch)..................................................................................................................41

3

ForewordMakingthisthesiswas,forme,achallengeandajoy.IntheprocessI’veovercomemanyobstacles,bothinthisresearch,aswellaspersonal.IcametoadmirethewayguidedlivingisprovidedtoadolescentswithautisminTheNetherlands,andlearnedmuchaboutthepracticalside,andresearchofautism.I’velearnedahugeamountondoingresearchandcarryingoutanexperiment,whichIseeasgreatadditionstomyacademicandeducationalcareer.IamproudofwhatIcouldaccomplishindoingthisresearch,andIamhopefulthatIcaninterestanyonewhoreadsthis.Beforemovingontothecontentsofthisthesis,Iwouldliketothankmysupervisors,PashieraandFranc,fortheirsupportandguidance.Ilearnedgreatdeals,sharedenthusiasm,andgotinspired.Also,IwouldliketothankStumassEindhovenandStumassNijmegen,CapitoNijmegenandIVANijmegen,fortheiramazingsupportinhelpingoutwiththeparticipantsintheexperiment.Theynotonlyprovidedcontactsandresources,theywelcomedmewithgreatinterest.FurthermoreIwouldliketothankGuusforalwaysbeingthereandlettingmediscussanythingwithher,includingmanythingsinthisthesisthatwerechallengingforme.NoutvanDeijckAugust2016

4

AbstractCurrentresearchsuggeststhatindividualswithautismspectrumdisorder(ASD)havealower strive for central coherence than Typically developing (TD) individuals. Theparticular issue of lexical ambiguity is outlined, as this seems to be a specific issue.Anovel experiment isdescribed, concerningdisambiguationofhomonyms in conditionswithoutcontext,andwithsentencecontextpresent.Participantswere30individuals,16withhigh-functioningASD,14typicallydevelopingcontrols,matchedonageandgender.Therewas a significant interaction effect between group (ASD/TD) and condition (nocontext/context) for the performance of choosing subordinates. Implications of thesefindingsarediscussed;resultsoflowerperformanceondisambiguationofhomonymsincontextcanbeusedfordiagnosis.

5

1.Introduction

“Daarisdebankwaarwehetoverhadden!”ThisDutchsentenceisveryambiguous,theDutchword‘bank’canhavedifferentmeanings,liketheEnglishword‘bank’canhaveaswell.SointheDutchlanguage,thissentence(freelytranslated“Overthere,that’sthebankwediscussed!”)canmeaneither“Overthere,that’sthefinancialinstitutionwediscussed!”or“Overthere,that’sthebenchwediscussed!”.Whencommunicatingorreading,usinglanguageingeneral,wecomeacrossmanyambiguities.Forsuccessfullanguagecomprehensionwenotonlyusetheunderstandingofwordsinisolation,butalsotheabilitytointegratedifferentkindsofcontexttodisambiguatethesenseofaword,andtobuildacoherentmentalrepresentationofunderstanding(Bishop,2000).Thiscontextcanbetheenvironment,relatingwordsorsentences(discoursecontext),on-goingsyntacticanalysis(Tyler,L.K.,&Marslen-Wilson,1981),ormultipleotherinstances.Withsuchasentenceastheabove,oftenthesurroundingcontextwillhelpintheprocessofwordsensedisambiguation(WSD)(Kwong,2008;Simpson&Gernsbacher,1994),determiningthemeaningofanambiguousword.Ifonefocusesonlexicalambiguity,onecanexpectthatthereisadifferenceinunderstanding,ordisambiguating,thesenseofawordwithmultiplemeanings,whenpositionedinasentencethatprovideslittletonocontextfortheword,asopposedtotheambiguouswordbeingplacedinacontextthatgivesassociatedwordsorsentences,thataredirectlyrelatedtoonespecificmeaningoftheword.Thisthesiswilllookintothatexpectedshiftindistributionofmeanings.Ashiftisexpectedfromachanceorbiasrelateddistribution(thatcorrespondstothedistributionwhenaskingforwordmeaningofawordinabsenceofanyprecedingdiscoursecontext),toadistributionwithastrongpreferencedirectingtoonemeaningofaword,whenpresentedindirectlyrelatingcontext.(forexample;expecting50-50distributionamonganambiguouswordwithoutprecedingcontext,thatwouldshifttoa90-10distributionwhenaccompanying,directlyassociating,wordsarepreceding,relatingtoaspecificoneofthemeaningsofaword)Morespecifically,thisthesisdealswiththepossibledifferencesinshifts,whenconsideringthereadingofsentenceswithanambiguouswordbypeoplediagnosedwithAutismSpectrumDisorder(ASD),comparedtohowtypicallydevelopingpeoplehandlethesesentences.ASDisofinteresthere,becauseambiguitiesinlanguagemakesocialcommunicationharder.Asexplainedinchapter2,socialcommunicationisinsomewaysimpairedforindividualswithASD.Asisexplainedinmoredetaillateron,peoplewithautismexperiencedifficultieswithtasksofsentencecomprehensionandusingcontext.Apossibleoutcomeisthattheexpecteddescribedshifttakesplacefortypicallydevelopingpersons,butnotsomuchforpersonswithASD.Ontopoftheexistingtheoryfrompsychologyandpsycholinguistics,andtheexperimentthatlooksintothehypothesisdescribedabove,thisthesiswilloffersuggestionsfollowingfromtheresultsforfutureresearch.

6

Theresearchquestionsthatflowfromtheabove,arestatedhere:Mainresearchquestion:“Doescontextualinformationresolvelexicalambiguityforindividualswithautismspectrumdisorder?”Thedifferentsub-questionsare:

1. IsambiguityaproblemthatisresolvedwithinASD,inthesamewayasitisfortypicaldevelopingindividuals?

2. DoestheuseofcontextresolveambiguityforpeoplewithASD,inataskformeaningofhomonyms?

3. CanresultsfrommeasurementsforminputforfutureArtificialIntelligence(AI)applications,tohelpindividualsbediagnosedwithASD?

Thesethreequestionswillbediscussedinthedifferentchaptersthatfollow.Onedealswiththetheory(chapter2.):theLiteraturethatexistsandwhatwecaninterpretfromthis,thefollowingdescribestheExperiment(3.)thatwascarriedout,ofwhichthemethodsandresultsareoutlined,andthelastquestiondealswiththepossibleApplicationoftheresults,whichareincludedintheDiscussion(4.).

7

2.Literature2.1.AutismandsocialinteractionTounderstandthewholeofthisthesis,itisimportanttounderstandwhatautismis.InthisparagraphIwillbrieflydiscusshowautismmanifestsitselfandwhatkindofconsequencesthishasforthesociallifeofanindividual.2.1.1.HistoryIn1943LeoKannerpublishedanarticleinwhichhediscussedadevelopmentaldisorderthathecalledautism.Hedefinedthreepatternsofsymptoms,namely:

1. Theinabilitytouselanguageasameansofcommunication2. Theabnormaldevelopmentofsocialinteraction3. Thedesireforuniformity,reflectedinrepeatedlyperformingritualsand

obsessiveinterests(Kanner,1943)Healsosuggestedthatautisticchildrenareverywithdrawn,introvertedandnotincontactwithreality.Hestatedthatpeoplewithautismhavedifficultywithlearningfromexperienceandtheadaptingtounpredictablesituationsinsociallife.Overthepastdecadesmuchresearchinvolvingautismhasbeencarriedout,andmanyofthesymptoms,characterisationsanddiagnosticshavebeenrefined.Whenreferringtoautismhere,Iwillusethetermforthewholerangeofdisorders.AutismSpectrumDisorder,hereoftenreferredtoasASD,consistingofaspectrumofmanifestationsthatcantakeplaceinmultipleforms,andtodifferentdegrees(Jordan,2001).2.1.2.CharacterisationASDcanbeseenasadevelopmentaldisabilitythatisforlife,andaffectsthecommunicationofapatientandone’srelations.Nowadays,themaincharacteristicsofASDarestatedas(DSM-V299.00,2013):

1. impairedsocialcommunication,verbalaswellasinnon-verbalcommunication,includingdifficultieswithfacialexpressions,gestures,eye-contact,understandingmentalstateofothersetc.Maintainingrelationshipsbecomesadifficultyaswell,partlybecausetheyhavedifficultysharinginterests.(Orsmond,G.I.,Krauss,M.W.,&Seltzer,2004)

2. Restrictiveinterestsandrepetitivebehaviours,Beingoverlydependentonroutines,highlysensitivetochangeshereinorintheenvironment,orintenselyfocusedoninappropriateitems

ThisupdatedcharacterisationofimpairmentsissomewhatdifferentthanintheDSM-IV(1994).Thecoveragestayedthesame,butthesub-categorisationfordifferenttypesofASDsuchasAspergerandPDD-NOSwasremoved.Therefore,inthispaperthetermsautismandASDareusedalternately,andbothreferringtothecompletediagnosisofASD.Onaverage,moremalesarediagnosedwithASDthanfemales(APA,2013;Newschafferetal.,2007)(ThisisacharacteristicofASDthatiscontrolledforintheExperimentsection).Theabilitytoleadanindependentlifeisreducedandalsoforhigh-functioningindividualswithautism,everydaysocialpatternsandrulesposepuzzles.Understandinghumour,ambiguity,whitelies,metaphorsareamongdifficultiesthatpeoplewithASDcomeacross.

8

PatientsofASDinadulthoodwhocantakecareofthemselvesfully,andhaveafull-timejobarerare.Often,theyaredependentonfamilyorauthorities(Kidd,2002).Earlydiagnosisisusefulinordertoallowapositivedevelopmentonthelong-term,butevenwithearlyintervention,peoplediagnosedwithASDneedhighlevelsofcareandsupportthroughouttheirlife(Christensen,2012).ItisestablishedthatautismcanoccuratanypointontheIQscale(Baron-Cohen,2004).Anexampletoillustrateimpairedsocialcommunicationisthelesserabilitytouseprosody(tone-of-voice).Thisisanon-verbaltrait,usedtogivecontext,likegesturesandfacialexpressionscandoaswell.Peoplewithhigh-functioningautismhavedifficultyusingprosodytodisambiguatesyntax,incomparisontotypicallydevelopingindividuals,evenwhenmatchedonchronologicalage,IQ,andreceptivelanguage.(Diehl,Bennetto,Watson,Gunlogson,&McDonough,2008)2.1.3.PrevalenceTherearemanystudiesreportingverydifferentstatisticsontheprevalencerates.Thenumberscontainthewholerangeofautismspectrumdisordersandrangefrom1in68Americanchildren(Christensen,2012)(1in42boys,1in189girls)to1in100inEurope(bothin2012)(Charman,T.etal2011;Elsabbaghetal.,2012;Kim,Y.S.etal2011;Saemundsen,E.etal2013).Aglobalreviewfoundamedianof62casesper10000people,±1in160,howeverthereisalackofevidenceforlow-andmiddle-incomecountries(Elsabbaghetal.,2012).Whatisclearlyvisible,isthatthediagnosisrateincreasedrapidlyinthelastdecades,butitisnotyetclearwhetherthisisduetoadjustmentsindiagnosticcriteria,increaseinprevalence,orbecauseofmoreawarenessofautism.Alsolikely,theincreasecanbeacombinationofthesefactors.

9

2.2.Explanations2.2.1.ResearchandexplanatorystudiesAsmentionedearlier,oneofthekeydifficultiesforpeoplediagnosedwithASD,isinteractionandcommunication.Researchonthetopicofsocialskillsininteractionhasbeencarriedout,withrespecttovisualambiguity(Ropar,Mitchell,&Ackroyd,2003),prosody(tone-of-voice)processing(Diehletal.2008),anduseofcontext(López&Leekam,2003),amongstmanyotherthings.ImportanttonoteisthatinASD,theprocessingofphonology,semanticsandsyntaxseemtobeintactaccordingtowhatisexpectedofmatchingmentalage(Bartolucci,G.etal.1976;Frith,U.,&Snowling,1983;Tager-Flusberg,H.etal.1990).Oneofthemainissueswhenconsideringcognitiveskillsthatareusedforsocialinteractionseemstobeuseofcontext.Low-levelvisualprocessing(Happé,F.etal.1996;M.A.O’Riordanetal.2001;M.O’Riordan&Plaisted,2001;Plaisted,K.etal.1999;Ropar,D.,&Mitchell,1999),high-levelvisuo-spatialprocessing(Brian,J.A.,&Bryson,1996;Shah,A.,&Frith,1983,1993),semanticmemory(Tager-Flusberg,1991)andsentenceprocessing(Happé,1997;Hermelin,B.,&O’connor,1967;Jolliffe&Baron-Cohen,1999)havebeenresearchedregardingtheuseofcontext.Mostofthesestudiesinvolvetheuseofcontext,andconcludethatstrivingforintegrationofinformationisimpaired,manystudiesonASDrelyforthis,onthetheoryofweakcentralcoherence(CC),byUtaFrith(Frith,1989).Otherexplanatorytheoriesofautismincludethemindblindnesstheory/deficitinTheoryofmind(ToM)(Baron-cohen,Leslie,&Frith,1985),extreme-malebraintheoryasproposedbyBaron-Cohen(1999),andtheexecutivedysfunction(ED)theory(Ozonoff,S.,Pennington,B.F.,&Rogers,1991).AsBaron-Cohennotesextensively,alltheorieshaveprosandcons(Baron-Cohen,2008).2.2.2.CentralCoherenceFrithstatedthatautismcouldbecharacterizedbyaspecificunbalancedintegrationofinformationondifferentlevels.Thismeansthatatypicallydevelopingperson(TD)willhavethetendencytopulltogetherdifferentpiecesofinformation,tocreateacomprehensivemeaning(Frith,U.,&Happé,1994).Forexample,CentralCoherencemeansthatwiththehearingofastory,onewillmemorisetheglobalcontenttoformacorrectwhole.Manydetailsareleftout,becausetherememberingofthesedetailswouldbedetrimentaltomemorisationoftheglobalpicture.FrithassumedthatpeoplewithautismshowabnormalitieswithCC.ShepredictedthatindividualswithASDwouldperformrelativelywellfortaskswhereattentiontodetailismoreimportantthanattentiontothewhole,andthattheywouldhaverelativelybadperformanceontaskswherepickingouttheoverallmeaningwasimportant.ThetheoryofweakcentralcoherenceinASDisdebated(Baron-Cohen,2008;Jarrold&Russell,1997),andcorrectedin2006(F.Happé&Frith,2006).ThemostimportantchangehereinwastheadjustmentofthetheoryasanexplanatoryofASD,toaaspectofcognitioninASD.2.2.3.FromCentralCoherenceonwardsFocusingonambiguityandsentencecomprehension,therearestudiesreportingresultsconsistentwiththetheoryofweakcentralcoherenceforindividualswithASD,andstudiesthatseemtocontradictthetheory.

10

Difficultiesinintegratingdifferentitemsandthusanimpairmenttoformmeaningfulcoherence(Baron-Cohen,S.,Lombardo,M.,&Tager-Flusberg,2013),aredemonstratedinastudybyDiehletal.(2008)whereadolescentswithhigh-functioningautismhaddifficultyusingprosodytodisambiguatesyntaxwhencomparedtotypicallydevelopingcontrols,matchedonage,IQ,andreceptivelanguage(Diehletal.,2008).Also,studiesbyHappé,Joliffe&Baron-CohenandLopez&LeekhamallshowedthatpeoplewithASDwerelesslikelytoprovidethecorrectpronunciationofhomographsincontext(Areoccurringexampleis‘‘Herdress/eyehadatearinit’’)(Happé,1997;Jolliffe&Baron-Cohen,1999;López&Leekam,2003).Studiesinvolvingverbaltaskslikeinferencing(Jolliffe,T.,&Baron-Cohen,2000;Jolliffe&Baron-cohen,2001;Ozonoff,S.,&Miller,1996)andresolvinglexicalandsyntacticalambiguity(Jolliffe&Baron-cohen,2001)showedsimilarresults;individualswithautismshowedimpairmentinstrivingforuseofcontexttoreachcoherence.IndividualshadverbalIQresultsinnormalrange(Jolliffe&Baron-cohen,2001).Thesestudieswereallinvolvingverbaltasks,withauditory-presentedstimuli.However,Lopez&Leekham(2003)notedthatthefailuretousecontextproperlyseemstoliewithintasksofverbalprocessingofambiguity.TheirexperimentsfoundthatindividualswithASDwereassistedusingvisualcontextinformation.Moreover,verbalprocessingtasksthatdidnotinvolveambiguity,butdidaskfortheuseofcontext,alsoshowedthattheindividualswithautismwerefacilitatedbytheprovidedcontext(López&Leekam,2003).Theystate:“Thesefindingsdemonstratethatchildrenwithautismdonothaveageneraldifficultyinconnectingcontextinformationanditeminformationaspredictedbyweakcentralcoherencetheory.Insteadtheresultssuggestthatthereisspecificdifficultywithcomplexverbalstimuliandinparticularwithusingsentencecontexttodisambiguatemeaning.”However,thestudybyDiehletal.(2008)showedthatnotonlysentencecontext,butalsotraitsliketone-of-voiceposedifficulties.2.2.4.ConclusionAssumingthattheproblemlieswithinthedistinctionofambiguity,itisimportanttodivedeeperinthatarea.Itisimportanttofocusonindividualsthathavehigh-functioningformsofASD,andhighverbalIQ,andnotalreadyhavelowercognitiveabilities(Vermeulen,2011),toseeifambiguityreallyisacharacterising,specificcognitiveproblemforautism,andnotjustacharacteristicoflearningdisability,whichcanalsobeacauseoflowcognitiveability.Asisclear,forhigh-functioningindividualswithASD,comprehensiondeficitsmayarisefromaspecificinefficiencyinintegratinglinguistic,ambiguousinformationincontext;anindicatorforalackinstrivingforcentralcoherence.Thisthesistriestoaddtotheknowledgeoflexicalambiguitybeinganindicatorofweakcentralcoherence,involvingthecomparisonsofindividualswithASDandtypicallydevelopingpersons.Inthesepages,Iaddressthepossibledifficultiespeoplewithautismcouldhavewithdisambiguationofmeaning,whenreadingsentencescontaininghomonyms.Thesearewordswithconsistentspelling,butdifferentmeanings,whereasstudiesinvolvinghomographsaddressambiguouspronunciation.Also,earlierdescribedpaststudies,concerningsentencecomprehensionandlexicalambiguity,usedauditorypresentedstimuli,whereasreadingisrequiredinthisexperiment.

11

2.3.LanguageandambiguityNowwehaveestablishedaclearunderstandingofwhatautismspectrumdisorderencompasses,theskillsforsocialinteractionthatareimpairedandthespecificsofweakcentralcoherence.Particularly,weareinterestedintheweakcoherence,combiningcontexttoawhole,inlinguisticambiguity,asthisisanevidentissueforASDtobefurtherexplored.Inordertoresearchlinguisticambiguityitisimportanttogetapictureofhowlanguage,andambiguityinlanguage,works.Ihavesummarisedmyfindingsofthisintheseparagraphs.2.3.1.LanguagecomprehensionandtherepresentationofwordmeaningThecomprehensionofspokenorwrittenlanguageisaprocessthatcanbedividedinsteps,orlevelsoflanguageanalysis,seebelowfigure:

Figure1:Fivelevelsoflanguageanalysis(imagetakenfromAshcraft,2006;Fivelevelsoflanguageanalysis:Miller,1973)

Forthisthesis,thelexicalorsemanticlevelisthemostimportant:theanalysisofthemeaningofwords.Thisisthelevelwheremeaningisobtainedfrommemory.Thememoryofwordsiscalledthementallexicon,akindofdictionaryinthebrainthatlinkswordstotheirmeanings.Oneofthemostimportanttheoriesinpsycholinguistics1isthenetworktheoryofthesemanticmemory.Thismodelisbasedontwofundamentalassumptions:anassumptionaboutthestructureofthesemanticmemory,andanassumptionabouttheprocessoftheretrievalofwordmeaningsfromthesemanticmemory(Ashcraft,2006;Simpson&Gernsbacher,1994)Assumptionaboutstructure:asemanticnetworkThestructureofthesemanticmemoryisanetwork;thereforewespeakofasemanticnetwork.Theideaisbasedontheconceptofneuralnetworks.Thenodesinthenetworkstandforconceptsinthesemanticmemory(Ashcraft,2006).Everywordhasameaninganditisnotunusualtointerchangesuchawordmeaningandconceptwithinpsycholinguistics(Gaskell,2007,152).Thelinksthatconnectthenodesaredirectedassociationsbetweenconcepts.Thecollectionofmutuallylinkednodesformsthenetwork.Assumptionaboutprocess:spreadingactivation

1Psycholinguistics;thestudyoflanguageasitislearnedandusedbyhumans(Ashcraft,2006)Inthisfield,languageisprimarilyseenashumanbehaviour,asamentalprocess.Languageisaformofcognitionaswell,andtounderstandlanguageweusethought,memoryandperception(Friedenberg&Silverman,2006,1-24)

12

Thestructureofthesemanticmemoryasanetworkcannotbeconsideredseparatelyfromtheprocessthatoccurswithinthisnetwork:theretrievalofwordmeaning;ortherecallingofthemeaningofaword.Everynodeinthenetworkhasanactivationvalue.Whenreadingorhearingaword,thecorrespondingnodegetsactive.Withhearingorreading,thenodegenerallygetssoactivethatitreachesathresholdvalue,whichwecallthefiringofanode.Animportantaspectoftheprocessofwordmeaningretrievalisspreadingactivation.Thismeansthatwhenacertainconceptbecomesactive,allrelatednodeswillbecomeactiveaswell.Spreadingactivationstartsatanodeandspreadsthroughthelinksacrossthenetwork.(Ashcraft,2006)Anexampleiswhenpeopleheartheword‘robin’(‘roodborstje’inDutch),notonlythatcorrespondingconceptwillactivate,typicallywordslike‘redbreast’,‘animal’,‘feathers’and‘blueeggs’willbecomeactiveaswell(Ashcraft,2006).Therearetwowaysofrepresentingwordmeaningsinanetworkfashion:onenodeinthesemanticmemoryrepresentsonefullwordmeaning,orthemeaningsarerepresentedasanactivationpatterninwhichthenodesfunctionasasortofunitsofmeaning(Gaskell,2007,162-169).Today,thelastrepresentation(thedistributedrepresentation)isfavouredoverthefirstone(thelocalrepresentation).Likewise,forcaseslikephonologyspreadingactivationpatternsareassumedasalikelyrepresentation(Gaskell,2007).Withthesenewideas,seeingthememoryasanetworkbecomesmoredifficult;itismoreconvenienttothinkintermsofsmallnetworksthatallbelongtodifferentlevelsofanalysis,layeringontopofeachother,andmutuallyconnected.2.3.2.AmbiguouswordsWhenreadingasentencethatcontainsanambiguousword,wecandeterminewhichmeaningisintendedwiththeaidofthecontext.Withoutcontexteverysenseofthewordcanbeactivated,butyoucannotfindoutwhichmeaningisreferredto.Dominantmeaningsaremorelikelytohaveagreatamountofrepresentationsandwillbeaccessedmoreeasilythansubordinatemeanings(Gaskell,2007).Onemightsaythattheprocessingofanambiguouswordisharderthantheprocessingofanon-ambiguousword.Often,thisisthecase,butthingsarealittlemorecomplicated:insomesituations,ambiguitycanhaveabeneficialeffect.Ofthemaintasksusedinstudyingambiguity,lexicaldecisiontasksarefrequent.Inalexicaldecisiontask,aparticipanthastodistinguishwhetherwordsareexistingornon-existentwords.Thecollectedresultsareusedtogatherknowledgeontheorganisationofthementallexiconandthesemanticmemory.Otherprinciplescommonlyusedinthesestudies,areeye-trackingandpriming.2.3.3.TheadvantageofambiguityInlexicaldecisiontasksitisgenerallyfoundthatdecisionsonambiguouswordsarefasterthandecisionsonnon-ambiguouswords(wherethewordsarematchedonfrequencyandconcreteness).Ambiguouswordshavemoreconnectionsinthenetwork,foreveryconcept.Becauseofthis,searchingforoneofthepossiblemeaningsofareadword,yieldsaresultfaster,thanwhensearchingforanon-ambiguousword,bychance(Borowsky,R.,&Masson,1996;Jastrzembski,J.E.,&Stanners,1975;Kellas,G.,Ferraro,F.R.,&Simpson,1988).

13

2.3.4.ThedisadvantageofambiguityThingsaredifferentfortasksbasedonsemantics,whenmorethansolelylexicaldecisionisneeded.Fortaskswherefulloralmostfullactivationonthesemanticlevelisneeded,itisgenerallyexpectedthatresponsetoambiguouswordsisnotfasterthanfornon-ambiguouswords.Eye-trackingresultsinvolvingtheamountoftimelookedatwords,suggestthatinthecaseofbalancedambiguouswords(meaningsareequallydistributed),thereisnodifferencewiththematchedcontrolwords(Duffy,Morris,&Rayner,1988;KRayner&Frazier,1989).However,whenconsideringbiasedambiguoustargetwords(wordswithadominantmeaning,andoneormoresubordinatemeanings),thereisadifferencewhenoneofthesubordinatemeaningsisinstantiated:subjectslooklongerattheambiguouswords,thanatthecontrolwords(Binder,K.S.,&Rayner,1998;Binder,2003;Duffyetal.,1988;Rayner,K.,Pacht,J.M.,&Duffy,1994).Thisiscalledthesubordinatebiaseffect(Pacht,J.M.,&Rayner,1993;Rayner,K.,Pacht,J.M.,&Duffy,1994).Apossibleexplanationforthissubordinatebiaseffectisthatwhenreadingtheambiguousword,bothmeaningswillbeactivated;thedominantmeaningisstrongerinconnectionsthanthesubordinatemeaning(Rayneretal,2006).Butbecausethepriorcontextbiasesthismeaning,conflictarisesbetweenthemeanings.Theresultsofthesestudiesindicatethatweusecontextforthedetermination/disambiguationofpropermeaning.Tasksinvolvingassociation-decision(askingparticipantshowrelatedtwowordsare),aswellassemanticcategorisationtasks(choosinginwhichsemanticcategory-forexample,livingthings-aparticularwordisconsidered)furtherconfirmtheideathatreactiontimesarelongerwithambiguouswords,whendeterminationofmeaningisexperimented(Gaskell,2007).

14

2.4.Conclusion2.4.1.ConclusionLanguageisseenasamentalprocess,existingofmultiplesubprocesses.Wordsensedisambiguation(WSD),thedeterminingofmeaningof(ambiguous)wordsisoneoftheseprocesses.Wecandividethecomprehensionoflanguagetodifferentlevels,amongstwhichthephonologicalandthesemanticlevel.Onthesemanticlevel,wefetchwordmeaningfromthesemanticmemory.Thesemanticmemorycanbemodelledasanetwork.Inthisnetwork,spreadingactivationconstitutestheprocessofwordmeaningretrieval.Whenreadingorhearingaword,phonologicalororthographicnodesareactivated,whichsubsequentlyactivatesemanticnodes.Withoutcontext,ambiguitycanbeadvantageousordetrimental.Inotherwords,duetoambiguityreactiontimescanbeshorterorlongerwithparticulartasks.Especiallyforlexicaldecisiontasksambiguityisbeneficial,becauseofstrongerfeedbackfromsemanticleveltoorthographiclevel,forambiguouswordshavingmultiplerepresentationsonsemanticlevel.Intasksinvolving(recall/determinatinof)meaning,ambiguityhasanelongatingeffectonreactiontimes.Studyingambiguouswordswherecontextispresent,ambiguitycausesdelays,becausereadingorhearingandincorporatingcontext-sotostrivetocoherenceofthesepiecesofinformation-concernsmeaningaswell.Resultsfromeye-trackingstudiesindicatethatpeopleusecontexttodisambiguateandthatinitially,allsensesofanambiguouswordareactivated.2.4.2.DiscussionCurrentknowledgeofWSDwithinpsycholinguisticswasoutlined.Criticalremarkscanbemadeforallstudiesandparadigms,andthissuggeststhatresearchonWSDisnotfinished.Especiallyconnectingtoautism,itremainsthequestionhowfundamentalandspecifictheproblemofambiguitypreciselyis.Thatiswhyanewexperimentisconducted.

15

3.ExperimentThedifficultiesforpeoplediagnosedwithASDthatinvolvelexicalambiguityareoutlinedinchapter1.Theneedforanexperimentwasposed.Totestwhetherthereisadifferenceinuseofcontextwhendisambiguatinghomonymsbetweenindividualswithautismandtypicallydevelopingindividuals,anovelexperimentwassetup.Theexperimentisdesignedtolookfordifferencesinperformance:scoresofchoosingsubordinatemeaningsofhomonymsfromwordswithoutcontext,orwithcontextcondition.Moreprecisely,ashiftinperformancefromwithouttowithcontextconditionisexplored.Apossibledifferencebetweenshiftingroupswithautismandinagroupoftypicaldevelopmentwasresearched.Ashintedpreviouslyintheearliermentionedresearchquestions,somehypothesesabouttheresultsarestated:Hypotheses

- Itisexpectedthattypicallydevelopingindividualsuserelatedsentencecontexttodisambiguatemeaningofhomonyms(e.g.striveforcentralcoherence).Specifically,onemightexpectthesesubjectstochoosefordominantmeaninginwordspresentedwithoutrelatedcontext,andshiftingtosubordinatemeaningswhencontext,relatingtothatspecificsubordinatemeaning,ispresent.

- Becauseoftheweakcentralcoherencetheory,andearlierexperimentsinvolvingambiguityandautism,itisexpectedthatindividualswithASDshowimpairmentorlackinuseofsentencecontexttodisambiguatehomonyms.Specifically,asmallerornon-existentshifttosubordinatemeaningisexpected,whenshiftingtowordswithsamecontexts.

3.1.Methods3.1.1.ParticipantsDescriptivesThirtyparticipantswereaskedtofillinthequestionnaire.Sixteenadolescentswithhigh-functioningautism(IQ>70)participated,asdidfourteentypicallydevelopingindividuals,matchingonage,gender2andeducation3.TherewasnodistinctionmadeforthetypeofASDasinthemostrecentDSM-V(APA,2013)theseweremergedtobecoveredunderthesameterm.AllthirtyparticipantshadDutchastheirnativelanguage,asthiswasanimportantprerequisitetobeabletoproperlyparticipateintheexperiment,thatusesDutchambiguouswords.RecruitmentMultipleinstitutionswerecontactedinwritingandbytelephonefortheacquisitionofyoungindividualswithautism,inparticulardifferentlocationsofsubsidiaryorganisationsofJADOS4:Stumass,CapitoandIVA.ThoseinterestedtoparticipatewerefoundinthecitiesofEindhovenandNijmegen.Communicationranthroughtheresidentialsupervisorsofthedifferenthousesforguidedliving,settingupappointmentsperlocation.Recruitmentoftypicallydevelopingindividualswentthroughword-of-mouth,andmyownnetwork.14participantswerefound,spreadthroughthecountry.

2Generallyonly1femaleisdiagnosedwithautism,asopposedto4males(Fombonne,2009)3NodirectIQscoreswereused,butallthirtyparticipantscompletedsecondaryeducation4http://www.jados.nloffersguidedlivingintheformoforganisationsStumassforhighereducationstudentswithautism,CapitofortheDutchMBOeducationstudentswithautism,andIVAforworkingpeoplewithautism.

16

3.1.2.MaterialsExperimentalmaterialsconsistedof30sentences,allhavingcontextsentences,butonlyhalfofthemactuallyappearingincontextperexperiment(seefordetails,Task).Eachsentencecontainedalexicallyambiguousword,ahomonym.Aftereachsentencetheparticipantwasaskedtochooseforoneoftwomeaningsforthehomonym:oneofthembeingthedominantmeaning,onethesubordinate,withthisfactnotappearingonscreen.Sentenceswere3to8wordsinlength,andthecontextswere40wordsinlength,withamarginof2.HomonymsandtheirmeaningsAcquisitionofambiguouswordsproceededviaownbrainstorming,withthehelpofothers,andresearchonline.Checkingforwhetherbeingahomonym,andmoreimportantly,themeaningdistributionsofthesehomonyms,wentthroughtheSmallWorldofWords(SWOW)projectdatabase(Deyne,Navarro,&Storms,2013),which“startedattheExperimentalPsychologydepartmentoftheUniversityinLeuven(Belgium)in2003andalreadyresultedinthelargestavailablenetworkofwordassociationsinDutch(over5Mresponses)andEnglish(over1Mresponses)”5,asofMay2016.ThisdatabasecontainswordassociationsformostcommonDutchandEnglishwords.Thelistofhomonymsobtained,wascheckedforhavingmultipledistinctmeanings,andwasfilteredtohave30homonymsintheendthathadacleardominantandsubordinatemeaning.DistributionsofmeaningattributionsfortheusedhomonymscanbefoundintheAppendixC.Afterrecalculatingthistableofdistributions,onesentencewasfoundtohavethewrongcontext.Inthiscase,thecontextdidnothavethepropertyofpushinginthesubordinatedirection;insteaditstrivedforthealreadydominantmeaning.Therefore,thisquestioncanberegardedasanoutlier.Uponlearningofthisfact,analysiswascarriedouta2ndtime,toseeiftheresultswerethesame,moreonthisisdescribedintheResultssection.RandomisationOrderofquestions,aswelltheorderofthetwoanswersperquestion,wasrandomised,accordingtowidelyusedandcitedserviceRandom.org(2016),withrandomisationprocessesbasedonatmosphericnoise.3.1.3.QuestionnaireBeforethe30homonym-sentencesandtheirquestionsformeaning,notonlyinstructionwasgiven.Acoupleofstandarddemographicdatawasaskedtofillin.Aftertheexperimentalquestions,participantswereaskedtofillinsomeadditionalquestionsaboutthewholeoftheexperimentaswell,forinterpretingpurposes.Fortheprecisequestionnaireused,includingthecontextsforeachtarget-sentence,seeAppendixB.

5http://www.smallworldofwords.com/new/visualize/

17

3.1.4.TaskToexaminewhetherindividualswithASDhavemoredifficultyusingsentencecontexttomakedecisionsregardinghomonyms,participantsweregiven15sentenceswithprecedingcontext,and15sentenceswithoutprecedingcontext.Theywereaskedtochoosefromtwomeaningsofahomonymthatwascontainedinthesentences.Eachquestionenforcedtochoosebetweentwomeanings,adominantandasubordinatemeaningofthetargethomonymword.Therewasnocountdownonthetimethatparticipantstookforquestions.Whencontextwaspresent,thesepartsofasentencecontainedmeaningsassociatedwiththesubordinatemeaningofthehomonym,withoutusingwordsthatareseenasdirectassociationsofthehomonym.(Controlledfor,usingtheSWOWdatabase)Forexample,therewasaDutchsentenceonsomethingbeing“light”(“licht”inDutch),possiblymeaning“light”asopposedto“heavy”,or“light”fromalightsource.IntheSWOWdatabasetheDutchword“licht”wasfoundtohavethemeaningofalightsourceasdominantmeaning,andthenot-heavymeaningassubordinate(alsoseeAppendixC),sowhenthisparticulartargetsentenceappearedwithprecedingcontext,thiscontextpushedtothesenseofnot-heavy,thesubordinatemeaning.Seethatsameexamplebelow:

Condition: Withoutcontext WithContext

Context: -

Iemandgaatverhuizen.Erzijnveelspullendiegedragenmoetenworden,enhetduurdeevenvoordatallemeubelsendozennaarbinnenwarengedragen.Tochleekhetuiteindelijkminderwerktekostendangedacht.

Sentence: “Datiswelfijn,licht.” “Datiswelfijn,licht.”Table1:Experimentalquestionouttake,withoutandwithcontextconditionsOnehalfoftheASDgroupreceived15homonymwordswithcontext,15without;andtheotherhalfofthegroupreceivedthesamewords,butwiththeconditionsofwhethercontainingcontextswapped,sotheother15homonymswithcontext,andtheother15without.Theserepeatedmeasuresinthiscrosseddesignwerecounterbalancedforallparticipants.Thesameprocesswentforthetypicaldevelopmentcontrolgroup.Foreveryonerandomisationwasusedforthesentenceorder,topreventorderofquestion-setsororderofhomonymshavinganeffectontheresult.(Asearliermentioned,oneofthequestionscontainedthewrongcontext,andmeasuredfortheswitcheddominantandsubordinateidentifiers.)3.1.5.ProcedureCarryingoutexperimentExperimentswerecarriedoutinthecomfortsofparticipants’ownhomes;forpeoplewithASD,thealreadydescribedguidedlivingareas.Quite,commonroomswereused,withdistractionssuchasotherresidents,ornoisesnotpresent.Foreachparticipantalaptopwasusedtocarryouttheexperimentitself.Acoupleoftimesthiswasadifferentlaptop,butitwasmadesurethesameresolutionandscreensize,aswellasbrightness,wasused.Afterintroduction(viatheresidentialsupervisors),spokeninstructionsweregivenminimallyandtoallparticipantsofthathomeatonce.Furtherinstructionwas

18

presentedonscreen,toparticipantsindividually.FulldetailsofinstructionsgivencanbefoundintheAppendixA.ConsentformAconsentformwashandedout,andrequestedtobefilledinupontheparticipantfinishingtheexperiment.Thisformstatedtheparticipant’spermission(firstsignee)tousehis/heranswersforthesolepurposeofthisresearch,andrequiredthepledgeoftheexaminer(secondsignee)tohandlealldatarespectfullyandsecured,tonotsharethedatawithothersandtoguaranteethatthedatawillbedestroyedafterfiveyears.Forfulldetails,pleasefindtheconsentformintheAppendixD.2.1.6.Pre-processingProcessingofthedataunderwentseveralstepsbeforeanalysiswaspossible.Stepsaredescribedbelow:

• Datawasstoreddirectlyin*.csvfiles,passwordprotectedonthelaptopoftheexaminer.

• ThesedatafilesweresubsequentlyimportedinanExcelfile(againpassword-protected),andseveralmove-operationswereusedtomergethedataintoacleartablewithonemeasurementperrow,soadifferentrowforeverystimulus-answer.

• Recode-operationswereusedtoreplacethechosenanswerswiththeirrespectivedominantorsubordinateidentifier;0wasusedfordominant,1forsubordinate.

• DatawasimportedinanSPSSfile,asrepeatedmeasures,30subjectsx30questionscountingfor900rows.

• RecodingandcomputeoperationswereusedtomaketheSPSSdatafilefitforrepeatedmeasuresanalysis.Newvariableswerecreatedforthesum-scoresofchosensubordinates,respectivelyforcontextandnon-context,thusresultingintwosum-variables.

• Toaccountfortheproportionstothetotalamountofquestionsinthesetwoconditions,twoadditionalvariableswerecomputedusingSPSS,SumNocontextProp,andSumContextProp(thetwopreviousdescribedsumvariables,dividedby15each).

19

3.2Results3.2.1.ExperimentaldesignAtwo-waymixeddesign(fullycrossedfactorial)waschosenforthisexperiment,withasbetween-subjectfactorthepassiveobservationofwhethertheparticipantwasdiagnosedwithAutismSpectrumDisorderornot(resultinginthetwogroupsASDandTypical),andaswithin-subjectcondition,thepresentationofprecedingcontextvs.no-context.Thedependentvariablewasthesubordinatescore,calculatedasthesumofchosensubordinatemeaningsinthetworespectiveconditions.3.2.2.AnalysistechniqueThisexperimentanditsfollowinganalysistestforinteractionofthebetween-subjectandthewithin-subjectfactor.Thatis,whetherthereisaninteractionbetweenhavingautismornot,andchoosingsubordinatemeaningsincontextorno-contextconditions.Atwo-wayANOVA(GLMrepeatedmeasurestest)waschosenasanalysistechnique.Thedependentvariablewasrecomputedastheproportionofthesubordinatescore,sothepreviouslydescribedscoredividedbythetotalofquestionsinthatcondition(15)resultingintwovariableswithcontinuousscores,between0and1.Toreiterate:themainhypothesisisthatthescorechangesoverconditionfortypicallydevelopingindividuals,andnotsomuchforpeoplewithASD.Also,itisexpectedthatintheconditionwithoutanycontext,theautismandTypicalgroupperformsimilar,whereasinthecondition,theTypicalgroupmightexpectedtobeperformingbetter.ThiswouldmeantheTypicalgroupisexpectedtobeperformingbetter,averagedoverallInstatisticalterms,the(HA)hypothesescanbestatedas:

- ThereisadifferenceinperformancebetweentheTypicaldevelopmentandtheASDgroup

- Thereisaninteractioneffectbetweenthegroupandtheconditionfactors=theeffectofgrouponperformanceisdependentofthecondition,andviceversa.

3.2.3.DescriptivestatisticsDemographicsOfthe30participantstheagerangedfrom19to29withameanof22.5(σ=2,6).FortheASDgroupthiswascomparable(N=16,M=22,1,σ=2,1)sinceitwasmatchedwiththeTypicalgrouponage(N=14,M=22,9,σ=3,1).Only10%oftheparticipantswasolderthan25.10%oftheparticipantswerefemale,90%male(ASD:12,5%female,Typical:7,1%female)(prevalenceofASDinmalesisfoundtobehigheracrossglobalpopulation(Newschafferetal.,2007)).Professionalstatuswasspread,butparticipantsweremainlystudent(87,5%inASD,66,7%intotal)orworking(50%inTypical,30%intotal).Educationwasspreadaswell,withhighesteducationinASD:43,8%highereducation(HBOoruniversity),56,2%hadhighschoolorMBOaseducation.Inthetypicaldevelopmentgroup85,7%hadhighereducation,14,3%lower.ExperimentLookingatthequestionsaskedwithoutcontext,thetypicaldevelopmentgroupchoseforsubordinatemeaningin41,9%ofthetime(averagingoverthe30questions),andtheASDgroupchoseforsubordinatemeanings47,9%ofthetime.

20

Exploringthesubordinatescoresforbothgroupsinbothconditions,gavethefollowingmeansandstandarddeviations:Measure ASD/Typical Mean St.Dev.(σ) N

Subordinate-score(proportionalised)withoutcontext

Typical .4190 .11819 14ASD .4792 .11213 16Total .4511 .11703 30

Subordinate-scorewithcontext Typical .8095 .11652 14ASD .7042 .17549 16Total .7533 .15771 30

Table2:Descriptivestatisticsofallparticipantsperformancesinexperiment.Wecanherealreadyseeadifferencebetweenproportionofsubordinateschosenbythetypicaldevelopmentgroupinthedifferentconditions,withaconsistentstandarddeviation,andamuchlessershiftacrossconditionsbytheASDgroup,withthespreadquitelargerintheContextcondition.Forafullboxplotofthesedata(inwhichyoucanseethespreadinmoredetail),seebelow,undertheassumptionforoutliers.3.2.4.AssumptionsBeforeatwo-wayANOVAanalysiscanbecarriedout,someassumptionsneedtobesatisfied.

• DataneedstobenormallydistributedNormalityofdatawastestedusingtheproportionofsubordinatespersubject(dependentvariable)amongthetwodifferentconditions(within-subjectfactor)inthetwodifferentgroups(between-subjectfactor).ThesevariablesweretestedusingtheShapiro-Wilktestandfoundtobenormallydistributed(allp>0,05)(notrejectingtheH0hypothesisthatthedataresemblesaGaussiandistribution.)Alltheseresultshadthesameconclusioninthe2ndanalysiswith29ofthe30questions:normalitywasassumedwithallpvalues>0,05.

• DatahastocontainnooutliersAscanbeassessedbyinspectionofaboxplot,nooutliersweredetectedindataofthegroupsASDandTypicalfortherespectivesubordinatesproportionscores.Alsovisibleintheboxplotisthespreadofthedata,whichintheContextconditionismuchlargerfortheASDgroup.(Alltheseresultshadthesameconclusioninthe2ndanalysiswith29ofthe30questions:nooutliers)

Figure2:Boxplotofallparticipants'performances

21

• Homogeneityofvariance. Therewashomogeneityofvariances,asassessedbyLevene'stestofhomogeneityofvariance(nocontext:p=0,745,context:p=0,059).(Alltheseresultshadthesameconclusioninthe2ndanalysiswith29ofthe30questions:nocontext:p=0,856,context:p=0,110)

• Assumptionofsphericity.Determiningwhetherthisassumptionismet,happensbymeansofMauchly'stestofsphericity.Becauseofonlyhavingtwoconditionsforthewithin-subjectscondition,theε-valuesare1.000andindicateperfectsphericity.Sothisassumptionisautomaticallymet.

• Assumptionofequalityofcovariances.Therewashomogeneityofcovariances,asassessedbyBox'stestofequalityofcovariancematrices(p=0,547)(Alltheseresultshadthesameconclusioninthe2ndanalysiswith29ofthe30questions:p=0,597)

3.2.5.StatisticalanalysisTestsofWithin-SubjectsEffectsTheresultsoftwo-wayinteractionandsignificancescoresareillustratedbelow,indicatedintheContext*ASD_Typrow.Measure:performanceonsubordinatescores

TypeIIISumofSquares

df MeanSq F Sign.(p)

partialη2

Observedpower

ASD_Typ .008 1 .008 .359 .554 .013 .089Context 1.414 1 1.414 96.079 .000 .774 1.000 Context * ASD_Typ .102 1 .102 6.945 .014 .199 .720 Error(Context) .412 28 .015 Error(ASD_Typ) .597 28 .021 Table3:statisticalresultsofanalysisforBetween,WithinandInteractioneffects.Wecanconcludethattherewasastatisticallysignificantinteractionbetweenthegroup-factor(ASD/Typ.)andcontext-conditiononproportionofsubordinateschosen,F(1,28)=6,945,p<0,05,partialη2=0,199.(Alltheseresultshadthesameconclusioninthe2ndanalysiswith29ofthe30questions:p<0,05(0,018)andF(1,28)=6,376)

22

Theexistenceoftwo-wayinteractionbetweengroup(ASD/Typical)andcondition(nocontext/context)factorscanbeobservedbyvisuallyinspectingtheprofileplotafterrunningthetwo-wayANOVA.

Figure3:Profileplotforinteraction.1=NoContext,2=Contextcondition

Simplyput,thelinesarenotparallel,soonemightexpectaninteractioneffect.BecausethelinesfortheASDandTypicaldevelopmentgroupscrossovertheconditions,itislikelytofindasignificantinteractioneffect.Between-subjecteffectTheeffectofgroup,overall,wasnotsignificant,ascanbeseeninTable3(F(1,28)=0,359,p=0,554,partialη2=0,013,in2ndanalysis:F(1,28)=0,251,p=0,620,partialη2=0,009)ThistellsusthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweentheTypicalDevelopmentandAutismgroupswhenlookingatoverallperformanceonthequestionsintheexperiment,disregardingtheco-presenceofcontext.Differencesinno-contextconditionAscouldbeseenearlierintheboxplot,the“beginning”conditionso-to-speak,theconditionwhenthereisnocontextpresent,showedadifferencebetweenthetwogroups.Anindependentsamplest-testwasruntodeterminethesedifferences.Thesubordinatescorewashigherforthe16ASDparticipants(M=0,479,σ=0,112)thanfortheTypicaldevelopingparticipants(M=0,419,σ=0,118).Thisdifferencewasnotsignificant(meandifference=-0,06,95%CI[-0.15,0.03],t(28)=-1,429,p=0,164,d=0,52)(In2ndanalysis:t(28)=-1,486,p=0,149).Thispvaluemeansthereisa16,4%chanceofgettingameandifferencebetweenanASDandTypicalgroupatleastaslargeastheoneobtained,ifthenullhypothesisistrue(theH0statingthatthereisnodifferencebetweenthegroupmeans).Differenceinno-contextconditioncanbeseeninthebarchartbelow.

23

Figure4:barchartofgroupdifferencesinno-contextcondition

Thelastquestionwasfoundtobeincorrectaccordingtotheexperimentsetup(see2.1.2Materials).Afterinitialanalysis,thisquestionwasconsideredasmissingvalueandasecondanalysiswasrun.The2ndanalysisresultsyieldedslightlydifferentvalues(mentionedthroughoutthetext)buthadthesameconclusions.3.2.6.ConclusionTherewerenooutliers,asassessedbyboxplot.Thedatawasnormallydistributed,asassessedbyShapiro-Wilk'stestofnormality(p>,05).Therewashomogeneityofvariances(p>,05)andcovariances(p>,05),asassessedbyLevene'stestforhomogeneityofvariancesandBox'sMtestrespectively.Mauchly'stestofsphericityindicatedthattheassumptionofsphericitywasautomaticallymetforthetwo-wayinteraction.Therewasasignificantinteractionbetweenthegroup-factor(ASD/Typ.)andcontext-conditiononproportionofsubordinateschosen(F(1,28)=6,945,p<0,05,partialη2=0,199).Theeffectofgroup,overall,wasnotsignificant(F(1,28)=0,359,p=0,554,partialη2=0,013).Thedifferenceintheno-contextcondition,betweengroups,wasnotsignificant(t(28)=-1,429,p=0,164).

24

4.DiscussionThisthesistriedtoaddtotheknowledgeoftheweakcentralcoherencetheoryforAutismSpectrumDisorder(Frith,1989;F.Happé&Frith,2006).Existingliteraturewassummarized,andanoveldesignedexperimentwasconducted,inordertoanswerresearchquestions.Iwillelaborateonthesequestions.Afterthat,inwhatwaytheseresultscanbeapplied,isoutlined.Somelimitationsarediscussed,andlastly,conclusionsaresummarised.4.1.ResearchquestionsReiterating,themainresearchquestionofthisthesis,was:“Doescontextualinformationresolvelexicalambiguityforindividualswithautismspectrumdisorder?”Thedifferentsub-questionswereusedtoanswerthisquestion,sofirst,Iwilltrytoanswerthesesub-questions.4.1.1.Sub-question1Tounderstandthistopic,therewastheneedtoseeif:

1. IsambiguityaproblemthatisresolvedwithinASD,inthesamewayasitisfortypicaldevelopingindividuals?

Toresolvedifferentkindsoflinguisticambiguity,peopleusecontext(Gaskell,2007).Fortasksinvolvingvisuo-spatialcontext,individualswithASDarefacilitatedbytheuseofcontexttoacomparableextentastypicaldevelopingindividualsdo(López&Leekam,2003).Intasksconcerninglexicaldecisionorsemanticcategorisation,whereambiguityseemstoinitiallybeanadvantage(Borowsky,R.,&Masson,1996;Jastrzembski,J.E.,&Stanners,1975;Kellas,G.,Ferraro,F.R.,&Simpson,1988),peoplewithASDwerefacilitatedbyverbalcontextaswell(López&Leekam,2003).However,whenmeaningisinvolved,studiesforresolvinghomograph-ambiguity(F.G.E.Happé,1997;Jolliffe&Baron-cohen,1999)andauditorypresentedsentenceambiguity(Jolliffe&Baron-cohen,1999)showedthatuseofcontext,andthereforethestriveforcentralcoherence,wasimpairedforindividualswithhigh-functioningautism.Itseemsthatthereisaspecificissuewithlexicalambiguityandprocessingmeaning,forASD.4.1.1.Sub-question2Focusingin,subsequently,wecanwonder:

2. DoestheuseofcontextresolveambiguityforpeoplewithASD,inataskformeaningofhomonyms?

Anovelexperimentwasdesignedandconducted,thatstudiedtheuseofprecedingcontexttoswitchtosubordinatemeanings(insteadofdominant)ofhomonymswhencontextpushedtodoso,betweenASDandTypicalDevelopmentgroups.Thisbroughtsomehypothesestomind.

25

Thesehypotheseswerestatedas:- Itisexpectedthattypicallydevelopingindividualsuseprecedingsentencecontext

todisambiguatemeaningofhomonyms(e.g.striveforcentralcoherence).- Becauseoftheweakcentralcoherencetheory,andearlierexperimentsinvolving

ambiguityandautism,itisexpectedthatindividualswithASDshowimpairmentorlackinuseofsentencecontexttodisambiguatehomonyms.

Thisbroughtforwardthestatisticaltestablehypotheses.Thosearediscussedbelow.

4.1.1.2.Sub-question2:statisticalhypothesis1

- Thereisaninteractioneffectbetweenthegroupandtheconditionfactors.-

Anexperimentfortwogroups:ASDandTD,compromisingquestionswithoutandwithprecedingcontext,wassetup.Therewasfoundtobeasignificantinteractioneffectbetweenthegroup-factor(ASD/Typ.)andwithin-subjectscondition(nocontext/context).Theexperimentcontrolledforage,andmaleASDprevalencebeingmuchhigher(Fombonne,2009),andaddressedadolescentswithhigh-functioning,allhavingatleastfinishedhigh-school.Theperformancewasmeasuredastheproportionofsubordinatemeaningschosen,expectedtobelowwithoutcontext,becauseofchoosingdominantmeanings,andexpectedtobehigh,whensentencecontextpushedtowardssubordinatemeanings.However,ascouldbeseenfromtheprofileplot(Figure3),andtakingintoaccounttheboxplot(Figure2),individualswithautismshowedlessclearashifttowardsusingcontext,asTDsdid.Theinteractioneffectstatesthattheinfluenceofprecedingcontextontheperformance,dependsonthecategoryofgroups:havingautismornotinfluencestowhatextentcontextisusedindisambiguatinghomonyms.ThisseemstoconfirmthepredictionfromthecentralcoherencetheorythatindividualswithanASDwillbeimpairedinabilitytoachievecoherence(F.Happé&Frith,2006;F.Happé,1997).

4.1.1.2.Sub-question2:statisticalhypothesis2- ThereisadifferenceinperformancebetweentheTypicaldevelopmentandtheASD

groupTherewasnosignificantbetween-subjecteffectfoundoverall(p=0,554)whichsuggeststheoveralluseofcontextfordisambiguatinghomonymsisnotsodifferentbetweenASDandTD.However,thatiswhenconditionswithandwithoutcontextarepresent.Inreallife,thereisalwayscontextintheformofanenvironment,andalsoalmostalwayslexicalcontext,intheformofconversation,texts,etc.Also,lookingatthespreadintheboxplot(Figure2),youcouldsaytheoveralleffectissomewhatleveledout,becauseoftheASDgroupchoosingsubordinatessomewhatmore,intheinitialcondition,withoutcontextalready.Whenuseofcontextisrequiredtochoosethesubordinatemeaningthatisofimportanceinaparticularsentence,theASDgroupshowedahugespread,andscoredlowerthanTD.Thebetween-groupeffectisnotstatisticallysignificant,but,Iargue,alsonotpracticallythatsignificant,becausetheinfluenceofcontextinreal-lifeexamplesisalwayspresent.Therewillalwaysbeaninfluenceofsuchacondition,aswellas(asisevidentfromtheinteractioneffect)theinfluenceofhavingASDornot.

26

ConclusionAlso,theseresultssuggestthatlexicalambiguityisafundamentalissuewithinASD.WhereasdiagnosisandcharacterisationofASDhappensonahighleveltraits,suchascommunicationandobsessiveness,theproblemofdealingwithsubtletiesinsocialcommunication,suchashomonymspose,seemstobealreadydistinguishingautism,onsuchaspecific,fundamentallevel.Thisissomethingthathastobekeptinmind,designingtherapies,andasapossibleextensionofthediagnosisprocessofautism.4.2.ApplicationofresultsToanswersub-question3,thisparagraphisused,todiscusstheimplicationsinmoredetail.4.2.1.Sub-question3

3. CanresultsfrommeasurementsforminputforfutureArtificialIntelligence(AI)applications,tohelpindividualsbediagnosedwithASD?

4.2.2DiagnosisCurrentdiagnosisDiagnosisofanautismspectrumdisorderisstillsolelydependentonjudgementofclinicians.Theirintuitionforthesocialinteractionofachildandinterviewswithparentsserveasdiagnostictools.Socialskillslikeeye-contact,facialexpressions,posturesandgesturesareobserved.TheseinterviewsarestandardizedinformsofAutismDiagnosticInterview-Revised(ADI-R)(Rutter,M.,LeCouteur,A.,&Lord,2003)andtheAutismDiagnosticObservationSchedule(ADOS)(Lord,C.etal2000),butautismremainsadisorderspecifiedonbehavior.Thereisnobloodtest,nofunctionalimaging,norageneticscreeningthatcanmakeadiagnosisofASD(Volkmaretal.2004),andnobiologicalmarkersareusedindiagnosis(Anagnostou&Taylor,2011).Theobservationaljudgmentsthatarequantifiedinthesementionedstandardizedprotocolsarenotprecise,aswellassubjective.Thereisdisagreementofcliniciansonindividualdiagnoses,whichposesdifficultiesforboththeselectionofappropriatetreatmentsforpatients,andforthereportingofresultsofpopulation-basedstudies(Klin,A.etal2000;Volkmar,F.,Chawarska,K.,&Klin,2005).Also,thebehavioraldiagnosisasitisusedtoday,requiresconsiderabletimeinvestmentonthepartofparentsandclinicians.(Wall,Dally,Luyster,Jung,&DeLuca,2012)ThepracticeofdiagnosingASDnotonlyvarieswidelyintermsofstandardsandtimeframes,itappearsthatfamiliessometimeswaitaslongas13monthsbetweeninitialscreeninganddiagnosis(Wiggins,L.D.,Baio,J.O.N.,&Rice,2006)andevenlonger,whenbeingpartofaminoritypopulationorofalowersocio-economicstatus(Bernier,R.,Mao,A.,&Yen,2010).Thesedelayscandirectlytranslateintodelaysinthespeech-deliveryandbehaviouraltherapythathassignificantpositiveimpactonthedevelopmentofachild,especiallywhenthisisdeliveredearly(Hadwinetal.,1998;Pinto-Martinetal.,2008).However,neuro-imagingstudiesandstudieswithinfantssuggestthereareactuallyfundamentaldifferencesthatcouldbeusedtomakediagnosis,andthusfurthertreatment(-selection)thereupon,fasterandmorereliable.

27

Neuro-imagingOneofthemostreplicatedfindingsinneuro-imagingisearlybrainovergrowthforpeoplewithASD,whichisalsoassociatedwithatypicalfunctionalandstructuralconnectivityinthebrain.Alsocorticalthicknessandsurfaceareaneedtobeexaminedfurtherincombinationwiththis,becauseitcouldshedlightonearlyneuroanatomicaldifferences,indicatorsofdevelopmentaleventsinASD(Anagnostou&Taylor,2011).Thisatypicalconnectivitycouldbeacauseforproblemswithcomplexinformationprocesseslikethestriveforcentralcoherence.AsAnagnostou&Taylorargueintheirreviewofdifferentneuro-imagingstudiesforASD,methodsusingwithfMRI,neurochemicalstudiesandstudiesforstructuralconnectivitycouldbecombinedwithinthesamecohortofsubjectsandinadevelop-mentalmanner.ThisfocuscouldhighlightshareddevelopmentalabnormalitiesinASD.Itcouldlikeimagingfindingstounderlyingneurobiology,whichisanecessarysteptofurtherfacilitateexperimentaltherapeutics.(Anagnostou&Taylor,2011)Furthermore,reductionsinsizeofthecorpuscallosumarefoundinautism(Hardan,Minshew&Keshavan,2000;Pivenetal.,1997),aswellasdecreasedfunctionalconnectivitybetweenhemispheres(Egaas,Courchesne&Saitoh,1995;Pivenetal.,1997).Thistoo,canleadtodecreasedinformationintegrationcapacity(Justetal.,2004;Schultz,Romanski&Tsatsanis,2000).Imagingdatasuggeststhereisatemporo-frontalpathwaylateralizedintherighthemisphereforprosodyandasimilarpathwaylateralizedinthelefthemisphereforsyntax/semantics,andthatthesepathwaysareconnectedviathecorpuscallosum(Friederici&Alter,2004),resultingindifficultyintegratinginformationfromprosodywithotheraspectsoflanguage(Diehletal.,2008).InfantsAsneuro-imagingcouldbegintoplayapartinearlydiagnosisofASD,alsoexperimentalstudyofinfantshasshownthatdeficitsineye-contactisnotonlyanalreadywide-knowntraitinautism,itsearlyonsetshowsacleardeclineineye-fixation,forinfantsof2to6monthsold,laterdiagnosedwithASD.ThispatternwasnotobservedininfantsnotdevelopingASD.(Jones&Klin,2013)FurthertechniquesOntopofinfantstudy,andneuro-imagingtechniques,testsliketheonedescribedintheexperimentofthisthesis,couldplayanextrarolein(early)diagnosis.Asambiguitystudiesforautismwithhomographs(Happé,1997;Jolliffe&Baron-Cohen,1999;López&Leekam,2003)haveshown,aswellastheexperimentalresultspresentedhere,lexicalambiguityseemstobeamajor,fundamentalproblem,showingdifferencesofperformanceonalow/sentencelevel.Usingtheseresults,testscanbedesigned,toseeifpeopleshowlittledifferenceinperformanceofdisambiguation,acrossconditionsofcontextandno-context.Namely,theseresultscouldbeanindicatorofpoorintegrationofcontextandweakcentralcoherence,andthereforeautism.Databaseswithlargedatasetsonlexicalandstructuralinformationcouldbeusedforimplementing,likethealreadydescribedSmallWorldOfWords(Deyneetal.,2013)orforexampleWordNet(PrincetonUniversity,2010).Notethatsolely,suchatestcouldneverbeadirectindicationofASDandinisolationcouldnotyieldadiagnosis.Resultsliketheonesdescribedcouldhavemanymoreothercauses,likelearningimpairments.

28

Thatiswhysuchproposedextratestsaresuggestedtobeanextratoolindiagnosis.Theprocesscouldbeashorttesttoprioritizefurtherdiagnosis.Neuro-imagingorlongitudinalstudiesdescribedabovecouldserveassuchanearlyextratoolaswell,withanimportantdifferencethatthesewouldtakealotofeffortandtime;alotofcommitmentbeforemovingontoatherapeuticaldiagnosis.However,whenclear,conclusiveneurobiologicalindicatorswouldbefoundforautism,thesewouldofcoursebehighlysuggestedmethodsaswell.MachineLearningandtheADI-RAlastsuggestionforhelpindiagnosiscomesfrommachinelearning.Theearlierdescribedstandardinterviewusedindiagnosis,theAutismDiagnosticInterview-Revised(ADI-R)consistsof93questionsandcantakeupto2,5hours(Walletal.,2012).InastudybyWalletal.from2012machinelearningtechniqueswerestudiestoreducethisamount.TheyfoundthattheAlternatingDecisionTree(ADTree)hadhighsensitivityandspecificityintheclassificationofindividualswithautism.TheADTreeclassifierconsistedofonly7(ofthe93)questions,93%fewerthanthefullADI-Rinterview,andperformedwithlargerthan99%accuracywhentheyappliedittoindependentpopulationsofindividualswithautism,misclassifyingonlyoneoutofthe1962casesusedforvalidation.Thiscouldbeamajorimprovementforanearlyextratoolindiagnosis.4.2.3.TherapyAlso,IthinktheresultsofthisthesiscanaddtothetherapiesforpeoplewithASD.Whenconsideringlexicalambiguityasaveryspecificissue,posingdifficultyforindividualswithautism,therapiesandsocialstories(Gray&Garand,1993)couldbedevelopedthatfocusonuseofcontext.Previousresearchhasalreadyshownthatpeoplewithautismfeelcomfortableinpredictableenvironments.Moreparticularly,theyenjoyinteractingwithcomputers.Thiscouldbeexplainedbytheattentionofpeoplewithautism,whichtendstobefixedonisolatedobjectsapartfromthesurroundingarea.Computerscanbreakintothisworldbyfocusingtheattentiononthescreen,sothatexternaleventscanbeignoredmoreeasily(Murray,2011).Computer-basedtherapiesandeducationareseenasaneffectiveaidinteachinglanguagetochildrenwithautismforatimenow(Hershkowitz,2000).Wecanconcludethatthehelpofcomputersishighlysuggestedwhenimplementingpossibletestsdescribedabove.Interactiveeducationalenvironments,forexamplebasedontheuseofrobotics,iscurrentlyawidelyresearchedandimplementedarea(Kientzetal.,2013;Ricks,D.J.,&Colton,2010).Thisthesissuggeststhatalsointhisfield,afocusshouldbedevelopedonintegratingcontext,especiallyforlexicalambiguity;asopposedtothefairlywellperformanceonviso-spatialambiguity(López&Leekam,2003).

29

4.3Limitations4.3.1.CriticsonCentralCoherencetheoryOnemainpointofcriticsoftheweakcentralcoherencetheorywasthatitdoesnotaccountforthewholerangeofautisticdisorders.Astudyby(Jarrold&Russell,1997),citedin(F.Happé&Frith,2006)showedthatweakcentralcoherenceoccursonlyinsomepartofthepopulationwithanautisticdisorder.Forthis,andmorereasons,HappéandFrithadjustedthetheoryin2006.Oneofthechangesconsistedofthedeficitincentralprocesses,thatmanifesteditselfbyfailingtocometoaoverallmeaning,beingchangedfromaprimarytoasecondaryproblem,wherethesuperiorityinlocalordetailorientedprocessinggainedmoreimportance.Amoreremarkableadjustmentwasthechangingofthedescriptivenature,toanacknowledgementthatweakcoherenceisbutanaspectofcognitionwithinautism,insteadofthedeterminingfactorfordeficienciesinsocialskillsthatarepresentinpeoplewithASD.4.3.3.ExperimentTheexperimentcarriedoutinthisthesiscontainssomelimitations,whicharedescribedbelow.WrongquestionUponrecheckingthedistributionstableofthe30homonymsusedintheexperiment(seeAppendixC),thelastonewasfoundtohavethewrongdominantandsubordinateidentifiers,andbecauseofthis,thewrongprecedingcontextaccordingtotheexperimentdesign.MeaningdistributionsAnimportantlimitationofthisexperimenttobenoted,isthatitdidnotcontrolfortheexactdistributionsofdominantandsubordinatemeanings.Thatis,intheresults,scoreswerebasedonhowmanysubordinateschoseninthedifferentconditionsoverall.However,sometimesasubordinatemeaninginno-contextischosen(inpreviousdatabaseslikeSWOW)10%ofthetime,andsometimes30%,forexample.Thisexperimentonlycheckedforameaningbeingnotablysubordinate.Amoredetailedexperimentshould:

- Onlyusehomonymswithsubordinateanddominantmeaningswithsamedistributions,orbecausethisispracticallyimpossible

- accountfortheprecisedistributions,whencomputingamoreadvancedscore,thatcanbeusedasameasurementinasimilarexperimentastheonedescribedhere.

30

4.4.ConclusionInthisthesis,atheoreticalbackgroundwasgivenonautism(ASD),andthedifficultiesindividualswithASDencounterwithintegratinginformation/context,especiallywithlexicalambiguity.AnovelexperimentwassetuptoseeifpeoplewithASDcandisambiguatehomonymsusingprecedingsentencecontext,andtheimplicationsofthisexperimentwerediscussed.Thisresultedinanswerstodifferentsub-questions.Below,themainresearchquestionisdiscussed,aswellasproposalsforfutureresearch.4.4.1.Researchquestion“Doescontextualinformation(4)resolve(3)lexicalambiguity(2)forindividualswithautismspectrumdisorder(1)?”

1. Autismspectrumdisorderisabehaviouraldisorderthatposesdifferentkindsofissues,amongwhichsocialcommunication.

2. Withinsocialcommunication,subtletiesinlanguage,andintegratinginformationtoresolvethesenuancesandambiguityareaclearproblem.Muchresearchhasbeencarriedout,andhasshownthatespeciallystrivingforcentralcoherenceisweakened.Integratinginformationusedfordisambiguatingmeaningoflexicalambiguityisimpaired.

3. Becausethisabilityisimpaired,wetrytoexaminehowfundamentalthisproblemis.Onwhatlevelisambiguityalreadyaproblem?Thisiswhyanexperimentwascarriedout,requiringparticipantstoresolvelexicalambiguity,choosingforspecificmeaningsofambiguouswords.

4. Inordertodoso,andtoinspectintegratinginformationuse,contextualinformationwasaddedtoseethatifsuchafundamentalproblemarises,doesitconfirmweakcentralcoherence?

“No”isnotapossibleanswertothisresearchquestion,becauseresultsshowedthatindividualswithASDactuallyimprovedperformancewhensentencecontextwasadded,tosomeextent.However,peoplewithASDalreadychosesubordinatemeaningsomewhatmorethanTypicaldevelopingindividuals(TDs),withoutcontext.However,“Yes”isnotapossibleansweraswell,becausetheASDgroupscoredlowerthanTDs(andwithgreatspread)whencontextwasadded.Also,therewasasignificantinteractioneffectofgroup(ASD/TD)andcondition(nocontext/context),sayingthattherelationshipbetweenoneofthesetwofactors(forexample,havingcontext)andtheperformanceisdependentontheotherfactor(forexamplebeingASD/TD).Soyes,tosomeextentprecedingcontextualinformationdoesaddtotheunderstanding,butthisabilityseemssomewhatimpaired,onthelevelofdisambiguatinghomonyms,furtherconfirmingtheweakcentralcoherencetheory(Frith,1989).

31

4.4.2.FutureresearchAveryspecificproblemisresearchedinthisthesis,andimplicationandeffectongreaterfieldsofknowledgearesuggested.However,furtherresearchisstillneededformanythingstobecomeclearer:

- DiagnosisCanweactuallyimproveearlydiagnosiswiththehelpofresultsofstudieslikethisone?Atool,ormultipledifferentones,couldbeimplementedusinghomonymsandtheirdominantandsubordinatemeaningdistributions,toseeifindividualscouldbeclassifiedforfurtherinspectionofdiagnosis.Thesamegoesforstudiesinvolvinghomographs,andothertypesoflexicalambiguity.Also,couldtests/toolslikethese,beintegratedwithneuro-imaging,ormachinelearnedquestionnaires?Again,tonotdiagnoseinisolation,buttobeanextra,forprioritizingdiagnosisortreatment.

- MeasurementWhenusingresultsfromthiskindoftests,moreresearchshouldbeinvestedintocomputingascoreormeasurementfortheperformanceonlexicalambiguity.Amoresophisticatedwayoftestingsomeone’sabilitytousesentencecontexttodisambiguatemeaningisneeded.

- DisambiguationCouldtheabilityofdisambiguationactuallybeimproved?ResearchintoNaturalLanguageProcessingisalreadybeingcarriedoutregardingresolutionoflexicalambiguity(Small,S.L.,Cottrell,G.W.,&Tanenhaus,2013).Canperformanceofautomatedwordsensedisambiguationbemeasured?Ifperformanceiswellenough,couldtoolsbedevelopedfromthis,toaidindividualswithASDinintegrationofinformation?

32

ReferencesAnagnostou,E.,&Taylor,M.J.(2011).Reviewofneuroimaginginautismspectrumdisorders:whathavewe

learnedandwherewegofromhere.MolecularAutism,2(1),4.doi:10.1186/2040-2392-2-4APA.(2013).AmericanPsychiatricAssociation.Diagnosticandstatisticalmanualofmentaldisorders(DSM-

5®).AmericanPsychiatricAssociation.Ashcraft,M.H.(2006).Cognition.PearsonPrenticeHall.Baron-Cohen,S.,Lombardo,M.,&Tager-Flusberg,H.(Eds..(2013).Understandingotherminds:Perspectives

fromdevelopmentalsocialneuroscience.OUPOxford.Baron-Cohen,S.(2004).Thecognitiveneuroscienceofautism.JournalofNeurology,Neurosurgery&

Psychiatry,75(7),945–948.Baron-Cohen,S.(2008).Theoriesoftheautisticmind.ThePsychologist,21,112–116.Retrievedfrom

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-21/edition-2/theories-autistic-mindBaron-cohen,S.,Leslie,A.,&Frith,U.(1985).Theautisticchildhavea“theoryofmind”?Cognitive

Development,21,37–46.doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8Bartolucci,G.,Pierce,S.,Streiner,D.,&Eppel,P.T.(1976).Phonologicalinvestigationofverbalautisticand

mentallyretardedsubjects.JournalofAutismandChildhoodSchizophrenia,6(4),303–316.Bernier,R.,Mao,A.,&Yen,J.(2010).Psychopathology,families,andculture:autism.ChildandAdolescent

PsychiatricClinicsofNorthAmerica,19(4),855–867.Binder,K.S.,&Rayner,K.(1998).Contextualstrengthdoesnotmodulatethesubordinatebiaseffect:

Evidencefromeyefixationsandself-pacedreading.PsychonomicBulletin&Review,5(2),271–276.Binder,K.S.(2003).Sententialanddiscoursetopiceffectsonlexicalambiguityprocessing:Aneye

movementexamination.Memory&Cognition,31(5),690–702.Bishop,D.V.M.(2000).UncommonUnderstanding:DevelopmentandDisordersofLanguage

ComprehensioninChildren.Adolescence,35(138),417.Borowsky,R.,&Masson,M.E.(1996).Semanticambiguityeffectsinwordidentification.Journalof

ExperimentalPsychology:Learning,Memory,andCognition,22(1),63.Brian,J.A.,&Bryson,S.E.(1996).Disembeddingperformanceandrecognitionmemoryinautism/PDD.

JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,37(7),865–872.Charman,T.,Pickles,A.,Simonoff,E.,Chandler,S.,Loucas,T.,&Baird,G.(2011).IQinchildrenwithautism

spectrumdisorders:datafromtheSpecialNeedsandAutismProject(SNAP).PsychologicalMedicine,41(3),619–627.

Christensen,D.L.(2012).Prevalenceandcharacteristicsofautismspectrumdisorderamongchildrenaged8years—autismanddevelopmentaldisabilitiesmonitoringnetwork,11sites,UnitedStates,2012.

Deyne,S.De,Navarro,D.,&Storms,G.(2013).Betterexplanationsoflexicalandsemanticcognitionusingnetworksderivedfromcontinuedratherthansingle-wordassociations.BehaviorResearchMethods,45(2),480–498.Retrievedfromhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7

Diehl,J.J.,Bennetto,L.,Watson,D.,Gunlogson,C.,&McDonough,J.(2008a).Resolvingambiguity:Apsycholinguisticapproachtounderstandingprosodyprocessinginhigh-functioningautism.BrainandLanguage,106(2),144–152.doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.04.002

Diehl,J.J.,Bennetto,L.,Watson,D.,Gunlogson,C.,&McDonough,J.(2008b).Resolvingambiguity:Apsycholinguisticapproachtounderstandingprosodyprocessinginhigh-functioningautism.BrainandLanguage,106,144–152.doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.04.002

Duffy,S.a,Morris,R.K.,&Rayner,K.(1988).Lexicalambiguityandfixationtimeinreading.JournalofMemoryandLanguage,27,429–446.doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6

Egaas,B.,Courchesne,E.,&Saitoh,O.(1995).Reduced-sizeofcorpus-callosuminautism.ArchivesofNeurology,52,794–801.

Elsabbagh,M.,Divan,G.,Koh,Y.J.,Kim,Y.S.,Kauchali,S.,Marcín,C.,...&Yasamy,&T.,M.(2012).Globalprevalenceofautismandotherpervasivedevelopmentaldisorders.AutismResearch.AutismResearch,5(3),160–179.

Fombonne,E.(2009).Epidemiologyofpervasivedevelopmentaldisorders.PediatricResearch,65(6),591–598.

Friedenberg,J.,&Silverman,G.(2006).CognitiveScience:anIntroductiontotheStudyofMind.ThousandOaks:SagePublicationsInc.

Friederici,A.D.,&Alter,K.(2004).Lateralizationofauditorylanguagefunctions:Adynamicdualpathwaymodel.BrainandLanguage,89,267–276.

Frith,U.,&Happé,F.(1994).Autism :beyond“theoryofmind.”Cognition,50(1-3),115–132.doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90024-8

Frith,U.,&Snowling,M.(1983).Readingformeaningandreadingforsoundinautisticanddyslexicchildren.BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,1(4),329–342.

Frith,U.(1989).Autism:Explainingtheenigma.Gaskell,M.G.(2007).TheOxfordhandbookofpsycholinguistics.OxfordUniversityPress.Gray,C.A.,&Garand,J.D.(1993).Socialstories:Improvingresponsesofstudentswithautismwithaccurate

socialinformation.FocusonAutisticBehavior.Hadwin,J.A.,Howlin,P.,Baron-Cohen,S.,Rutter,M.,Nunes,T.,&Bryant,P.(1998).Childrenwithautismand

33

Aspergersyndrome:Aguideforpractitionersandcarers.Wiley.Happe,F.,Ehlers,S.,Fletcher,P.,Frith,U.,Johansson,M.,Gillberg,C.,...&Frith,C.(1996).“Theoryofmind”in

thebrain.EvidencefromaPETscanstudyofAspergersyndrome.Neuroreport,8(1),197–201.Happé,F.,&Frith,U.(2006).Theweakcoherenceaccount:Detail-focusedcognitivestyleinautismspectrum

disorders.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,36(1),5–25.doi:10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0

Happé,F.G.E.(1997).Centralcoherenceandtheoryofmindinautism:Readinghomographsincontext.BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,15(1),1–12.doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00721.x

Hardan,A.Y.,Minshew,N.J.,&Keshavan,M.S.(2000).Copuscallosumsizeinautism.Neurology,55,1033–1036.

Hermelin,B.,&O’connor,N.(1967).Rememberingofwordsbypsychoticandsubnormalchildren.BritishJournalofPsychology,58(3-4),213–218.

Hershkowitz,V.(2000).Computerbasedtherapyforindividualswithautism.AdvanceMagazine.Jarrold,C.,&Russell,J.(1997).Countingabilitiesinautism:Possibleimplicationsforcentralcoherence

theory.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,27(1),25–38.doi:10.1023/A:1025817121137Jastrzembski,J.E.,&Stanners,R.F.(1975).Multiplewordmeaningsandlexicalsearchspeed.Journalof

VerbalLearningandVerbalBehavior,14(5),534–537.Jolliffe,T.,&Baron-Cohen,S.(2000).Linguisticprocessinginhigh-functioningadultswithautismor

Asperger’ssyndrome.Isglobalcoherenceimpaired?PsychologicalMedicine,30(5),1169–1187.Jolliffe,T.,&Baron-cohen,S.(1999).Atestofcentralcoherencetheory :linguisticprocessinginhigh-

functioningadultswithautismorAspergersyndrome :islocalcoherenceimpaired ?,71,149–185.Jolliffe,T.,&Baron-cohen,S.(2001).Atestofcentralcoherencetheory :Canadultswithhigh-functioning

autismorAspergersyndromeintegrateobjectsincontext ?Atestofcentralcoherencetheory :Canadultswithhigh-functioningautismorAspergersyndromeintegrateobjectsincontext.ExperimentalPsychology,6(907688112),193–216.doi:10.1080/13506280042000036

Jones,W.,&Klin,A.(2013).AttentiontoEyesisPresentButinDeclinein2–6Month-OldsLaterDiagnosedwithAutism.Nature,504(7480),427–431.

Jordan,R.(2001).AutisticSpectrumDisorders:AnIntroductoryHandbookforPractitioners.Just,M.A.,Cherkassky,V.L.,Keller,T.A.,&Minshew,N.J.(2004).Corticalactivationandsynchronization

duringsentencecomprehensioninhigh-functioningautism:Evidenceofunderconnectivity.Brain,127,1811–1821.

Kanner,L.(1943).Autisticdisturbancesofaffectivecontact.NervousChild,2,217–250.Kellas,G.,Ferraro,F.R.,&Simpson,G.B.(1988).Lexicalambiguityandthetimecourseofattentional

allocationinwordrecognition.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:HumanPerceptionandPerformance,14(4),601.

Kidd,P.M.(2002).Autism,AnExtremeChallengetoIntegrativeMedicine.Part1:TheKnowledgeBase,7(4),292–316.

Kientz,J.A.,Goodwin,M.S.,Hayes,G.R.,&Abowd,G.D.(2013).Interactivetechnologiesforautism.SynthesisLecturesonAssistive,Rehabilitative,andHealth-PreservingTechnologies,2(2),1–177.

Kim,Y.S.,Leventhal,B.L.,Koh,Y.J.,Fombonne,E.,Laska,E.,Lim,E.C.,...&Song,D.H.(2011).Prevalenceofautismspectrumdisordersinatotalpopulationsample.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry.

Klin,A.,Lang,J.,Cicchetti,D.V.,&Volkmar,F.R.(2000).Briefreport:InterraterreliabilityofclinicaldiagnosisandDSM-IVcriteriaforautisticdisorder:ResultsoftheDSM-IVautismfieldtrial.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,30(2),163–167.

Kwong,O.Y.(2008).Senseabstractness,semanticactivation,andwordsensedisambiguation.InternationalJournalofSpeechTechnology,11(3-4),135–146.

López,B.,&Leekam,S.R.(2003).Dochildrenwithautismfailtoprocessinformationincontext?JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatryandAlliedDisciplines,44,285–300.

Lord,C.,Risi,S.,Lambrecht,L.,CookJr,E.H.,Leventhal,B.L.,DiLavore,P.C.,...&Rutter,M.(2000).TheAutismDiagnosticObservationSchedule—Generic:Astandardmeasureofsocialandcommunicationdeficitsassociatedwiththespectrumofautism.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,30(3),205–223.

Miller,G.A.(1973).Communication,Language,andMeaning:PsychologicalPerspectives.Murray,D.(2011).Autismandinformationtechnology:therapywithcomputers.InR.Powell,S.,&Jordan

(Ed.),AutismandLearning(ClassicEdition):Aguidetogoodpractice.(pp.110–117).Routledge.Newschaffer,C.J.,Croen,L.A.,Daniels,J.,Giarelli,E.,Grether,J.K.,Levy,S.E.,…Windham,G.C.(2007).The

epidemiologyofautismspectrumdisorders.AnnualReviewofPublicHealth,28,235–58.doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144007

O’Riordan,M.A.,Plaisted,K.C.,Driver,J.,&Baron-Cohen,S.(2001).Superiorvisualsearchinautism.JournalofExperimentalPsychology.HumanPerceptionandPerformance,27(3),719–730.doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.719

O’Riordan,M.,&Plaisted,K.(2001).Enhanceddiscriminationinautism.TheQuarterlyJournalofExperimentalPsychology.A,HumanExperimentalPsychology,54(4),961–979.doi:10.1109/ICONIP.2002.1202879

Orsmond,G.I.,Krauss,M.W.,&Seltzer,M.M.(2004).PeerRelationshipsandSocialandRecreationalActivitiesAmongAdolescentsandAdultswithAutism.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,

34

34(3),245–256.Ozonoff,S.,&Miller,J.N.(1996).Anexplorationofright-hemispherecontributionstothepragmatic

impairmentsofautism.BrainandLanguage,52(3),411–434.Ozonoff,S.,Pennington,B.F.,&Rogers,S.J.(1991).Executivefunctiondeficitsinhigh-functioningautistic

individuals:relationshiptotheoryofmind.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,32(7),1081–1105.

Pacht,J.M.,&Rayner,K.(1993).Theprocessingofhomophonichomographsduringreading:Evidencefromeyemovementstudies.JournalofPsycholinguisticResearch,22(2),251–271.

Pinto-Martin,J.A.,Young,L.M.,Mandell,D.S.,Poghosyan,L.,Giarelli,E.,&Levy,S.E.(2008).Screeningstrategiesforautismspectrumdisordersinpediatricprimarycare.JournalofDevelopmental&BehavioralPediatrics,29(5),345–350.

Piven,J.,Bailey,J.,Ranson,B.J.,&Arndt,S.(1997).AnMRTstudyofthecorpuscallosuminautism.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry,154,1051–1056.

Plaisted,K.,Swettenham,J.,&Rees,L.(1999).Childrenwithautismshowlocalprecedenceinadividedattentiontaskandglobalprecedenceinaselectiveattentiontask.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,40(5),733–742.

PrincetonUniversity“AboutWordNet.”(2010).Retrievedfromhttp://wordnet.princeton.eduRandom.org.(2016).Random.org.Retrievedfromhttps://www.random.orgRayner,K.,Pacht,J.M.,&Duffy,S.A.(1994).Effectsofpriorencounterandglobaldiscoursebiasonthe

processingoflexicallyambiguouswords:Evidencefromeyefixations.JournalofMemoryandLanguage,33(4),527.

Rayner,K.,Cook,A.E.,Juhasz,B.J.,&Frazier,L.(2006).Immediatedisambiguationoflexicallyambiguouswordsduringreading:evidencefromeyemovements.BritishJournalofPsychology(London,England :1953),97(Pt4),467–482.doi:10.1348/000712605X89363

Rayner,K.,&Frazier,L.(1989).Selectionmechanismsinreadinglexicallyambiguouswords.JournalofExperimentalPsychology.Learning,Memory,andCognition,15(5),779–790.doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.779

Ricks,D.J.,&Colton,M.B.(2010).Trendsandconsiderationsinrobot-assistedautismtherapy.InProceedings-IEEEInternationalConferenceonRoboticsandAutomation(pp.4354–4359).

Ropar,D.,&Mitchell,P.(1999).AreindividualswithautismandAsperger’ssyndromesusceptibletovisualillusions?JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,40(8),1283–1293.

Ropar,D.,Mitchell,P.,&Ackroyd,K.(2003).Dochildrenwithautismfinditdifficulttoofferalternativeinterpretationstoambiguousfigures?BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,21,387–395.doi:10.1348/026151003322277766

Rutter,M.,LeCouteur,A.,&Lord,C.(2003).Autismdiagnosticinterview-revised.LosAngeles,CA:WesternPsychologicalServices,29(30).

Saemundsen,E.,Magnússon,P.,Georgsdóttir,I.,Egilsson,E.,&Rafnsson,V.(2013).PrevalenceofautismspectrumdisordersinanIcelandicbirthcohort.BMJOpen,3(6).

Schultz,R.T.,Romanski,L.,&Tsatsanis,K.(2000).NeurofunctionalmodelsofAutisticdisorderandAsperger’ssyndrome:Cluesfromneuroimaging.In&S.S.S.A.Klin,F.R.Volkmar(Ed.),Asperger’ssyndrome(pp.179–209).NewYork:PlenumPres.

Shah,A.,&Frith,U.(1983).Anisletofabilityinautisticchildren:Aresearchnote.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,24(4),613–620.

Shah,A.,&Frith,U.(1993).Whydoautisticindividualsshowsuperiorperformanceontheblockdesigntask?JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,34(8),1351–1364.

Simpson,G.B.,&Gernsbacher,M.A.(1994).Handbookofpsycholinguistics.Small,S.L.,Cottrell,G.W.,&Tanenhaus,M.K.(Ed.).(2013).LexicalAmbiguityResolution:Perspectivefrom

Psycholinguistics,NeuropsychologyandArtificialIntelligence.MorganKaufmann.Tager-Flusberg,H.,Calkins,S.,Nolin,T.,Baumberger,T.,Anderson,M.,&Chadwick-Dias,A.(1990).A

longitudinalstudyoflanguageacquisitioninautisticandDownsyndromechildren.JournalofAutismandDevelopmentalDisorders,20(1),1–21.

Tager-Flusberg,H.(1991).Semanticprocessinginthefreerecallofautisticchildren:Furtherevidenceforacognitivedeficit.BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,9(3),417–430.

Tyler,L.K.,&Marslen-Wilson,W.D.(1981).Children’sprocessingofspokenlanguage.JournalofVerbalLearningandVerbalBehavior,20(4),400–416.

Vermeulen,P.(2011).Autism :FromMindBlindnesstoContextBlindness.Autismdigest.com,(December).Volkmar,F.,Chawarska,K.,&Klin,A.(2005).Autismininfancyandearlychildhood.AnnualReviewof

Psychology,56,315–336.Volkmar,F.R.,Lord,C.,Bailey,A.,Schultz,R.T.,&Klin,A.(2004).Autismandpervasivedevelopmental

disorders.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatryandAlliedDisciplines,45(1),135–170.doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00317.x

Wall,D.P.,Dally,R.,Luyster,R.,Jung,J.Y.,&DeLuca,T.F.(2012).Useofartificialintelligencetoshortenthebehavioraldiagnosisofautism.PLoSONE,7(8).doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043855

Wiggins,L.D.,Baio,J.O.N.,&Rice,C.(2006).Examinationofthetimebetweenfirstevaluationandfirstautismspectrumdiagnosisinapopulation-basedsample.JournalofDevelopmental&BehavioralPediatrics,27(2),S79–S87.

35

AppendicesAppendixA.Experimenttimeline<Welcomewords,START><Instructions(inDutch)>“Welkombijditkortetaalkundigeexperiment.Weonderzoekenhierinhoemensenzinnenverwerken.Bedanktdatjemeewiltdoen!Hetexperimentbestaatuit3blokken:wevragenjenaarenkelepersonalia,ernavolgthetexperimentmet30meerkeuzevragen(diedurenongeveer15minutenintotaal)waarnatotslotenkelealgemenevragenvolgen.”“Jebentaltijdvrijomtestoppen(geefdatindatgevalaanaandeonderzoekerofjebegeleider).Naafloopvanhetexperiment,gaarnehettoestemmingsformulierintevullendatnaastjeligt.Jekunthetvastevendoorlezen,maarjekunthetnaafloopinvullen.“<Personalinformationquestions(inDutch)>Persoonlijkeinformatie

- Watisjeleeftijd?(injaren)- Watisjegeslacht?- Watisjeberoepsstatus?- Watisdehoogstevormvanonderwijsdiejehebtafgerond?

1. Jezultnusteedseenstukjetekstzien,waarinjehetdikgedruktewoordmoetvervangenmeteenwoordvandezelfdebetekenis.

2. Kieshetantwoorddatvoorjouhetbestepast.Erisgeentijdsrestrictie,maarprobeerniettelangnatedenken;wezijnbenieuwdnaarjeeersteingeving!

3. Alsjehetnietweet,probeerdantocheenantwoordtekiezen.4. Zodrajeeenvervanginghebtgekozen,kunjejeantwoordnietmeerveranderen.

<30Homonymquestions(inDutch,seeAppendixB)(randomizedorder,answerchoicesalso)><Generalquestions(inDutch)>

- Jezaglangereenkortestukjestekst.Inhoeverrehielpdietekstjouomeenpassendebetekenistekiezenvoorhetwoord?(1-5,1=Totaalniet,delengtevandetekstmaaktenietsuit,5=Heelerg,hoelangerdetekst,hoemakkelijkerikhetvondomeenbetekenistekiezen)

- Nuhebjesteedstekstgezien,maarwatzou,denkje,voorjouhetbestewerken,omtehelpenbijhetkiezenvaneenbetekenis?(Doordetekstdieerbijstond;Ikhadnietechtmoeitemetzinnen;Anders)

- Hebjeverdernogopmerkingen,ofgedachtenoverdevragen,ofditexperiment?“Hartelijkdankvoorjedeelname!Jekunthetexperimentnubeëindigen,enhet-toestemmingsformulierinvullen.”<END>

36

AppendixB.Questionnaire(inDutch) woord Zin+evt.context Antwoord

Subordinate/dominant

1 Licht Iemandgaatverhuizen.Erzijnveelspullendiegedragenmoetenworden,enhetduurdeevenvoordatallemeubelsendozennaarbinnenwarengedragen.Tochleekhetuiteindelijkminderwerktekostendangedacht.“Datiswelfijn,licht.”

Nietzwaar/lichtvanzonoflamps/d

2 Scheiding Bijelkekapperkunjenieuwedingenuitproberen.ZowildeMarieeensietsandersmethaarkapsel.Zehadhetnualzolangineenbepaaldehouding,datzeheteigenlijkeenbeetjemafbegontevinden.“Wateenrarescheiding.”

Scheidinginhethaar/echtscheidingvaneenhuwelijks/d

3 Schaal Opschoolleerjevaakoverhoejebepaaldegroothedenkanopmeten.Ergopvallendishet,maarookverwarrend,datjeinsommigelanden,danopeenanderemanierdoet,daninanderelanden.Dieschaalisechtperfect.

Schaalvoorbijvoorbeeldgewichtofaardbevingen/komoffruitschaals/d

4 Toets PietwoondetijdelijkbijJan,omdathijnoggeenkamerhadgevonden.Hijmoestooknogeenboelspullenkopen,zohadPietnoggeeneigenlaptop.WelkonhijdievanJansomslenen.“Ééntoetswasnietgeweldig.”

Toetsvaneencomputer/examens/d

5 Toast OphetverjaardagsfeesthadPietzichverheugd.Hetwaseenverrassinggeweestvoorzijnvriendin,endatbetekendeveelvoorhaar.Hungemeenschappelijkevriendenhieldenhunglazenindelucht,enwenstenhenenkelemooiewoordentoe.“Detoastbevielhemgoed.”

Proostenvanchampagneofietsdergelijks/geroosterdbroods/d

6 Gerecht MethaaradviseurgingzenaarAmsterdam.Diedagbrachtwatspanningmetzichmee,wantwatdebeslissingoverhaargeldzouzijn,wasnogonzeker.Naafloopliepenzenaarbuiten.“Zijhadnogalwatcommentaarophetgerecht.”

Eten/rechtbankd/s

7 Aangeven Metzijntweeënishetveelmakkelijkerkoken.Jekuntdetakenverdelen,enjehoeftnooitvertelopenvoorkeukengerei.Alsjeietsnietweetofietsnodighebt,kunjehetaltijdvragen.“Kunjedataangeven?”

Melden(bijpolitie/douane)/aanreikenofoverhandigend/s

8 Lijn Jangingvandaageenmeeloop-dagdoenopeennieuweschool.Eerstreisdehijeenuurmetdetrein.Ernamoesthijnogevenzoekenhoehijvanafhetstationnaardeschoolzoukomen.“Isdatweleenlijn?”

Streep/buslijnd/s

9 Stoppen Marieheefthetergdrukmethaarscriptie.Heledagenzitzeindebibliotheekomeraantewerken,maarhetisbijnaaf.Zevindhetlastigomhetlostelatennuhetzoveris.“Vanavondgaatzestoppen.”

Stilstaan/ophoudend/s

10 Trap JanenPietzatenenkelejarensamenopeenvechtsport.Zekondendanlekkerhunovertollige

schop/trapmettredesomomhoogtegaan

37

energieopeengoedemaniergebruiken,doortesporten.Thuiskekenzeookweleensvechtfilms.“Kijk,datwaseenstevigetrap.”

s/d

11 Aas Opvakantieregendehetdeheletijd,duszochtdefamilieanderedingenomdedruilerigemiddagenenavondendoortebrengen.Gelukkighaddenzegenoegmeegenomen.Pahadeenleukspel.“Aasiswathijnognodighad.”

Kaartuitkaartspel/lokaasvoorvissens/d

12 Blad Vandaagbezochtenzemetschooleennatuurpark.Zehaddenonderandereeenrondleidingeneenworkshop.Schoolhooptedathierdoordekinderenmeerwaarderingzoudenkrijgenvoordenatuuromhenheen.“Pakeenbladdatjemooivindt.”

Boomblad/Papierenblad,omopteschrijvens/d

13 Hoop VoorzijnwerkstukhadJanzichgeenzorgengemaakt.Hijvondhetbestmoeilijk,maarhijhadveelartikelengevonden.Pietweeshemopeensectieindebieb,endaarhadhijméérdangenoegaan.“Daarzateenhoop.”

Bergofveel/verwachtingofgeloofs/d

14 Golven MorgengaathijnaarSpanje.Nietperseomtedoenwatalzijnvriendennadeexamensdeden,maaromeencongresbijtewonenvanietswaarhijaljarenopzijnzolderkamermeebezigwas.“Golven,waarhijvanhield.”

Watergolven,opzee/geluids-,radiogolvend/s

15 Noot JanisinTilburgvandaag,enisgespannenvoordeauditiediehijdaargaatdoen.Almaandenhadhijzichvoorbereid.Hetconservatoriumiswaarhijaltijdalvandroomde.“Verteleensietsoverdienoot.”

Muzieknoot/nootdiejekuntetens/d

16 Slot DeheledaghadMariezichverstoptophaarkamer,omhetlaatsteboekineenserietelezen.Hetlagsindsgisterindewinkelenzehadhetnualbijnauit.Nogéénhoofdstuktegaan.“Eeninteressantslot.”

Einde/Slotmetsleutels/d

17 Kussen VorigjaarhadPietiemandontmoet.Naenkeledates,eneenpaarkerenlogeren,haddenzegemerktdatdechemieaanwezigwas.Ookhaddenzeveelgemeenschappelijkeinteresses,envindenzeelkaarheelmooi.“Hetkussenisfantastisch.”

(hoofd-)Kussenomopteslapen/zoenend/s

18 Vorst Deregeringhadhetallangafgesprokenmethetbuitenlandsestaatshoofd,zodatallesgoedzougaan,wanneerhijneerstreekinNederland.Ondanksdathetalvroegdonkerwas,zouhij’savondseengrootseaankomstkrijgen.“Devorstkomtervolgendeweekaan!”

Vrieskou/koning(in)d/s

19 Schat Hijhadalvergereisd,alvorenshijwaswaarhijwildezijn.Hijhadhaarzogemist,ennuzoudenzeelkaareindelijkweerzien.Hijwasgelukkigenverliefdtoenhijhaaropzochtbijhaarfamilie.“Wateenschatvondhijdaar.”

Lievebenaming,liefste/schatvangoud,bijv.Piratenschats/d

20 Bank Zeliependoordestad,Janlietzijnfamiliezienwaarhijnuwoonde.Hijhadzealverteldoverdestad,enwaarhijvaaklangskwam.Zevondenhetfijneenstezien.“Daarisdebankwaarwehetoverhadden!”

Bankmetgeld/zitbanks/d

38

21 Kraan Terwijlzedoordestadliepen,zagenzehoeveeleraanhetveranderenwas.Overalstondennieuwegebouwen,enerwerdennogsteedsnieuwebijgemaakt.Sommigenoghogerdandehoogstediezekenden.“Degrotekraanvielhemop.”

Waterkraan/hijskraand/s

22 Ster Langhaddenzeernaaruitgekeken.DelatepremièrevandenieuweHarryPotterfilm.Zekekenhunogenuitopderodeloper,wantzoietshaddenzenognooitmeegemaakt.“Zehaddennognooitzo’ngrotestergezien.”

Steraandehemel/filmster,beroemdheidd/s

23 Beeld PietliepmetMariedoorzalenvolmooieauthentiekeRomeinsespullen.HetwasvakantieenzewarennaarRomegegaan,huneerstevakantiesamen,omdatzeallebeizovancultuurhielden,ennognooitinItaliëwarengeweest.“Kijkdatbeeldeens!”

Foto,televisie/kunstwerk,standbeeldd/s

24 Pad Laatstgingenwijwandelen,endatbevielzogoeddatwesteedsverdervandebebouwdewereldkwamen,zelfsverdwaaldraakten.Doordatwefouthaddengelopen,kondenwenuderouteterugnaarhuisnietmeervinden.“Ikziedaareenpad!”

Bos-oflooppad,weg/kikkerachtiges/d

25 Eng Alsjedatenevideospelspeelt,waarbijjemoetracendoorscherpebochten,moetjegoeduitkijken.Erzittenbepaaldestukkenineenroute,waarjenáuwelijksdoorheenpastmetjeauto.“Datstukjeiseng.”

Bang,griezelig/smal,nauwd/s

26 Val Zehaddenindekeukennogallastvanstank.Nalangschoonmakenenopruimen,bleekdeoorzaakbijnogwatandersteliggendanalleenteweinigafwasdoen.Erbleekeenplaagtezijn.“Dievalmoetonverwachtzijngeweest.”

Muizenval,strik/ongeluks/d

27 Kop ’sMiddagsgingenMarieenPietwatdrinkenbijdeomavanJan.Alhaarspullenwarennogvanprachtigantiek.Zekekenonderandereuitgebreidnaarhaarversierdekledingenoudeborduursels.“Kijkeensnaardiekop.”

Servies,koffiekop/hoofds/d

28 Blik Fotografereniséénvandegrootstehobby’svanJan.Hijvindthetgeweldigommensenopstraataantesprekenen,alshetmag,metzijncamerahunportrettenvastteleggenvanuitverschillendestandpunten.“Wateenblikhebjedaarzeg!”

Metalenblik,conservenblik/opslagvanogen,maniervankijkend/s

29 Cel Opdeuniversiteitwarenzeaandachtigbezig.Inhetlokaalzatentallozegeïnteresseerdenaanverschillendetafelsteluisterennaardegastspreker,diehunvoordezebijzonderegelegenheidietsnieuwsginglatenzien.“Latenwedezeceleensbekijken.”

Gevangeniscel/biologischeceluitlichaamd/s

30 Baan Mariewildealtijdalpilootworden.Zewasnueindelijkzover.Zemoestalleennogeentestopeengrootvliegvelddoen.Zekonnietwachtenomtrotstevertellenhoezealledetailsuithaarhoofdwist.“Datiseengoedebaan.”

Beroep/richting,wegs/d

39

AppendixC.SmallWorldofWordsdistributions(inDutch)

Homonym Dominantmeanings % Subordinatemeanings % Othermeanings %

Licht

lamp,zon,donker,helder,geel,fel,raam,schakelaar,hemel,buiten 80,8% zwaar,veer 9,1%

dag,klaar,elektriciteit,warm 10,1%

Scheiding

huwelijk,ouders,kinderen,verdriet,pijn,ruzie,pijnlijk,echtscheiding,koppel,relatie,kind,man,vrouw,zorgen 81,8% haar,grens,splitsing 16,1% tafel 2,1%

Schaalfruit,kom,fruitschaal,glas,eten,zilver,bord,tafel 59,1%

aardbeving,weegschaal,wegen,kaart,meter,landkaart,wiskunde 21,3%

ei,kerk,decoratie,eieren 19,6%

Toets

test,examen,punten,school,proef,leren,stress,studeren,moeilijk,cijfer 67,1%

computer,knop,pc,telefoon 12,3%

piano,klavier,muziek 20,6%

Toast

brood,kaas,broodrooster,ontbijt,krokant,eten,boter,lekker,confituur,warm,bruin,hard,boterham,rooster,ochtend 93,7% champagne 4,1% droog 2,3%

Gerecht

eten,lekker,koken,restaurant,maaltijd,keuken,recept,warm,pasta,menu,diner,dessert 68,7%

rechter,advocaat,rechtbank,straf,politie,vonnis,rechten 29,3% gezellig 2,0%

Aangeven

politie,diefstal,misdaad,douane,melden,verraden,geboorte 55,7%

aanreiken,doorgeven,helpen,overhandigen, 23,7%

aanwijzen,belastingen,geven,tonen,richting,aanwijzen 20,6%

Lijnstreep,recht,lat,potlood,wiskunde,figuur,papier, 58,3% bus 20,0%

dieet,mager,dun,dik,slank,coke,telefoon 21,7%

Stoppen

halt,auto,rood,stilstaan,verkeer,gevaar,verkeerslicht,verkeersbord,remmen 58,5%

ophouden,roken,einde,gedaan,opgeven,doorgaan 36,4%

wachten,pensioen,plots 5,1%

Trap

treden,trede,omhoog,leuning,hout,verdieping,huis,hoog,lift,boven,ladder,tree,steen,kelder,omlaag,lopen 90,0% schop 3,6%

vallen,vermoeiend,lastig 6,4%

Aas

vissen,worm,vis,gier,hengel,lokken,haak,water,vislijn,jacht,vijver,vangst,prooi,wormen 83,7%

kaarten,kaart,kaartspel,troef 13,8% dood 2,5%

Bladpapier,schrijven,wit,pen,boek,balpen,examen 55,8% boom,groen,herfst,bos 42,8% tijdschrift 1,4%

Hoop

leven,geloof,toekomst,geluk,liefde,moetverwachting,vrede,wanhoop,wens,dromen,verlangen 70,4% berg,veel,massa,stapel 20,0% wit,groen 9,6%

Golven

zee,surfen,water,strand,vakantie,sport,zwembad,oceaan,boot,sport,zon,wind,blauw 83,8% geluid,radio,fysica 10,1% zon,haar 6,1%

Noot

eten,kraken,boom,walnoot,bruin,hard,lekker,okkernoot,notenkraker,herfst,hazelnoot,vrucht,notenboom,bos 67,4%

muziek,vals,piano,partituur,muzieknoot 31,0% nood 1,6%

40

Slotsleutel,deur,fiets,dicht,sleutelgat,veiligheid,vast 66,4% einde,toe, 18,6%

kasteel,burcht,sluiten 15,0%

Kussen

slapen,bed,zacht,hoofdkussen,veren,slaap,kussensloop,zetel,sloop 53,5%

zoenen,liefde,lippen,mond,zoen,nat,tong 39,0%

lekker,rood,mals,wit, 7,4%

Vorst

koud,winter,koude,vriezen,kou,sneeuw,ijs,schaatsen,glad 63,2%

koning,kroon,albert,sire,keizer,koninkrijk 36,8%

0,0%

Schat

goud,piraat,geld,kist,piraten,rijk,rijkdom,juwelen,zeerover,kostbaar,koffer 62,1%

lief,liefde,liefste,lieveling,lieverd,partner,kind,geliefde 36,2% geluk 1,7%

Bankzitten,park,zetel,rusten,school,tuin,rust,hout 54,5%

geld,sparen,rekening,loket,kluis 45,5%

0,0%

Kraan

water,lekken,lek,wassen,tap,warm,bad,keuken,drinken,badkamer 66,3%

werf,haven,bouw,bouwwerf,hoog,hijskraan,takel 23,6%

vogel,werken,geel 10,2%

Ster

hemel,nacht,maan,licht,zon,heelal,ruimte,geel,kerstmis,planeet,donker,wens,ver,hemellichaam 93,2% film,beroemd 4,9% zeester 1,8%

Beeldtv,foto,televisie,scherm,computer,buis,film,dia 53,9%

kunst,standbeeld,kunstwerk,marmer 34,9%

idee,mooi,tuin,zicht 11,2%

Pad

kikker,groen,vijver,glibberig,vies,amfibie,water,slijmerig,slijm,dier,bruin,traag,kwaken,prins,giftig 87,4% bos,weg, 8,4% natuur,sprookje 4,2%

Eng

bang,donker,griezelig,akelig,angstig,halloween,naar,schrik,lift,spook,film,bangelijk 64,0% smal,nauw 29,9% benauwd 6,1%

Val

pijn,ongeluk,trap,diep,fiets,ladder,put,grond,parachute,pijnlijk,opstaan,knie,breuk 75,1%

muis,muizen,muizenval,strik 18,5%

bos,bergen,muur 6,5%

Kop

hoofd,dier,staart,haar,paard,voetbal,lichaam,verstand,varken,dieren,slim,pijn 69,8% koffie,tas,thee,beleg 16,3%

munt,krant,pijn,koppig 13,9%

Blik

cola,conserven,eten,ijzer,metaal,erwten,blikopener,soep,drank,opener,bier,frisdank,roest,drinken,tin 70,4%

ogen,kijken,oog,glimlach 26,8% grijs 2,7%

Cel

gevangenis,tralies,misdaad,gevangene,opgesloten,gevangen,crimineel,cipier,dief,straf,koud,gevang,misdadiger,metaal, 79,4% biologie,lichaam,eicel, 14,8%

klein,klooster,nor 5,9%

Baanweg,auto,straat,verkeer,rijden 43,5% werk,job,geld,loon 56,5%

0,0%

Lastquestionhadwrongcontext,sotheherestateddominantandsubordinareidentifierwereswitched.

41

AppendixD.Consentform(inDutch)TOESTEMMINGSVERKLARING*voordeelnameaanhetwetenschappelijkonderzoek:TaalonderzoekvoorstudieKI,RadboudUniversiteitNijmegen,doorNoutvanDeijck(onderbegeleidingvanPashieraBarkhuysenenFrancGrootjen)-Ikbennaartevredenheidoverhetonderzoekgeïnformeerd.Ikhebde(schriftelijke)informatiegoedgelezen.Ikbenindegelegenheidgesteldomvragenoverhetonderzoektestellen.Mijnvragenzijnnaartevredenheidbeantwoord.Ikhebgoedoverdeelnameaanhetonderzoekkunnennadenken.Ikhebhetrechtmijntoestemmingopiedermomentweerintetrekkenzonderdatikdaarvooreenredenbehoefoptegeven.-Ikstemtoemetdeelnameaanhetonderzoek.Naam :Geboortedatum :Handtekening : Datum:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ondergetekendeverklaartdatdehierbovengenoemdepersoonzowelschriftelijkalsmondelingoverhetbovenvermeldeonderzoekgeïnformeerdis.Hij/zijverklaarttevensdateenvoortijdigebeëindigingvandedeelnamedoorbovengenoemdepersoon,voorhaar/hem,verdergeengevolgenheeft.Ookzalallepersoonlijke,eningevuldeinformatielopendehetexperiment,vertrouwelijkbehandeldworden,veiligwordenopgeslagen,ennietwordengedeeldmetmensenbuitenhetonderzoek.Naafrondingvanhetonderzoekzalalleverkregendatavoorhooguit5jaarbewaardworden.Naam :Functie :Handtekening :Datum:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Ditformulierisbestemdvooronderzoekmetpersonenvan18jaarenouderdiewilsbe-kwaamzijn.Bijditsoortonderzoekmoetdoordebetrokkenenzelftoestemmingwordenverleend.