That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect,

1
That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect, For
slanders mark was ever yet the fair The
ornament of beauty is suspect, A crow that flies
in heavens sweetest air. So thou be good,
slander doth but approve Thy worth the greater,
being wooed of time For canker vice the sweetest
buds doth love, And thou presentst a pure
unstained prime. Thou has passed by the ambush of
young days, Either not assailed, or victor being
charged Yet this thy praise cannot be so thy
praise. To tie up envy evermore enlarged. If
some suspect of ill masked not thy show, Then
thou alone kingdoms of hearts shouldst owe.
2
That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect, For
slanders mark was ever yet the fair The
ornament of beauty is suspect, A crow that flies
in heavens sweetest air. So thou be good,
slander doth but approve Thy worth the greater,
being wooed of time For canker vice the sweetest
buds doth love, And thou presentst a pure
unstained prime. Thou has passed by the ambush of
young days, Either not assailed, or victor being
charged Yet this thy praise cannot be so thy
praise. To tie up envy evermore enlarged. If
some suspect of ill masked not thy show, Then
thou alone kingdoms of hearts shouldst owe.
3
Beautiful Light-colored Just
That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect, For
slanders mark was ever yet the fair The
ornament of beauty is suspect, A crow that flies
in heavens sweetest air. So thou be good,
slander doth but approve Thy worth the greater,
being wooed of time For canker vice the sweetest
buds doth love, And thou presentst a pure
unstained prime. Thou has passed by the ambush of
young days, Either not assailed, or victor being
charged Yet this thy praise cannot be so thy
praise. To tie up envy evermore enlarged. If
some suspect of ill masked not thy show, Then
thou alone kingdoms of hearts shouldst owe.

• Item used as decoration
• Quality making something beautiful

Suspicion Worthy of suspicion Thing suspected
Prove Condone
First thing Prime of life Springtime
Made bigger Set at liberty
Own Carry a debt
Uniquely Without sharing
4
Scholarly glosses, particularly those for the
sonnets, have commonly done a disservice both to
readers and poems by ignoring the obvious fact
that verse exists in time, that one reads one
word and then another. A word or phrase can be
incomprehensible at the moment it is read and the
be effectively glossed by the lines that follow
it a word or phrase can (and in the sonnets
regularly does) have one meaning as a reader
comes on it, another as its sentence concludes,
and a third when considered from the vantage
point of a summary statement in the couplet. --
Stephen Booth, Shakespeares Sonnets So when do
these ambiguous meanings come in? Booth often
glosses them as simultaneous the word literally
means two things at once. Is this consistent
with what goes on in the brain when we approach a
sonnet?
5
The ambiguity advantage In visual lexical
decision tasks, ambiguous words have faster
reaction times than unambiguous words.
gt
6
Homonymy (multiple unrelated meanings)
Lexical ambiguity
Polysemy (multiple related senses)
Polysemy confers the ambiguity advantage, but
homonymy actually slows RT (Rodd et al., 2002)
7
Single-entry vs. separate-entry models of polysemy
DOOR 1) Aperture in a wall 2) Piece of wood or
other material that covers said aperture
DOOR (1) Aperture in a wall
DOOR (2) Piece of material covering a wall
aperture
8

• Questioning Rodd et al.
• The evidence supports a single-entry model
• Because this was a behavioral study, the results
  can only speak to later-stage (postlexical)
  processing
• MEG studies can be used to determine the
  significance of the Rodd et al. results do they
  show a difference between homonymy and polysemy
  processing that exists only in postlexical
  processing (consistent with the separate-entry
  model), or one that exists throughout?

9

• M350
• MEG response component peaking at 300-400 ms
• Reliably responds to lexical stimuli, whether
  visually or auditorially presented
• Embick et al. (2001) M350 is earlier for
  frequent than infrequent words, and M350
  frequency advantage correlates with RT frequency
  advantage, though M350 occurs hundreds of
  milliseconds earlier -- thus its impossible to
  tell whether M350 is related to lexical or
  postlexical processing

10

• Pylkkänen, Stringfellow, and Marantz (2002)
• Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing of lexical
  activation an MEG component sensitive to
  phonotactic probability but not to neighborhood
  density
• Goal test whether M350 represents lexical or
  postlexical processing
• If stimulus property A has a facilitatory
  effect on lexical access and stimulus property B
  an inhibitory effect on postlexical processing,
  we can determine whether a given response
  component reflects pre- or postaccess processing
  by testing whether it shows facilitation or
  inhibition for a stimulus that has both A and B.
• For this study, stimulus property A is high
  phonotactic probability (high frequency in the
  language of the sounds and sound sequences in the
  word) and B is high neighborhood density (high
  number of words in the language that sound
  similar to the stimulus word)

11

• Study Design
• Block design MEG study
• Four categories of 70 stimuli each
• high probability/density words (BELL, LINE)
• low probability/density words (PAGE, DISH)
• high probability/density nonwords (MIDE, PAKE)
• low probability/density nonwords (JIZE, YUSH)
• Two blocks of 140 stimuli each, with a pause in
  between

12

• Results
• High probability/density stimuli had longer RTs
  and shorter M350 latencies than low
  probability/density stimuli, for both words and
  nonwords
• Our results indicate that M350 latencies vary
  independently from reaction times when stimuli
  are simultaneously varied along a dimension that
  affects lexical activation and a dimension that
  affects selection/decision. This result can only
  be explained by lexical accounts of the M350 if
  the M350 reflected postlexical processing, its
  latency should reflect inhibitory effects of
  neighborhood density rather than earlier
  facilitatory effects of phonotactic probability

13

• Beretta, Fiorentino, and Poeppel (2004)
• The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical
  access an MEG study
• Goal Use M350 to test single-entry vs.
  separate-entry models of polysemy
• Since homonymy is known to be separate-entry, if
  polysemy is also separate-entry, there should be
  an RT difference between homonymous and
  polysemous words (per Rodd et al.) i.e. a
  postlexical difference but no M350 difference
  i.e. no difference at earlier stages of lexical
  processing
• Single-entry polysemy should show differences
  between homonymous and polysemous words at all
  stages of processing (M350 and RT should both be
  different)

14

• Study Design
• Block design MEG study
• Four categories of 32 stimuli each
• Single meaning, few senses (ant)
• Single meaning, many senses (mask)
• More than one meaning, few senses (calf)
• More than one meaning, many senses (bark)
• 64-item practice session, four blocks of 42
  stimuli (10 initial for practice), break in
  between blocks

Meanings
Senses
15

• Results
• Words with multiple meanings had longer RTs,
  words with more senses had shorter RTs
• Words with multiple meanings had a later M350
  peak, words with more senses had an earlier M350
  peak (there was also a marginal effect of
  polysemy on M350 peak amplitude)
• Processing of homonymous and polysemous words is
  thus distinct for both earlier and later lexical
  processing

16
Polysemy and homonymy yield distinct processing
profiles not only in behavioral responses
occurring around 600650 ms, but also in neural
M350 responses occurring approximately 300 ms
earlier. These results support a single-entry
account of polysemy and, conversely, provide no
support for a separate-entry account, that is,
for an account of lexical ambiguity which claims
that both homonymy and polysemy involve multiple
lexical entries at some stage of processing. So
words with multiple meanings have separate,
competing entries, but multiple senses have
single, simultaneously-accessed entries.
17

• Questions
• Where is the disjunction between lexical and
  postlexical processing?
• Where is the disjunction between homonymous and
  polysemous words?
• How does this relate to the idea of a word as
  a collection of features?
• What does this mean for our experience of
  reading literature?

18
Beautiful Light-colored Just
That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect, For
slanders mark was ever yet the fair The
ornament of beauty is suspect, A crow that flies
in heavens sweetest air. So thou be good,
slander doth but approve Thy worth the greater,
being wooed of time For canker vice the sweetest
buds doth love, And thou presentst a pure
unstained prime. Thou has passed by the ambush of
young days, Either not assailed, or victor being
charged Yet this thy praise cannot be so thy
praise. To tie up envy evermore enlarged. If
some suspect of ill masked not thy show, Then
thou alone kingdoms of hearts shouldst owe.

• Item used as decoration
• Quality making something beautiful

Suspicion Worthy of suspicion Thing suspected
Prove Condone
First thing Prime of life Springtime
Made bigger Set at liberty
Own Carry a debt
Uniquely Without sharing