請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71704
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 李佳霖(Chia-Lin Lee) | |
dc.contributor.author | Shiuan-Huey Yen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 顏瑄慧 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:07:09Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-01-15 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-01-15 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-01-08 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Bakker, D. J., Smink, T., and Rietsman, P. (1973). Ear dominance and reading ability. Cortex, 9, 301-312.
2. Bakker, D. J. (1970). Ear-asymmetry with monaural stimulation: Relations to lateral dominance and lateral awareness. Neuropsychologia, 8, 103-117. 3. Banich, M. T. (2003). The divided visual field technique in laterality and interhemispheric integration, ed. K. Hugdahl, Experimental Methods in Neuropsychology, 47-64. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 4. Barwood, C. H. S., Murdoch, B. E., Whelan, B. –M., Lloyd, D., Riek, S., Sullivan, J. D. O’, Coulthard, A., and Wong, A. (2011). Improved language performance subsequent to low-frequency rTMS in patients with chronic non-fluent aphasia post-stroke. European Journal of Neurology, 18, 935-43. 5. Berlucci, G. (1983). Two hemispheres but one brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 171-173. 6. Breier, J. I., Juranek, J., Maher, L. M., Schmadeke, S., Men, D., and Papanicolaou, A. C. (2009). Behavioral and Neurophysiologic Response to Therapy for Chronic Aphasia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 2026-33. 7. Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 8. Cabeza, R. (2002). Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: the HAROLD model. Psycho Aging, 17(1), 85-100. 9. Cabeza, R. and Dennis, N. A. (2012). Principles of Frontal Lobe Function, eds. D. T. Stuss and R. T. Knight. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10. Chen, P-H, Yeh, C., Lu, C., Hsieh, S.-K., Chou, T.-L., Su, L. I-W., Lee, C. L. (2018). Multiple scaffolding mechanisms for L2 syntactic processing—An event related potential study. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 15(2), 63-93. 11. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113-124. 12. Cook, N. (1986). The Brain Code. London: Methuen. 13. Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., Mehler, J., Cohen, L., Paulesu, E., and Perani, D. (1997). Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second language. Neuroreport, 8, 3809-15. 14. Denenberg, V. H. (1983). Micro and macro theories of the brain. Behavioral and brain Sciences, 6, 174-178. 15. Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive function. Lifespan Cognition: Mechanism of Change, eds. E. Bialystok and F. I. M. Craik, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 16. Fernandez, B., Cardebat, D., Demonet, J.-F., Joseph, P.A., Mazaux, J. –M., Barat, M., and Allard, M. (2004). Functional MRI follow-up study of language processes in healthy subjects and during recovery in a case of aphasia. Stroke, 35, 2171-6. 17. Fiebach, C. J., Vos, S.H., and Friederici, A. D. (2004). Neural correlates of syntactic ambiguity in sentence comprehension for low and high span readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1562-1575. 18. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., and Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(1), 529-534. 19. Friederici, A. D., Ruschemeyer, SA., Hahne, A., and Fiebach, C. J. (2003). The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 170-177. 20. Gómez, R.L., and Gerken, L. A. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by one-year-olds to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition, 70, 109-135. 21. Gómez, R. L., and Gerken, L. A. (2000). Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 178-186. 22. Gómez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431-436. 23. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 20, 18-29. 24. Hamilton, R. H., Chrysikou, E. G., and Coslett, B. (2011). Mechanisms of aphasia recovery after stroke and the role of noninvasive brain simulation. Brain & Language, 118, 40-50. 25. Hancock, R. and Bever, T. G. (2013). Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of language, Biolinguistics, 7, 75-95. 26. Hosoda, C., Tanaka, K., Nariai, T., Honda, M., and Hanakawa, T. (2013). Dynamic neural network reorganization associated with second language vocabulary acquisition: a multimodal imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 13663-71672. 27. Hsu, HJ., Tomblin, J. B., and Christiansen, M. H. (2014). Impaired statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies in adolescents with specific language impairment. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 175. 28. Hull, R., and Vaid, J. (2006). Laterality and language experience. Laterality, 11, 436-464. 29. Indefrey, P., Hagoort, P., Herzog, H., Seitz, R. J., and Brown, C. M. (2001). Syntactic processing in left prefrontal cortex is independent of lexical meaning. Neuroimage, 14, 546-555. 30. Innocenti, G. (1986). General organization of callosal connections in the cerebral cortex, eds, E. Jones and A. Peters, Cerebral Cortex, 5, 291-353. New York: Plenum. 31. Kaneko, K., Fujiki, N., and Hari, R. (2003). Binaural interaction in the human auditory cortex revealed by neuromagnetic frequency tagging: no effect of stimulus intensity. Hearing Research, 183, 1-6. 32. Karbe, H., Thiel, A., Weber-Luxenburger, G., Herholz, K., Kessler, J., and Heiss, W. -D. (1998). Brain plasticity in poststroke aphasia: what is the contribution of the right hemisphere? Brain and Language, 65, 215-230. 33. Kimura, D. (1961). Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 166-171. 34. Kimura, D. (1967). Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex, 3, 163-168. 35. Kinsbourne, M. (Ed.). (1978). Asymmetrical Function of The Brain. New York: Cambridge University Press. 36. Kutas, M., and Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647. 37. Leckey, M., and Federmeier, K. D. (2017). Age-related shifts in hemispheric dominance for syntactic processing. Psychopsysiology, 54, 1-11. 38. Lee, C., and Federmeier, K. D. (2015). It’s all in the family: Brain asymmetry and syntactic processing of word class. Psychological Science, 26(7), 997-1005. 39. Levitan, S., and Reggia, J. A. (2000). A computational model of lateralization and asymmetries in cortical maps. Neuro Computation, 12, 2037-2062. 40. Marcus, G., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., and Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283, 77-80. 41. Mechlinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., and Friederici, A.D. (1995). Processing clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: an analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 23(4), 114-135. 42. Meyer, B. U., Röricht, S., von Einsiedel, H., Kruggel, F., and Weindl, A. (1995). Inhibitory and excitatory interhemispheric transfers between motor cortical areas in normal humans and patients with abnormalities of corpus callosum. Brain, 118, 429-440. 43. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100. 44. Mueller, J. L., Oberecker, R., and Friederici, A. D. (2009). Syntactic learning by mere exposure - An ERP study in adult learners. BMC Neuroscience, 10, 89. 45. Naeser, M. A., Martin, P. I., Nicholas, M., Baker, E. H., Seekings, H., Kobayashi, M., Theoret, H., Fregni, F., Maria-Tormos, J., Kurland, J., Doron, K. W., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). Improved picture naming in chronic aphasia after TMS to part of right Broca’s area: An open-protocol study. Brain and Language, 93, 95-105. 46. Newman-Norlund, R.D., Frey, S.H., Petitto, L.A., and Grafton, S.T. (2006). Anatomical substrates of visual and auditory miniature second-language learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1984-1997. 47. Newport, E. L. and Aslin, R. N. (2000). Innately constrained learning: blending old and new approaches to language acquisition. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, and T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1-21. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 48. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113. 49. Öttl, B., Jäger, G., and Kaup, B. (2017). The role of simple semantics in the process of artificial grammar learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1285-308. 50. Patel, A.D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., and Holcomb, P. J., (1998). Processing relations in language and music: an event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 717-733. 51. Poletiek, F. H. and Lai, J. (2012). How semantic biases in simple adjacencies affect learning a complex structure with non-adjacencies in AGL: a statistical account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 367(1598), 2046-54. 52. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R.N., and Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928. 53. Saffran, J. R., Newport, E.L., Aslin, R.N., Tunick, R.A., and Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8, 101-195. 54. Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., and Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tonal structure by adults and infants. Cognition, 70, 27-52. 55. Santelmann, L., and Jusczyk, P. W. (1998). Sensitivity to discontinuous dependencies in language learners: Evidence for limitations in processing. Cognition, 69, 105-134. 56. Schneiderman, E. I., and Saddy, J. D. (1988). A linguistic deficit resulting from right-hemisphere damage. Brain and Language, 34(1), 38-53. 57. Schneiderman, E. I., and Murasugi, K. (2003). Does right hemisphere damaged patients’ impaired performance on a sentence insertion task indicate a syntactic or a lexical level deficit? Brain and Language, 85, 377-384. 58. Shafto, M. A. and Tyler, L. K. (2014). Language in the aging brain: the network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science, 346(6209), 583-587. 59. Shevtsova, N., and Reggia, J. A. (1999). A neural network model of lateralization during letter identification. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 167-181. 60. Tang, L., (2017). Hemispheric differences in statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 61. Toyama, K., Tokashiki, S., and Matsunami, K. (1969). Synaptic action of commissural impulses upon association efferent cells in cat visual cortex. Brain Research, 14, 518-520. 62. Tyler, L. K., and Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2008). Fronto-temporal brain systems supporting spoken language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 363, 1037-1054. 63. Tyler, L. K., Wright, P., Randall, B., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Stamatakis, E. A. (2010). Reorganization of syntactic processing following left-hemisphere brain damage: does right-hemisphere activity preserve function? Brain, 133, 3396-3408. 64. Van den Bos, E., Christianse, M. H., and Misyak, J. B. (2012). Statistical learning of probabilistic nonadjacent dependencies by multiple-cue integration. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 507-20. 65. de Vries, M. H., Christiansen, M. H., and Petersson, K. M. (2011). Learning recursion: multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics, 5(1-2), 10-35. 66. de Vries, M. H., Petersson, K. M., Geukes, S., Zwitserlood, P., and Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Processing multiple non-adjacent dependencies: evidence from sequence learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 367, 2065-2076. 67. Wechsler, D. (1997). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition (WISC-III). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. 68. Weiller, C., Isensee, C., Rigntjes, M., Huber, W., Müller, S., Bier, D., Dutschoka, K., Woods, R. P., Noth, J., and Diener, H. C. (1995). Recovery from Wernicke’s aphasia: a positron emission tomography study. Annals of Neurology, 37, 723-732. 69. Whitehouse, A. J. and Bishop, D. V. (2008). Cerebral dominance for language function in adults with specific language impairment or autism. Brain, 131(12), 3193-3200. 70. Wong, PCM., Perrachione, T. K, and Parrish, T. B. (2007). Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 995-1006. 71. Xiang, HD., van Leeuwen, T. M., Dediu, D., Roberts, L., Norris, D. G., and Hagoort, P. (2013). L2 proficiency dependent laterality shift in structural connectivity of brain pathways. Brain Connectivity, 5, 349-361. 72. Yang, C. (2005). On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5(1), 265-302. 73. Yasin, I. (2007). Hemispheric differences in processing dichotic meaningful and non-meaningful words. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2718-2729. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71704 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 語言的特性是區別人類與動物的重要指標,其中,句法處理更為高階困難。大腦在分析句法結構時,在大多數的人傾向於側化至語言中樞的左腦處理,在事件相關腦電位(Event-Related Potentials,ERPs)的研究中,發現右腦也有相似於左腦,在遇到不合文法的結構時,產生分析句法結構的腦電波反應(P600)——不過截至目前的研究中,左右兩腦都顯現句法結構分析的腦電波,大多是在語言能力以及語言學習成效較差的人身上觀察到。右腦之於句法處理,是作為左腦平行產生,兩腦彼此競爭、干擾,造成學習成效不佳?抑或在遇到複雜句法結構、學習有所困難時,作為輔助與支援?目前文獻對於右腦在句法處理上擔任的角色尚未釐清。為了觀察右腦參與句法處理的功用、以及左右腦在遇到句法結構或學習結構困難上的互動,本研究採用事件相關腦電位(Event-Related Potentials,ERPs)作為量測工具,紀錄無左利家族史的年輕成人受試者在人工語法學習(Artificial Grammar Learning)上左右腦處理的反應。研究由兩個實驗組成,實驗分為學習階段與測驗階段。於學習階段,受試者們在其中以單耳交替聆聽(alternate monaural listening)依照非相鄰依存(nonadjacent dependencies)文法結構設計、三個字串組成的句子;於測驗階段,實驗更動其中一半句子的非相鄰依存文法結構配對為不合規率之配對,並請受試者進行文法判斷測驗。實驗一結果以命中率與假警報率差(命中率(hit rate)減去假警報率(false-alarm rate),以H-F稱)區隔學習成效佳的受試者與學習成效較不佳的受試者。事件相關腦電位結果顯示,學習成效佳者(H-F = 0.91,共17人)呈現左腦側化句法處理反應,僅於右耳呈現刺激材料時顯示P600的文法效果。而學習成效較不佳者(H-F = 0.06,共15人)則左右半腦雙側化的句法處理,在左右兩耳播放刺激時皆有穩定的P600文法效果。不同於實驗一,實驗二將非相鄰依存文法結構的呈現分成四個階段,並僅分析最後學習成功(最後兩階段再認分數 > 0.8)的受試者。同時,實驗二加入不同的文法結構難度,分為非相鄰依存文法配對明顯的簡易組(high variability group)、與非相鄰依存文法配對不明顯的困難組(low variability group),以期觀察大腦相應文法結構複雜度的不同表現。於實驗二,簡易組(H-F = 0.96,共16人)於事件相關腦電位結果呈現左腦側化之P600句法處理反應;困難組(H-F = 0.95,共16人)則於左右腦皆呈現句法處理的反應。綜合實驗一與實驗二的結果,本研究推論在句法結構分析的過程中,在句法結構較簡單、或學習成效佳的情況,句法處理傾向於側化至左腦,然在遇到較困難的結構時,右腦則以互補的形式呈現P600,輔助句法結構學習。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Syntactic processing, as one special characteristic of human language, is strongly lateralized to the left hemisphere (LH). In Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) studies, the right hemisphere (RH) has been found to elicit P600 effect to grammatical errors, showing equivalent syntactic processing ability to the LH. However, the RH P600 effect are often observed in individuals with lower sensitivity to grammatical structure. Under more challenging syntactic processing conditions, the RH might either compete with or attempt to assist the LH. In order to have a better understanding of the interaction between the LH and RH in processing of more complex syntactic regularities, we conducted 2 Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) experiments of young right-handers’ artificial grammar learning. The participants monaurally learned and made grammaticality judgment of a set of 3-item strings generated according to pre-determined artificial grammar rules. In experiment 1, LH-only P600 grammaticality responses are found in successful learners (Hit-False Alarm differences (H-F = 0.91, N = 17), while bilateral P600 effects are found in less successful learners (H-F = 0.06, N = 15). Similar to experiment 1, experiment 2 presented the materials in experiment 1 in 4 sessions and focused only on the successful learners (whose H-F > 0.8 in the last 2 sessions) to have a better look at the brain responses. Experiment 2 further manipulated the conditions as salient (i.e., easier to learn) and less salient (i.e., difficult to learn) regularities. In the salient group (H-F = 0.96, N = 16), LH-only P600 grammaticality responses are observed, yet bilateral P600 effects are observed in the less salient group (H-F = 0.95, N = 16). Results of the two experiments implicate that RH P600 effects of syntactic processing can be compensatory in more challenging learning tasks. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:07:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R05142007-1.pdf: 2386414 bytes, checksum: c39224bcc9aaa41ce180a743e66b1a8d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | CONTENT
口試委員委審定書 # 誌謝 i 中文摘要 ii Abstract iv 1. Chapter Overview 1 2. Introduction 3 2.1 Right Hemisphere Involvement in Syntactic Processing 3 2.2 Nature of RH Syntactic Processing -- Deleterious or Compensatory? 4 2.3 Acquisition of Syntactic Structure in Artificial Language Learning 7 2.4 The Present Study with ERPs and Alternate Monaural Listening Paradigm 11 3. Experiment 1 14 3.1 Method 15 3.1.1 Participants 15 3.1.2 Materials 16 3.1.3 Procedure 18 3.1.4 EEG Recording Parameters 19 3.1.5 EEG Data Analysis 21 3.2 Results 21 3.2.1 Behavioral Results 21 3.2.2 ERPs Results 25 3.3 Supplementary figures 29 3.4 Interim summary and Discussion 32 4. Experiment 2 33 4.1 Method 35 4.1.1 Participants 35 4.1.2 Materials 36 4.1.3 Procedure 37 4.1.4 EEG Recording Parameters and Data Analysis 38 4.2 Results 38 4.2.1 Behavioral Results 38 4.2.2 ERPs Results 41 4.3 Supplementary figures 45 4.4 Interim summary and Discussion 47 5. General Discussion 48 5.1 Acquisition of Non-adjacent Dependencies 48 5.1.1 Acquisition of Non-adjacent Dependencies in High Variability Conditions 48 5.1.2 Acquisition of Non-adjacent Dependencies in Low Variability Conditions 50 5.1.3 Learning Trajectory observed with interleaved training and testing sessions 50 5.2 LH-equivalent Syntactic Processing in the RH 53 5.2.1 RH Syntactic Processing in Less Successful Learners 53 5.2.2 RH Syntactic Processing in Challenging Processing Conditions 54 6. Conclusions 58 References 59 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Illustration of the experimental design for experiment 1 15 Figure 3.2 Experimental Procedure of Experiment 1 19 Figure 3.3 Locations of the 15 Scalp Electrodes Recorded and Used for Analysis 20 Figure 3.4 Hit and False Alarm Rate Differences of Experiment 1 23 Figure 3.5 Grand-average event-related potentials (ERPs) for all participants and the two subsets of participants to grammatical and ungrammatical targets 26 Figure 3.6 ERPs responses from all participants with the right-ear/LH-biased presentation 29 Figure 3.7 ERPs responses from all participants with the left-ear/RH-biased presentation 29 Figure 3.8 ERPs responses from the successful learners with the right-ear/LH-biased presentation 30 Figure 3.9 ERPs responses from the successful learners with the left-ear/RH-biased presentation 30 Figure 3.10 ERPs responses from the less successful learners with the right-ear/LH-biased presentation 31 Figure 3.11 ERPs responses from the less successful learners with the left-ear/RH-biased presentation 31 Figure 4.1 Experimental Procedure of Experiment 2 37 Figure 4.2 Learning Curves of Experiment 2 39 Figure 4.3 Accuracy of Final 2 Sessions of Experiment 2 41 Figure 4.4 Grand-average event-related potentials (ERPs) to grammatical and ungrammatical targets in high and low variability conditions 42 Figure 4.4 ERPs responses from the high variability group with the right-ear/LH-biased presentation 45 Figure 4.5 ERPs responses from the high variability group with the left-ear/RH-biased presentation 45 Figure 4.6 ERPs responses from the low variability group with the right-ear/LH-biased presentation 46 Figure 4.7 ERPs responses from the low variability group with the left-ear (RH –biased) presentation 46 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Nonadjacent Dependencies Pairs with 24 Intervening Items 17 Table 3.1 Accuracy and H-F of Experiment 1 22 Table 3.2 Summary of the Participants Information of Experiment 1 24 Table 4.5 Summary of the Participants Information of Experiment 2 36 Table 5.1 Comparisons between behavioral performance in present and prior studies. 49 Table 5.2 Learning Performances for Successful Learners over sessions of Experiment 2 51 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 左右半腦差異與句法結構複雜度之學習——以事件相關腦電位分析人工語法處理狀況 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Right Hemispheric Syntactic Processing as a Function of Saliency of Syntactic Regularities: an Event-Related Potential Study of Artificial Grammar Learning | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 許馨仁(Hsin-Jen Hsu),李佳穎(Chia-Ying Lee) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 語言習得,句法處理,人工語法學習,統計學習,左右半腦差異,個別差異,事件相關電位,P600, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | language acquisition,syntactic processing,artificial grammar learning,statistical learning,hemispheric differences,individual differences,ERPs,P600,monaural presentation, | en |
dc.relation.page | 66 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900033 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-01-08 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.33 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。