請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/807
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 | Ching-Hsuan Tsao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 曹景瑄 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-11T05:06:31Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-03-08 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-11T05:06:31Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-04-11 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-03-26 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus. (2004). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278-289. Ahrens, K. V. (1998). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Languages, tasks, and timing. Syntax and semantics, 11-32. Ahrens, K. (2001). On-line sentence comprehension of ambiguous verbs in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10(4), 337-358. Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. The psychology of word meanings, 187-222. Bentin, S., & Peled, B. S. (1990). The contribution of task-related factors to ERP repetition effects at short and long lags. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 359-366. Benton, A. L., & Hamsher K. (1978). Multilingual aphasia examination. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual review of psychology, 46(1), 91-120. Chen, M. H. (2016). Brain Asymmetry in Syntactic Processing of Word Class in Chinese: An ERP study. Taipei: National Taiwan University MA thesis. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/v6uxwk Chen, P. H. (2014). The influence of syntactic category and semantic constraints on lexical ambiguity resolution: An eye-movement study of processing Chinese homographs. Taipei: National ChengChi University MA thesis. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4keca5 Chinese Wordnet. (2005). from Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Retrieved from http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw Cohen, M. J., Morgan, A. M., Vaughn, M., Riccio, C. A., & Hall, J. (1999). Verbal fluency in children: Developmental issues and differential validity in distinguishing children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and two subtypes of dyslexia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14(5), 433-443. 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(6), 1084. Coltheart, M. (1999). Modularity and cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(3), 115-120. Cruse, D. A., & Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press. Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and language, 115(3), 149-161. Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123(12), 2552-2566. Fitzpatrick, S., Gilbert, S., & Serpell, L. (2013). Systematic review: are overweight and obese individuals impaired on behavioural tasks of executive functioning?. Neuropsychology review, 23(2), 138-156. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Folk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31(1), 87-99. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of memory and language, 26(5), 505. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(2), 78-84. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1219. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression mechanisms. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 113(2), 256. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12(4), 395-427. Gordon, B. (1985). Subjective frequency and the lexical decision latency function: Implications for mechanisms of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(6), 631. Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2004). Verbal fluency deficits in Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10(4), 608-622. Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 14(3), 265. Holcomb, P. J., Kounios, J., Anderson, J. E., & West, W. C. (1999). Dual-coding, context-availability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(3), 721. Hu, M. Y. (1996). Cilei wenti kaocha (a study of lexical categories). Beijing, China: Beijing Language Institute Press. Huang, H. W., Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2010). Imagine that! ERPs provide evidence for distinct hemispheric contributions to the processing of concrete and abstract concepts. NeuroImage, 49(1), 1116-1123. Hue, Chih-Wei, Yi-Jau Chen, Shih-Hua Chang, & Yung-Chi Sung. 1996. Zhongwen duoziduoyiciziyou lianxiang changmo [Word association for 600 Chinese homographs]. Chinese Journal of Psychology 38.2:67–168. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological review, 99(1), 122. Karayanidis, F., Andrews, S., Ward, P. B., & McConaghy, N. (1991). Effects of inter‐item lag on word repetition: An event‐related potential study. Psychophysiology, 28(3), 307-318. Kim, A. E., Oines, L., & Miyake, A. (2018). Individual differences in verbal working memory underlie a tradeoff between semantic and structural processing difficulty during language comprehension: An ERP investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 406. Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2006). To mind the mind: An event-related potential study of word class and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research, 1081(1), 191-202. Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2008). To watch, to see, and to differ: An event-related potential study of concreteness effects as a function of word class and lexical ambiguity. Brain and Language, 104(2), 145-158. Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(4), 538-555. Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Differential age effects on lexical ambiguity resolution mechanisms. Psychophysiology, 48(7), 960-972 Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2012). Ambiguity's aftermath: How age differences in resolving lexical ambiguity affect subsequent comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 869-879. Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2015). It’s all in the family: brain asymmetry and syntactic processing of word class. Psychological science, 26(7), 997-1005. Li, P., Shu, H., Yip, M. C. W., Zhang, Y., & Tang, Y. (2002). Lexical ambiguity in sentence processing: Evidence from Chinese. Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 111-129. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (vols i & ii). Cambridge CUP. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1146, 115-127. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive psychology, 18(1), 1-86. Meyer, A. M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2010). Event‐related potentials reveal the effects of aging on meaning selection and revision. Psychophysiology, 47(4), 673-686. Nagy, M. E., & Rugg, M. D. (1989). Modulation of event‐related potentials by word repetition: The effects of inter‐item lag. Psychophysiology, 26(4), 431-436. Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2886-2898. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Walling, J. R., & Wheeler, J. W. (1980). The university of south florida homograph norms. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12(1), 16-37. Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106(2), 119-131. 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. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of experimental psychology, 76(1p2), 1. Petten, C. V., Kutas, M., Kluender, R., Mitchiner, M., & McIsaac, H. (1991). Fractionating the word repetition effect with event-related potentials. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 3(2), 131-150. Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556. 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. Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary. (1994) from Ministry of Education, R.O.C. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/ Rodd, J. M., Cai, Z. G., Betts, H. N., Hanby, B., Hutchinson, C., & Adler, A. (2016). The impact of recent and long-term experience on access to word meanings: Evidence from large-scale internet-based experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 87, 16-37. Rodd, J. M., Cutrin, B. L., Kirsch, H., Millar, A., & Davis, M. H. (2013). Long-term priming of the meanings of ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 180-198. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245-266. Rugg, M. D. (1985). The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event‐related potentials. Psychophysiology, 22(6), 642-647. Rugg, M. D., & Nagy, M. E. (1987). Lexical contribution to nonword-repetition effects: Evidence from event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition, 15(6), 473-481. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance, 2(2), 243. Schwartz, S., & Baldo, J. (2001). Distinct patterns of word retrieval in right and left frontal lobe patients: a multidimensional perspective. Neuropsychologia, 39(11), 1209-1217. 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., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3(5), 296-301. Shao, Z., Janse, E., Visser, K., & Meyer, A. S. (2014). What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 772. Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 20(1), 120. 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(1), 28. Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (1994). Inhibitory processes in the recognition of homograph meanings. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 359-381). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. Swaab, T., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86(2), 326-343. 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., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of memory and language, 32(3), 359. 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. Tanner, D. (2013). Individual differences and streams of processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(3), 350-356. Tanner, D., Goldshtein, M., & Weissman, B. (2018). Individual differences in the real-time neural dynamics of language comprehension. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 68, pp. 299-335). Academic Press Cambridge, MA. Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 111-126. Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of memory and language, 41(2), 147-182. Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event‐related brain potentials reflect discourse‐referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235-248. Weckerly, J., Wulfeck, B., & Reilly, J. (2001). Verbal fluency deficits in children with specific language impairment: Slow rapid naming or slow to name?. Child Neuropsychology, 7(3), 142-152. West, W. C., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). Imaginal, semantic, and surface-level processing of concrete and abstract words: an electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(6), 1024-1037. Wong, A. W. K., & Chen, H. C. (2012). Is syntactic-category processing obligatory in visual word recognition? Evidence from Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(9), 1334-1360. Yuan, Hui. (ed.) 2001. Xiandai Hanyu Duoyici Cidian [Dictionary of Homonyms in Modern Chinese]. Taiyuan: Shuhai Publishing House. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/807 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 過去的文獻指出,能夠影響詞彙歧義解困(lexical ambiguity resolution)的兩大主因為語義頻率(meaning frequency)和語境訊息(context)。過去研究皆認為語境訊息的存在能有效地幫助選擇適當的語義進而達成語義消歧,然而語法和語義語境是否皆能影響一開始語義的提取似乎仍未明朗。單純操弄語法語境的研究多半未特別區分同形異義詞(homograph)中主要語義及次要語義的語義頻率,而且實驗間採用不同的典範如促發典範(priming paradigm)的詞彙判斷作業(lexical decision task)以及方法如眼動追蹤技術(eye-tracking)、事件相關電位(Event-Related Potential, ERP)有可能引發不同的反應策略。有鑑於此,本篇論文欲以中文為媒介來探討兩項議題:(一)語法語境是否能影響中文非均勢同形異義詞(biased homograph)中語義之提取;(二)語義優勢性在中文詞彙歧義解困處理歷程中是否能與語法語境互動。並以事件相關電位(Event-Related Potential, ERP)技術來做為此議題的實證。
詞類歧義詞提供一個媒介來檢驗語義優勢性在語法單獨存在之語境下進行詞彙歧義解困的作用。實驗一我們將兩種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於只有語法訊息但語意短缺的中文短語內,僅根據語法提示(syntactic cue)來提取非均勢同形異義詞中的主要語義或次要語義為最適當的語義解讀。由於實驗一整體效果不如預期顯著,實驗二為實驗一之改良,沿用相同材料,並搭配語義關聯性測驗(semantic relatedness judgement task) 使受試者更需要整合語境以及歧異詞,同時受試者須做兩個實驗列表以利檢視實驗一中觀察到的個體差異。 研究結果顯示,過往文獻中提到涉及詞彙歧義時會引發在前區持續的負向效果(frontal negativity)在整體的受試者中效果並不明顯,但在閱讀經驗較高的受試者上較為突出。此結果可能表示個體對於解歧語境有反應差異且體現於閱讀能力之指標。根據中位數分組的結果顯示,閱讀經驗較高的受試者在歧義詞上引發負向腦電位變化,另一半閱讀經驗較低的則引發正向腦電位變化,因而造成整體腦電位效果的相互抵消。另外,我們也在閱讀能力較高的組別中發現負向的歧異效果主要出現在當語法語境導向中文非均勢同形異義詞的次要語義,範圍由頭皮前區延續到中後區。然而當語法語境導向主要語義時,除了與語義關聯的N400短暫出現外,負向的效果似乎較不明顯。整體而言,本研究的結果顯示,語法訊息語境能夠提供促進語義提取進而幫助解歧,且其受到語意優勢性的影響。當語境導向主要語義時,主要語意可以被迅速且強烈的提取,次要語意即便有被提取,其所形成的語義競爭甚小,意義選擇不須額外的上到下的資源即可語義競爭透過較為自動化的意義模式(顯示在N400的效果)順利完成解歧。然而,當語境導向次要語意時,由於次要語意的提取受到語境的支持,且主要語意的提取還是非常強烈,因而形成強烈的語義競爭,需要由一上而下的處理歷程來幫助解歧。過去文獻顯示動用此資源的能力有個體化的差異,本研究的結果與此一致,顯示擁有較好的閱讀能力者較容易啟動此協助解歧的機制。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In general, past literature has indicated that meaning dominance and context are the two main factors influencing lexical ambiguity resolution. Prior research suggested that context can help select contextually-appropriate meaning effectively, and thus succeed with lexical ambiguity resolution. However, it seems less evident whether the initial meaning access could be influenced by the context with only syntactic information. For one thing, most studies manipulating the syntactic information context alone did not distinguish the meaning dominance of the dominant and subordinate meaning of homographs specifically. For another, various paradigms adopted in different experiments such as priming with lexical decision task, eye-tracking, and event-related potential were likely to reflect different response strategies. In view of the above-mentioned facts, the present study targeted Chinese native speaker to investigate (1) does syntactic context affect meaning access of Chinese biased homographs, and (2) does syntactic context effect interact with meaning dominance. We used Event-Related Potential (ERPs) to examine the brain responses and attempt to make an empirical study.
Syntactic category ambiguous words, whose alternative meanings differ in syntactic categories (e.g., trip in English), serve as a means of examining this issue. In Experiment 1, two types of Chinese biased homographs (i.e., NV and VN homographs) were embedded into phrases in which syntactic information provided but lack of semantic. That is, either the dominant or the subordinate meaning of homographs would be extracted to be the contextual-appropriate meaning depending only on syntactic cues. On account of the more insignificant overall effect than predicted in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 adopted the same materials but replaced with the semantic relatedness judgement task to make participants further integrate the contexts and homographs. Meanwhile, all participants were required to do two experimental lists to examine the individual difference observed in Experiment 1. Our results showed that the overall ambiguity effect was not as prominent as that in the previous studies which have found an ambiguity-related sustained negativity at frontal regions, the effect was more obvious in the subjects with high score of reading experience instead. It might indicate that individual differed in reaction to the disambiguated context, and such an individual difference may manifest on reading abilities. Based on the result of grouping data with median split, participants with higher scores on reading experience showed a sustained negativity relative to unambiguous words, and half with low scores showed a positivity, and thus cancelled out the overall ambiguity effect. On the other hand, in the high score group of reading experience, we found a clear negativity showed when the syntactic context favored the subordinate meaning of homographs, ranging from frontal scalp to central-posterior, whereas when the syntactic context picked out the dominant meaning of homographs, except for the transient N400 effect related to semantic access, it seemed an absent sustained negativity. In sum, this current study indicated that the syntactic context is able to affect the meaning access and help disambiguation, yet such context effect is modulated by meaning dominance. In the dominant-biasing context, the dominant meaning could be accessed intensely and rapidly, and the meaning competition is thus very small even if the subordinate meaning is activated. Such a process of meaning selection can be accomplished through a model of meaning automation (displayed on the N400) and thus reach disambiguation successfully. On the contrary, despite the fact that the subordinate-biasing context supports the activation of subordinate meaning, the access of dominant meaning is still robust at the same time. Hence, a strong meaning competition is generated, and an additional mechanism is necessary to be involved to help. As suggested by past literature, there is an individual difference for mobilizing the top-down resources, which is consistent with our result that those who have better reading abilities are more likely to initiate the kind of mechanism. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-11T05:06:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R03142016-1.pdf: 3168364 bytes, checksum: b26deb53aafc64a4ead7632eac625cd5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i
致謝 ii 中文摘要 iv Abstract vi List of Figures x List of Tables xii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 General background 1 Chapter 2 Literature review 6 2.1 Hypotheses of lexical ambiguity resolution 6 2.1.1 Modular access hypothesis 6 2.1.2 Interactive access hypothesis 6 2.2 Issues of ambiguity resolution 7 2.2.1 Meaning dominance 7 2.2.2 Context 10 2.3 Lexical category difference 11 2.4 Studies of lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese 14 2.5 Research question 16 Chapter 3 Experiment 18 3.1 Design and predictions 18 3.2 Method 20 3.2.1 Participants 20 3.2.2 Materials 20 3.2.3 Norming studies 23 3.2.3.1 Norming study 1: Meaning dominance 24 3.2.3.2 Norming Study 2: Meaning Relatedness 25 3.2.3.3 Norming Study 3: Familiarity 26 3.2.3.4 Norming Study 4: Concreteness 27 3.2.3.5 Norming Study 5: Grammaticality judgement task 29 3.2.4 Procedure for the ERP session 30 3.3 EEG recording parameters and data analysis 31 3.4 Result 32 3.4.1 Behavioral data 33 3.4.2 ERPs data 33 3.5 Interim summary and discussion 36 3.6 Follow up analysis: Inter-individual variability analyses 37 3.7 Follow up experiment: Modification of experimental task 43 3.7.1 Design and prediction 44 3.7.2 Method 45 3.7.3 Results of the first experimental list for each participant 47 3.7.3.1 Behavioral data 47 3.7.3.2 ERPs data 48 3.7.4 Within-subject comparison for potential list effects 50 3.8 Interim summary and discussion 50 Chapter 4 General discussion 53 4.1 Individual difference analyses 53 4.2 Effects of meaning dominance 57 4.3 Limitations and future research 59 4.4 Concluding remarks 62 References 64 Appendixes 70 A. Ratings scores of each Experimental list 70 B. Examples of the questionnaire for Norming study 1: Meaning dominance 72 C. Examples of the questionnaire for Norming study 2: Meaning relatedness 73 D. Instructions and sample items for Norming study 3: Familiarity 74 E. Instructions and sample items for Norming study 4: Concreteness 75 F. Instructions and sample items for Norming study 5: Grammaticality judgement task 76 G. Questionnaire of reading experience test (Author Recognition Test) 77 H. Questionnaire of reading experience test (Magazine Recognition Test) 78 I. Examples of stimulus materials in experimental list 1 79 J. Examples of stimulus materials in experimental list 2 80 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 語義優勢性對語法語境中詞彙歧義解析之影響—中文歧義詞處理的事件相關電位研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Effects of Meaning Dominance on Lexical Ambiguity Resolution in Syntactic Context— An ERP Study of Homograph Processing in Chinese | en |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 詹曉蕙(Shiao-hui Chan),呂佳蓉(Chia-Rung Lu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 一詞多義,詞類歧義,語境,語意優勢性,詞彙歧義解困,個體差異,事件相關電位, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | homograph,syntactic category ambiguity,context,meaning dominance,lexical ambiguity resolution,individual difference,Event-Related Potential, | en |
dc.relation.page | 80 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900681 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-03-27 | |
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 | 3.09 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。