本研究欲探討語境限制在漢語偏向型同音異形詞的解歧歷程中的效應。透過兩個跨模式唸名作業，我們欲了解以下研究問題：（1）詞義相對頻率在中性語境下是否能影響詞義的啟動？（2）句內語境限制是否能影響漢語偏向型同音異形詞解困的初始階段？（3）加入全局語境是否能對歧義解困的初始階段造成影響？
本研究的結果顯示，詞義相對頻率對同音異形詞不同詞義的啟動無明顯效應。在中性語境內，我們觀察到同音異形詞的主次要意義唸名時間差距無顯著差異。其次，強的句內語境限制能單獨啟動合適詞義，並且抑制不合適詞義的啟動。在沒有語境支持的情況下，即使是偏向型同音異形詞的主要意義仍然無法提取。第三，提供篇章限制對於正確詞義的啟動並沒有顯著的促進效果，反而造成了整體唸名時間的延緩。
本研究的結果不支持語境早期效應的模組假說，亦不支持語境能選擇性提取詞義的重新排序模型。我們的結果較符合互動假說下的語境敏感模型（e.g., Vu et al., 2000）。在此模型中，強度大的語境能夠單獨提取其所支持的歧義詞義。然而，我們的結果亦顯示，當句內語境線索充足時，增加全局語境限制並無明顯額外效應。這可能是由於全局語境無法在詞彙的初始階段起作用，或因原有的句內語境線索已足夠，導致全局線索無法達到加乘效應。

The present study aims at exploring the effects of contextual constraints on the resolution of Mandarin biased heterographic homophones. Through two cross-modal naming tasks, we purported to answer the following research questions: (1) Does relative frequency affect meaning activation in a neutral context? (2) Do local contextual constraints influence meaning activation at the early stage of biased heterographic homophone resolution? (3) Does the inclusion of a global context have an early effect during ambiguity resolution?

The results indicated that relative meaning frequency does not affect meaning activation. In the neutral context, naming times for both the dominant and the subordinate meanings did not differ significantly. Secondly, strong local contextual constraints could lead to selective activation of the correct meaning, while inhibiting the activation of improper meanings. Without contextual support, even the dominant meaning of a biased heterographic homophone could not be successfully activated. Thirdly, providing discourse constraints did not facilitate activation of the correct meaning, but rather led to an overall latency in naming times.

The results of the study disconfirm the Modular Hypothesis, which opposes an early effect of contextual constraints. Additionally, the results cannot be explained by the Reordered Access Model, which argues against selective access of the correct meaning by contextual information. Our results are most compatible with the Context Sensitive Model (e.g., Vu et al., 2000). According to this model, a strong context can activate the single meaning it supports. Nevertheless, our results suggest that global context does not yield additional effects when local constraints are sufficient. This may be caused by the fact that global context does not have an early effect at all, or that global constraints do not exert extra effects when there are enough constraints in the local context.

中央研究院語言學研究所（2005）。現代漢語語料庫詞頻統計。取自：http://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw/C Wordfreq.html
中央研究院語言學研究所。「搜文解字」─「搜詞尋字」語庫查詢系統。取自：http://words.sinica.edu.tw/sou/sou.html
中央研究院語言學研究所。中文詞彙特性速描系統。取自：http://wordsketch.ling.sinica.edu.tw
任桂琴，韓玉昌，于澤（2008）。句子語境中漢語詞彙歧義消解的眼動研究。心理科學， 35（4），875-879。
任桂琴，韓玉昌，周永壘（2007）。句子語境中漢語詞彙歧義消解的 ERP 研究。心理科學，30（6），1345-1350。
李紅印（2000）。漢語聽力教學新論。南京大學學報，5（37），154-159。
余雲霞（1992）。同音詞辨析。北京：北京語言學院出版社。
周治金，陳永明，楊麗霞，陳烜之（2003）。漢語同音歧義詞歧義消解的過程及其抑制機制。心理學報，35（1），1-8。
武寧寧，舒華（2002）。句子語境中漢語詞類歧義詞的意義激活。心理學報，34（5），454-461。
邵敬敏（主編）（2007）。現代漢語通論（第二版）。上海：上海教育出版社。
張亞旭，王黎，舒華（2003）。漢語同音異形詞意義識別中的抑制過程。心理學報，35（3），291-299。
陳怡蓉（2009）。詞義相關性在詞彙歧義理解上的效應：以中文動詞為例。台北市：國立師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
舒華，唐映紅，張亞旭（2000）。漢語雙音節同音詞詞匯歧義消解過程的研究。心理學報，32（3），247-252。
盧怡璇（2012）。詞彙歧義解困的次要語義偏向效應再視：中文多義詞的眼動研究證據。台北市：國立政治大學碩士論文（未出版）。
Ahrens, K. (2006). The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 677-696.
Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown and R. C. Omanson. (1987). The effects and use of diverse vocabulary instruction techniques. In M.G. McKeown and M.E. Curtis (Eds.) The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beretta, A, Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57-65.
Binder, K. S., & Rayner, K. (1998). Contextual strength does not modulate the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye fixations and self-paced reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 271-276.
Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1186-1196.
Binder, K. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 690-702.
Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (2011). An eye-movement analysis of ambiguity resolution: Beyond meaning access. Discourse Processes, 48(5), 305-330.
Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 91-120.
Colbert-Getz, J., & Cook, A. E. (2013). Revisiting effects of contextual strength on the subordinate bias effect: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1172-1184.
Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon. Memory & Cognition, 2(1), 130-138.
Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(4), 461-476.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446.
Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the Consequences of Meaning Selection: Perspectives on Resolving Lexical Ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forster, K.I. (1979). Levels of Processing and the Structure of the Language Processor. In W.E. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Essays Presented to Merrill Garrett (pp.27-85). Hillsdale: N.J.: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181-200.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. (1991). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 77, 97-128.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The costs and benefits of meaning. In On The Consequences of Meaning Selection: Perspectives on Resolving Lexical Ambiguity (pp.119-137). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension.　Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.
Harley, T. A. (2013). The Psychology of Language: From data to theory. UK: Erlbaum.
Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265-274.
Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 363-372.
Kellas, G., Paul, S. T, Martin, M., & Simpson, G. B. (1991). Contextual feature activation and meaning access. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding Word and Sentence (pp. 47-71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word identification.Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 336-349.
Klein, Devorah E., and Gregory L. Murphy. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259-282.
Leinenger, M., & Rayner, K. (2013). Eye movements while reading biased homographs: Effects of prior encounter and biasing context on reducing the subordinate bias effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 665-681.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, P., & Yip, M. C. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 223-243.
Lin, C. J. C., & Chen, Y. R. (2015). Exhaustive semantic activation for reading ambiguous verbs in Chinese sentences. Lingua Sinica, 1(7), 1-23.
Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of the subordinate bias effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52(4), 813-839.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440-466.
Metsala, J. L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25(1), 47-56.
McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.) Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp.3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing Lexical Ambiguities during Sentence Comprehension: Effects of Frequency of Meaning and Contextual Bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225-236.
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 703-717.
Pylkkänen, L, Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97-109.
Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52(4), 841-852.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779-790.
Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 527-544.
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & 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.
Sereno, S. C., O'Donnell, P. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinate-bias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 335-350.
Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 22, 359-374.
Shu, H., Yinghong, T., & Yaxu, Z. (2000). A Study on the Resolution of Lexical Ambiguity of Two-Syllable Homophones in Chinese. Psychololy Acta Psychologica Sinica, 32(3), 247-252.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 120-136.
Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1979). Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention. Memory & Cognition,7(2), 77-85.
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical Access During Sentence Comprehension: (Re)Consideration of Context Effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645-659.
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340.
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context.Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 359-372.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (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.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3(1), 64-73.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236-252.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 979-1001.
West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1982). Source of inhibition in experiments on the effect of sentence context on word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5), 385-399.
Wiley, J., & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1011-1021.
Yip, M. C. (2014). Meaning Inhibition and Sentence Processing in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(5), 611-621.
Zhang, Y., Shu, H., Li, P., & Liu, Y. (2001). Inhibitory processes, homophone meanings recognition, and spoken discourse comprehension in Chinese. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science, 221-226.
Ziegler, J. C., Muneaux, M., & Grainger, J. (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 779-793.