簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 陳怡蓉
Yi-Rung Clara Chen
論文名稱： 詞義相關性在詞彙歧義理解上的效應: 以中文動詞為例
The Effect of Sense Relatedness on Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Evidence from Chinese Verbs
指導教授： 林千哲
Lin, Chien-Jer
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2009
畢業學年度： 97
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 215
中文關鍵詞： 心理語言學 、跨模式句子處理 、詞彙歧義理解 、同形異義 、一詞多義 、詞義相關性 、模組假設 、交互假設
英文關鍵詞： psycholinguistics, cross-modal sentence processing, lexical ambiguity resolution, homonymy, polysemy, sense relatedness, modular hypothesis, interactive hypothesis
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：195  下載：26 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本論文以心理語言學的研究途徑，探討不同種類的詞彙歧義在語句理解中的處理過程。過去有關詞彙歧義理解的研究並無一致的發現：有些研究持模組觀點(modular)，認為不同語言層次是獨立運作的，句子語境在詞彙觸接初期並不會影響詞義激發(Ahrens, 1998, 2001; Onifer & Swinney, 1981; Swinney, 1979)；有些研究則支持交互觀點(interactive)，認為語境的效應會直接影響詞彙語意的提取(Li & Yip, 1996, 1998; Tabossi, Colombo, & Job, 1987; Tabossi & Zardon, 1993)。然而，過去文獻並未區分不同類型的歧義詞進行檢視，進而可能影響實驗結果。

    根據多重語意的相關性程度，詞彙歧義可分為同形異義(homonymy)與一詞多義(polysemy)。過去許多實證研究已發現兩者在認知處理過程與心理語意表徵的不同(Azuma & Van Orden, 1997; Frazier & Rayner, 1990; Klepousniotou, 2002)。因此本研究旨在以跨模式詞彙促發實驗(cross-modal lexical priming)，探討兩種不同的詞彙歧義，同形異義詞與多義詞，在語句理解中是否有不同模式的處理過程。

    實驗結果顯示，不同的詞彙歧義確實有不同的理解過程。同形異義詞在語句理解過程中只有與語境相符的意義被激發，而多義詞的所有詞義在初期都會被激發。因此，本研究建議過去研究的爭論可能受到不同詞彙歧義的影響，也表示詞義相關性的效應在詞彙歧義理解的研究是重要的。此外，本研究也指出不同類型歧義詞的處理過程之所以相異，歸因於他們詞義表徵的不同：同形異義詞的多重意義是分別且獨立儲存於心理詞彙，而多義詞的多重語意是儲存於單一核心意義的心理表徵之下。

    This thesis adopts a psycholinguistic approach to examine how different types of lexical ambiguity are resolved and processed during sentence comprehension. Previous findings on lexical ambiguity resolution were contradictory: some studies took a modular position, which suggested that different levels of processing system operate independently and thus contextual information from the discourse level would not immediately influence the access of a word’s meaning at the lexical level (e.g. Ahrens, 1998, 2001; Onifer & Swinney, 1981; Swinney, 1979); others took an interactive position, which argued that sentential context could have an immediate effect on lexical access (e.g. Li & Yip, 1996, 1998; Tabossi, Colombo, & Job, 1987; Tabossi & Zardon, 1993). However, it was observed that most research to date has not distinguished different types of ambiguity in their experiments, which may hence influence the results.

    Lexical ambiguity has been traditionally differentiated into homonymy and polysemy, with respect to the dimension of relatedness of its multiple meanings. A number of psycholinguistic studies concerning the semantics of ambiguous words did provide empirical evidence for the processing distinction between homonymy and polysemy, and some of the studies further pointed out their underlying differences on meaning representations in the mental lexicon (e.g. Azuma & Van Orden, 1997; Frazier & Rayner, 1990; Klepousniotou, 2002). The main purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to investigate whether two types of ambiguity, homonymy and polysemy, have different processing mechanisms during on-line sentence comprehension, by conducting a cross-modal lexical priming experiment.

    The results of the present study showed that homonymy and polysemy did perform distinct processing patterns on the resolution of lexical ambiguity. For a homonymous word, only the contextually appropriate meaning was accessed, whereas both meanings of a polysemous word were activated at an early stage of semantic access. Our findings suggest that inconsistent results in previous literature might be confounded by the relatedness of multiple meanings, and thus the effect of sense relatedness should not be overlooked in the issue of lexical ambiguity resolution. Furthermore, the distinct processing patterns between homonymy and polysemy could be explained in terms of their different lexical representations: while meanings of a homonymous word are stored distinctly and separately, multiple related meanings of a polysemous word are stored and listed under a single core sense.

    CHINESE ABSTRACT i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO Issues in Lexical Ambiguity Resolution 9 2.1 Two Processing Hypotheses: Modularity versus Interaction 9 2.1.1 Modularity Hypothesis 10 2.1.2 Interaction Hypothesis 13 2.1.3 Modularity and Interaction Hypothesis in Lexical Ambiguity Resolution 15 2.2 Methodological Issues: Past and Present 23 CHAPTER THREE Homonymy and Polysemy 50 3.1 Defining Homonymy and Polysemy 50 3.2 Different Accounts for Polysemy Representation 53 3.2.1 Theoretical Accounts of Lexical Semantics 53 3.2.2 A Psycholinguistics Perspective: Processing Evidence 57 3.3 Interim Summary 67 3.4 Hypothesis of the Effect of Sense Relatedness in Lexical Ambiguity Resolution 69 CHAPTER FOUR Pretests on Ambiguous Words, Visual Targets and Sentential Contexts 72 4.1 Pretest One—Sense Ranking Task for Ambiguous Words 74 4.1.1 Subjects 74 4.1.2 Materials 74 4.1.3 Procedure 76 4.1.4 Results 77 4.2 Pretest Two—Sense Relatedness Rating Task for Ambiguous Words 78 4.2.1 Subjects 78 4.2.2 Materials 78 4.2.3 Procedure 79 4.2.4 Results 79 4.3 Pretest Three—Familiarity Rating Task for Ambiguous Words 80 4.3.1 Subjects 81 4.3.2 Materials 81 4.3.3 Procedure 82 4.3.4 Results 82 4.3.5 Verification of the Ambiguous Words 83 4.4 Pretest Four—Isolated Lexical Decision Task for Visual Targets 90 4.4.1 Subjects 91 4.4.2 Materials 91 4.4.3 Procedure 95 4.4.4 Results 96 4.5 Pretest Five—Association Rating Task for Primes and Targets 100 4.5.1 Subjects 100 4.5.2 Materials 101 4.5.3 Procedure 101 4.5.4 Results 102 4.5.5 Verification of the Visual Targets 103 4.6 Pretest Six—Sentence Completion Task for Sentential Materials 105 4.6.1 Subjects 105 4.6.2 Materials 105 4.6.3 Procedure 106 4.6.4 Results 106 CHAPTER FIVE On-line Cross-Modal Lexical Priming Experiment 109 5.1 Experimental Method 109 5.1.1 Subjects 109 5.1.2 Materials 110 5.1.3 Procedure 111 5.2 Results and Discussion 114 5.2.1 Activation of Word Meanings 114 5.2.2 Sense Relatedness and Processing (Dis)Advantage in Sentences 120 5.3 Post-test: Association Rating Task for Contextual Meanings 123 5.3.1 Subjects 123 5.3.2 Materials 124 5.3.3 Procedure 124 5.3.4 Results 125 CHAPTER SIX General Discussion 127 6.1 Effect of Sense Relatedness 127 6.2 Lexical Representations of Homonymy and Polysemy 134 CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusion and Future Research 143 7.1 Conclusion 143 7.2 Future Research 147 REFERENCES 150 APPENDIX 161 Appendix 1 Instructions for the Sense Ranking Task 161 Appendix 2 Survey for Subjects’ Linguistic Background Information 163 Appendix 3 Sample of the Sense Ranking Task 165 Appendix 4 The Primary/Secondary meanings of the 61 Words Selected from Sense Ranking Task 167 Appendix 5 Instructions for the Sense Relatedness Rating Task 171 Appendix 6 Sample of the Sense Relatedness Rating Task 173 Appendix 7 The 21 Homonymous Words and 24 Polysemous Words Selected from Sense Relatedness Rating Task 174 Appendix 8 Instructions for the Familiarity Rating Task 175 Appendix 9 Sample of the Experiential Familiarity Rating Task 177 Appendix 10 The Familiarity Rating for the Ambiguous Words and Rare Words 178 Appendix 11 The Selected 48 Prime Words for Experimental items 178 Appendix 12 Words and Non-words in Isolated Lexical Decision Task 181 Appendix 13 Instructions for Isolated Lexical Decision Task 184 Appendix 14 Instructions for the Prime-target Association Rating Task 186 Appendix 15 Sample of the Prime-target Association Rating Task 188 Appendix 16 Selected Visual Targets for Experimental Prime Words 189 Appendix 17 Associated Word Neighbors for the Visual Targets 196 Appendix 18 Instructions for the Sentence Completion Task 198 Appendix 19 Sample of the Sentence Completion Task 200 Appendix 20 Sentential Materials for Experimental Prime Words 201 Appendix 21 Instructions for Cross-Modal Lexical Decision Task 208 Appendix 22 Instructions for the Association Rating Task for Contextual Meanings 210 Appendix 23 Sample of the Association Rating Task for Contextual Meanings 212 Appendix 24 Materials of Previous Cross-Modal Lexical Decision Tasks 213

    Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Language, Tasks and Timing. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence Processing: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (pp. 11-31). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Ahrens, K. (1999). The Mutability of Noun and Verb Meaning. In Y. Yin, I. Yang & H. Chan (Eds.), Chinese Languages and Linguistics V: Interactions in Language (pp. 335-548). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
    Ahrens, K. (2001). On-line Sentence Comprehension of Ambiguous Verbs in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10(4), 337-358.
    Ahrens, K. (2002). Timing issues in lexical ambiguity resolution. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages (pp. 1-29). Stanford: CSLI.
    Ahrens, K. (2003). Verbal integration: The interaction of participant roles and sentential argument structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(5), 497-516.
    Ahrens, K. (2006). The Effect of Visual Target Presentation Times on Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 677-696.
    Ahrens, K., Chang, L.-L., Chen, K.-J., & Huang, C.-R. (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3, 46-50.
    Ahrens, K., & Swinney, D. (1995). Participant Roles and the Processing of Verbs during Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(6), 533-547.
    Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic meaning: Volume one. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times Journal of memory and language, 36, 484-504.
    Balogh, J., Zurif, E., Prather, P., Swinney, D., & Finkel, L. (1998). Gap filling and end-of-sentence effects in real-time language processing: implications for modeling sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 61(2), 169-182.
    Balota, D., Ferraro, R., & Connor, L. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187-222). Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
    Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
    Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 63-85.
    Brisard, F., Rillaer, G. v., & Sandra, D. (2001). Processing polysemous, homonymous, and vague adjectives. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 261-284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration processes in language comprehension: Evidence from brain-imaging research. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. In C. Rameh (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of Language (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
    Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1983). Understanding old words with new meanings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 591-608.
    Colombo, L., & d'Arcais, G. B. F. (1984). The meaning of Dutch prepositions: Psycholinguistic study of polysemy. Linguistics 22, 51-98.
    Connine, C. M., Mullennix, J., Shernoff, E., & Yelen, J. (1990). Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1084-1096.
    Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: a study of the subjective lexicon. Memory and Cognition 2(1A), 130-138.
    Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24, 1238-1255.
    Druks, J. (2002). Verbs and nouns—a review of the literature. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 289-315.
    Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). The role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from Basque and Spanish1176. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 1171-1176.
    Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
    Durkin, K., & Manning, J. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 577-612.
    Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. (2005). Cognitive Psychology: a student's handbook (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
    Field, J. (2004). Psycholinguistics: the key concepts. New York: Routledge.
    Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Forster, K. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. . In R. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.), New Approaches to Language Mechanism (pp. 257-287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    Forster, K., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition 4, 53-61.
    Foster, K. (1979). Level of processing and structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistics Studies Presented to Merill Garrett (pp. 257-287). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language, 29, 181-200.
    Frisson, S., Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of Psychology 99, 87-107.
    Garfield, J. (1987). Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-language Understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness'puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 223-272.
    Gentner, D., & France, I. M. (1988). The verb mutability effect: Studies of the combinatorial semantics of nouns and verbs. In S. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 343-382). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.
    Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness and polysemy. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
    Glucksberg, S., Kreutz, R. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 12, 323-335.
    Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must, and should: A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31(1), 53-79.
    Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 15, 643-657.
    Guo, J., Shu, H., & Li, P. (2007). Context effects in lexical ambiguity processing in Chinese: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Science, 8, 91-107.
    Harley, T. A. (1996). The Psychology of Language: from data to theory. New York: Psychology Press.
    Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
    Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28, 686-713.
    Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? . Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 247-273.
    Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14(3), 265-274.
    Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139-157.
    Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Huang, C.-R., & Chang, R.-Y. (2004). Categorical ambiguity and information content: A Corpus-based study of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 14(2), 157-165.
    Huang, C.-R., Chen, C.-R., & Shen, C. C.-C. (2002). The nature of categorical ambiguity and its implications for language processing: A corpus-based study of Mandarin Chinese. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages (pp. 53-83). Stanford: CSLI.
    Huang, C.-R., Kilgarriff, A., Wu, Y., Chiu, C.-M., Smith, S., Rychly, P., et al. (2005). Chinese Sketch Engine and the Extraction of Collocations. Paper presented at the the Fourth SigHan Workshop on Chinese Language Processing.
    Huang, S.-F. (1994). Chinese as a metonymic language. In M. Chen & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies of Language and Language Change (pp. 223-252). Taipei: Pyramid Press.
    Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology 13, 278-305.
    Juhasz, B., Starr, M., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, L. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions, and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 223-244.
    Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Non-linear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516.
    Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. (1985). Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 336-349.
    Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
    Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 548-570.
    Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205-233.
    Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24.
    Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
    Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 207-246.
    Li, F., & Kuiper, K. (1999[2006]). Semantics: a course book. Shanghai: Shanghai Wai Yu Jiao Yu Chu Ban She.
    Li, P. (1998). Crosslinguistic variation and sentence processing: the case of Chinese. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence Processing: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (pp. 33-53). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Li, P., Shu, H., Yip, M., Zhang, Y., & Tang, Y. (2002). Lexical ambiguity in sentence processing: Evidence from Chinese. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages (pp. 111-129). Stanford: CSLI.
    Li, P., & Yip, M. (1996). Lexical ambiguity and context effects in spoken word recognition: evidence from Chinese. In G. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 228-232). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Li, P., & Yip, M. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 223-243.
    Li, X., Shu, H., Liu, Y., & Li, P. (2006). Mental representation of verb meaning: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1774-1787.
    Lin, C.-J. C. (1999). Multiple senses of Mandarin Chinese nominals: Implications for lexical access. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei.
    Lin, C.-J. C., & Ahrens, K. (2000). Calculating the number of senses: Implications for ambiguity advantage effect during lexical access. In H. Y. Tai & C. Y. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (pp. 141-155). Chai-yi: National Chung-Cheng University.
    Lin, C.-J. C., & Ahrens, K. (in press). Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
    Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Spoken word recognition. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 265-301). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Locker, L. J., Simpson, G. B., & Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of polysemous words. Memory and Cognition 31, 505-515.
    Lucas, M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts. Language and Speech, 31(1), 25-46.
    Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: a meta-analysis. Memory and Cognition, 27, 385-398.
    Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36.
    Lupker, S. J. (2007). Representation and processing of lexically ambiguous words. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 159-174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Maratsos, M. P. (1991). How the acquisition of nouns may be different from that of verbs. In N. A. Krasnegor & D. M. Rumbaugh (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71.
    Marslen-Wilson, W., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognition Psychology, 10, 29-63.
    Mason, R., & Just, M. A. (2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1146, 115-127.
    McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interaction in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception, Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-405.
    Melinger, A., & Koenig, J. (2007). Part-of-speech persistence: The influence of part-of-speech information on lexical processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 472-489.
    Metcalf, K. A. (2003). The influence of meaning relatedness on lexical ambiguity resolution: the importance of featural representations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, Kansas.
    Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don't. . Memory and Cognition, 17, 141-147.
    Moss, H. E., & Gaskell, M. G. (1999). Lexical semantic processing during speech. In S. Garrod & M. Pickering (Eds.), Language Processing (pp. 59-99). Hove: Psychology Press.
    Myers, J. (2006). Processing Chinese compounds: A survey of the literature. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 169-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: introduction and overview. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 3-30). Hawthorne, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Nicol, J., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using Cross-Modal Lexical Decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1229-1238.
    Nicol, J., Swinney, D., Love, T., & Hald, L. (2006). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: An examination of dual task paradigms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(3), 215-231.
    Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
    Oden, G., & Spira, J. (1983). Influence of context on the activation and selection of ambiguous word senses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(A), 51-64.
    Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency-of-meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
    Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). The influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 703-717.
    Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323-334.
    Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 556-573.
    Piercey, C. D., & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory and Cognition 28(4), 657-666.
    Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The Representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97-109.
    Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (2000). Polysemy: An overview. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 1-29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191-201.
    Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
    Rayner, K., & Morris, R. K. (1991). Comprehension processes in reading ambiguous sentences. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 175-198). Amsterdam: North Holland.
    Rice, S. A. (1992). Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 89-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
    Rodd, J., Gaskell, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
    Ruhl, C. (1989). On Monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: SUNY Press.
    Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42(A), 529-567.
    Seidenberg, M., Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: some limitations of knowledge based processing. Cognitive Psychology 14(4), 489-537.
    Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21(3), 582-595.
    Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
    Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316-340.
    Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 359-374). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11, 28-39.
    Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643.
    Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Cognitive Psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
    Swaab, T., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86(2), 326-343.
    Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)Consideration of content effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
    Swinney, D., & Love, T. (1996). Co-reference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 5-24.
    Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340.
    Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: effects ofcontext and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2-3), 161-167.
    Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language 32, 359-372.
    Tamminen, J., Cleland, A. A., Quinlan, P. T., & Gaskell, M. G. (2006). Processing semantic ambiguity: different loci for meanings and senses. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2222-2227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & Seidenberg, M. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 427-440.
    Tanenhaus, M. K., Dell, G. S., & Carlson, G. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing: A connectionist approach to modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding (pp. 83-108). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
    Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Till, R., Mross, E., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 16, 283-298.
    Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Lin, Y. C., Tzeng, O. J.-L., & Hung, D. L. (2006). Neighborhood size effects of Chinese words in lexical decision and reading. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 659-675.
    Tsai, P.-S. (2005). Psycholinguistic processing of Chinese polysemy. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
    Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273-290.
    Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 188-208.
    Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighbourhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64-73.
    Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 760-770.
    Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition, 28(2), 236-252.
    Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and cognition, 26(5), 979-1001.
    Williams, J. N. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 193-218.
    Wu, D. (2002). The relatedness of meanings in Chinese lexical ambiguity resolution. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Beijing Normal University, Beijing.
    Wu, N., & Shu, H. (2002). Meaning activation of Chinese syntactic category ambiguous words in sentence context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34, 454-461.
    Zgusta, L. (1971). Manual of lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
    Zhang, Y., Wu, N., & Yip, M. (2006). Lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese sentence reading. In P. Li, L. Tan, E. Bates & O. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics (Vol. Chinese, pp. 268-278). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Morphological structure in the Chinese mental lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 545-601.
    Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2000). Lexical representation of compound words: Crosslinguistic evidence. Psychologia, 43, 47-66.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE