請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8827
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 安可思(Kathleen Ahrens),林千哲(Chien-Jer Charles Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | You-Jun Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張有鈞 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T20:02:06Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-08-21 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T20:02:06Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A. & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814-823.
Ahrens, K. (1995). The Mental Representation of Verbs. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Language, tasks and timing. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 31. Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ahrens, K. (1999). The Mutability of Noun and Verb Meaning. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, V. Interactions in Language, Y. Yin, I. Yang, & H. Chan (eds.), 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). When Love is not Digested: Underlying Reasons for Source to Target Domain Pairing in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In the Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan. Ahrens, K. (2006). The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics, 7, 677-696. Ahrens, K. (2008). Examining Conceptual Worldviews Through Lexical Frequency Patterns: A Case Study of U.S. Presidential Speeches. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Windows to the Mind. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Ahrens, K., Chang, L., Chen, K. & Huang, C. (1998). Meaning Representation and Meaning Instantiation for Chinese Nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3, 45-60. Ahrens, K., Huang, C.-R. & Chuang, S. (2003). Sense and Meaning Facets in Verbal Semantics: A MARVS Perspective. Language and Linguistics, 4/3, 468-484. Ahrens, K., Liu, H. L., Lee, C. Y., Gong, S. P., Fang, S. Y. & Hsu, Y. Y. (2007). Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain and Language, 100(2), 163-171. Alario, F. X., Segui, J. & Ferrand, L. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 53(3), 741-764. Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G. & Gerrig, R. J. (1995). METAPHOR-BASED SCHEMAS AND TEXT REPRESENTATIONS - MAKING CONNECTIONS THROUGH CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 21(3), 612-625. Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D. & Cappa, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language, 107(1), 1-10. Anaki, D., Faust, M. & Kravetz, S. (1998). Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 36(4), 353-362. Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 802-814. Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 361-402. Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A. & Faust, M. (2007). Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69-81. Azuma, T. & VanOrden, 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(4), 484-504. Balota, D. A. & Paul, S. T. (1996). Summation of activation: Evidence from multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 827-845. Barsalou, L. W. & Wiemer-Hasting, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition : the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 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. Besner, D. & Davelaar, E. (1983). PSEUDOHOMOPHONE EFFECTS IN VISUAL WORLD RECOGNITION - EVIDENCE FOR PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING. Canadian Journal of Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 37(2), 300-305. Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the Lexicon. Metaphor and Symbol, 3(1), 21 - 36. Blasko, D. G. & Connine, C. M. (1993). EFFECTS OF FAMILIARITY AND APTNESS ON METAPHOR PROCESSING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 19(2), 295-308. Boring, E. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Borowsky, R. & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 63-85. Brisard, F., Frisson, S. & Sandra, D. (2001). Processing Unfamiliar Metaphors in a Self-Paced Reading Task. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1), 87 - 108. Bueno, S. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). Rapid activation of the lexicon: A further investigation with behavioral and computational results. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 120-130. Bueno, S. & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship, and task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 882-898. Burgess, C. & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2-3), 177-210. Carreiras, M., Perea, M. & Grainger, J. (1997). Effects of orthographic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 857-871. Chen, L. L. & Boland, J. E. (2008). Dominance and context effects on activation of alternative homophone meanings. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1306-1323. Cheng, T.-y. (2002). Testing a model of word segmentation in the acquisition of Mandarin. MA Thesis, National Chung Cheng University. Chung, S.-F. (2007). A Corpus-driven Approach to Source Domain Determination. Ph.D. Dissertation. Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Taiwan University. Cienki, A. (2005). Metaphor in the 'Strict Father' and 'Nurturant Parent' cognitive models: Theoretical issues raised in an empirical study. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 279-311. Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). SPREADING ACTIVATION THEORY OF SEMANTIC PROCESSING. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428. Crepaldi, D., Aggujaro, S., Arduino, L. S., Zonca, G., Ghirardi, G., Inzaghi, M. G., Colombo, M., Chierchia, G. & Luzzatti, C. (2006). Noun-verb dissociation in aphasia: The role of imageability and functional locus of the lesion. Neuropsychologia, 44(1), 73-89. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Deyne, S. & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Norms for 1,424 Dutch words in a continuous task. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 198-205. Deese, J. (1965). The structure of associations in language and thought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins. Eviatar, Z. & Just, M. A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348-2359. Ferrand, L. & Alario, F. X. (1998). Word association norms for 366 names of objects. Annee Psychologique, 98(4), 659-709. Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a `preventive war' persuasion strategy. Discourse Society, 18(5), 603-625. Flowerdew, J. (1997). Competing public discourses in transitional Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(4), 533-553. Flowerdew, J. & Leong, S. (2007). Metaphors in the discursive construction of patriotism: the case of Hong Kong's constitutional reform debate. Discourse & Society, 18(3), 273-294. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind : an essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Forster, K. I. & Bednall, E. S. (1976). TERMINATING AND EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH IN LEXICAL ACCESS. Memory & Cognition, 4(NA1), 53-61. Frisson, S. & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(6), 1366-1383. Geiger, O. & Ward, L. M. (1999). Metaphors and the Mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 68(1-2), 192-198. 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), 256-281. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind : figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R. W. (2001). Evaluating Contemporary Models of Figurative Language Understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3), 317 - 333. Gibbs, R. W. & Colston, H. L. (2006). Figurative Language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980). MEANING-DEPENDENT RATINGS OF IMAGERY, AGE OF ACQUISITION, FAMILIARITY, AND CONCRETENESS FOR 387 AMBIGUOUS WORDS. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12(4), 428-450. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis (Psycholinguistics). Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183-206. Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 919-929. Giora, R. (2003). On our mind : salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999a). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 12(4), 425-436. Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999b). On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1601-1618. Giora, R., Peleg, O. & Fein, O. (2001). Resisting contextual information: You can't put a salient meaning down. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Towards an Experimental Pragmatics, University of Lyon. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92-96. Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. & Bookin, H. B. (1982). ON UNDERSTANDING NON-LITERAL SPEECH - CAN PEOPLE IGNORE METAPHORS. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85-98. Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, 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(3), 323-335. Gomes, H., Ritter, W., Tartter, V. C., Vaughan, H. G. & Rosen, J. J. (1997). Lexical processing of visually and auditorily presented nouns and verbs: evidence from reaction time and N400 priming data. Cognitive Brain Research, 6(2), 121-134. Gong, S. P. & Ahrens, K. (2007). Processing conceptual metaphors in on-going discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 313-330. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. . In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Grondin, R., Lupker, S. J. & McRae, K. (2009). Shared features dominate semantic richness effects for concrete concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 1-19. Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J. & Sears, C. R. (1997). The effects of word association and meaning frequency in a cross-modal lexical decision task: Is the priming due to 'semantic' activation? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 51(3), 195-211. 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(2), 247-273. Hirshman, E. & Durante, R. (1992). PRIME IDENTIFICATION AND SEMANTIC PRIMING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 18(2), 255-265. Hobbs, P. (2008). Surging ahead to a new way forward: the metaphorical foreshadowing of a policy shift. Discourse & Communication, 2(1), 29-56. Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785-813. Jared, D. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). DOES WORD IDENTIFICATION PROCEED FROM SPELLING TO SOUND TO MEANING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 120(4), 358-394. Jones, M. N., Kintsch, W. & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2006). High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(4), 534-552. Joordens, S. & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 23(5), 1083-1105. Joordens, S. & Besner, D. (1994). WHEN BANKING ON MEANING IS NOT (YET) MONEY IN THE BANK - EXPLORATIONS IN CONNECTIONIST MODELING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1051-1062. Kauschke, C., Lee, H. W. & Pae, S. (2007). Similarities and variation in noun and verb acquisition: A crosslinguistic study of children learning German, Korean, and Turkish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(7), 1045-1072. Kauschke, C. & von Frankenberg, J. (2008). The differential influence of lexical parameters on naming latencies in German. A study on noun and verb picture naming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(4), 243-257. Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). NONLINEAR DYNAMICS IN THE RESOLUTION OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY - A PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED-PROCESSING ACCOUNT. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 474-516. Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T. & Kello, C. T. (1994). WHEN 2 MEANINGS ARE BETTER THAN ONE - MODELING THE AMBIGUITY ADVANTAGE USING A RECURRENT DISTRIBUTED NETWORK. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1233-1247. Ker, S.-J., Huang, C.-R., Hong, J.-F., Liu, S.-Y., Jian, H.-L., Su, I.-L. & Hsieh, S.-K. (2008). Design and Prototype of a Large-scale and Fully Sense-tagged Corpus. Third International Conference on Large-scale Knowledge Resources (LKR2008), Tokyo, Tokyo Institute of Technology. March 3-5. Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P. & Tugwell, D. (2004) Lorient, France, July: 105-116 (Reprinted in Lexicology: Critical concepts in Linguistics Hanks, editor. Routledge, 2007). Kintsch, W. & Mross, E. F. (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. Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223. Klepousniotou, E. & Baum, S. R. (2005a). Processing homonymy and polysemy: Effects of sentential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language, 95(3), 365-382. Klepousniotou, E. & Baum, S. R. (2005b). Unilateral brain damage effects on processing homonymous and polysemous words. Brain and Language, 93(3), 308-326. Klepousniotou, E. & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24. Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D. & Romero, C. (2008). Making Sense of Word Senses: The Comprehension of Polysemy Depends on Sense Overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(6), 1534-1543. Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Edition. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G. (1996/2002). Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't [2nd edition published as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think]. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lin, C.-J. C. & Ahrens, K. (forthcoming). Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 618-630. Lupker, S. J. (1984). SEMANTIC PRIMING WITHOUT ASSOCIATION - A 2ND LOOK. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(6), 709-733. Marzo, D., Rube, V. & Umbreit, B. (2007). Salience and Frequency of Meanings: Comparison of Corpus and Experimental Data on Polysemy. Pre-Conference Proceedings of Corpus and Cognition Workshop, Corpus Linguistics Conference, 42-53. Mashal, N. & Faust, M. (2008). Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the signal detection theory. Brain and Language, 104(2), 103-112. Masson, M. E. J. & Borowsky, R. (1995). UNSETTLING QUESTIONS ABOUT SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY IN CONNECTIONIST MODELS - COMMENT. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 21(2), 509-514. 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, 375-407. McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R. & Ward, G. (1994). TESTING THEORIES OF LANGUAGE PROCESSING - AN EMPIRICAL-INVESTIGATION OF THE ONLINE LEXICAL DECISION TASK. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1219-1228. McRae, K. (2004). Semantic memory: Some insights from feature-based connectionist attractor networks. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol 45. McRae, K. & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(3), 558-572. National Language Committee (1997). Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary (4th TANet ed., v.2) '重編國語辭典修訂本 (臺灣學術網路四版ver.2)'. Taipei: Ministry of Education (教育部). Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. & Dennis, S. (2000). What is free association and what does it measure? Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 887-899. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402-407. Nicol, J. L., 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. Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (1994). IDIOMS. Language, 70(3), 491-538. Onifer, W. & Swinney, D. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 15, 225-236. Peleg, O. & Eviatar, Z. (2008). Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual information: Evidence from lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 105(2), 71-82. Peleg, O., Giora, R. & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and Context Effects: Two Are Better Than One. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 173-192. Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2000). Repetition and form priming interact with neighborhood density at a brief stimulus onset asynchrony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 668-677. Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 66(3), 180-194. Piercey, C. D. & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory and Cognition, 28, 657-666. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17, 409-441. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 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. 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. Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L. & Millikan, J. A. (1970). HOMOGRAPHIC ENTRIES IN INTERNAL LEXICON. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487-&. Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S. & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). HOMOGRAPHIC ENTRIES IN INTERNAL LEXICON - EFFECTS OF SYSTEMATICITY AND RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF MEANINGS. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(1), 57-62. Schmid, H. J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sears, C. R., Siakaluk, P. D., Chow, V. C. & Buchanan, L. (2008). Is there an effect of print exposure on the word frequency effect and the neighborhood size effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(4), 269-291. 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. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Sanders, M. & Langer, P. (1984). PRELEXICAL AND POSTLEXICAL LOCI OF CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON WORD RECOGNITION. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 315-328. Shelton, J. R. & Martin, R. C. (1992). HOW SEMANTIC IS AUTOMATIC SEMANTIC PRIMING. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 18(6), 1191-1210. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R. & Owen, W. J. (2007). Multiple meanings are not necessarily a disadvantage in semantic processing: Evidence from homophone effects in semantic categorisation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(3), 453-467. 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. (1984). LEXICAL AMBIGUITY AND ITS ROLE IN MODELS OF WORD RECOGNITION. Psychological Bulletin, 96(2), 316-340. 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), 28-39. Simpson, G. B. & Krueger, M. A. (1991). SELECTIVE ACCESS OF HOMOGRAPH MEANINGS IN SENTENCE CONTEXT. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643. Spence, D. P. & Owens, K. C. (1990). LEXICAL COOCCURRENCE AND ASSOCIATION STRENGTH. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(5), 317-330. Svanlund, J. (2007). Metaphor and convention. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 47-89. Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-660. Tabossi, P. (1987). CONTEXT TYPE DETERMINES WHETHER LEXICAL ACCESS IS EXHAUSTIVE OR SELECTIVE. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(5), 350-350. 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 OF CONTEXT AND DOMINANCE. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 49(2-3), 161-167. 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. Tartter, V. C., Gomes, H., Dubrovsky, B., Molholm, S. & Stewart, R. V. (2002). Novel Metaphors Appear Anomalous at Least Momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain and Language, 80(3), 488-509. Thibodeau, P. & Durgin, F. H. (2008). Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 521-540. Tokowicz, N. & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5). Tsai, S. P. (2005). Psycholinguistic Processing of Chinese Polysemy. MA Thesis, National Taiwan University. Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765. Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Galpin, A. & Voice, J. K. (2002). Activating meaning in time: The role of imageability and form-class. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(5), 471-502. Tyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J. & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124, 1619-1634. Vanhoy, M. & Van Orden, G. C. (2001). Pseudohomophones and word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 522-529. Vigliocco, G. & Vinson, D. P. (2007). Semantic representation. In M. G. Gaskel (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 735-747. 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. Weinreich, U. (1964). Webster's Third: A Critique of its Semantics. International Journal of American Linguistics, (30), 405-409. 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. Williams, J. N. (1992). PROCESSING POLYSEMOUS WORDS IN CONTEXT - EVIDENCE FOR INTERRELATED MEANINGS. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(3), 193-218. Williams, J. N. (1996). Is automatic priming semantic? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 113-161. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M. & Kluppel, D. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 547-559. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8827 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 隱喻的心理處理歷程早有學者研究,因其對了解人類認知饒具意義。然而,隱喻和詞彙擷取過程之間的關聯卻少有人探討。此議題十分重要,因為理解約定俗成隱喻的基礎在於激發已然詞彙化的隱喻詞義,但早期的詞彙擷取模型卻鮮少區別出隱喻義和字面義這兩種性質不同的意義,並探討其處理歷程。本文嘗試整合隱喻和詞彙擷取研究,從Giora (2003) 提出的層次顯著性假說出發,探討詞彙隱喻,也就是隱喻多義詞(例如:「壓力」)的心理處理歷程。根據層次顯著性假說,在認知上較為顯著的詞義,意即「較高頻、為人熟悉、或約定俗成程度高」的意義在語境中總是會在先期被激發。Giora (2003) 的模型不同於前人的模型,因其能廣泛的解釋詞彙擷取以及比喻語言的處理歷程,也因此在文獻中受到相當的重視 (Gibbs, 2001)。但其兩大主要問題在於:第一,對意義顯著性的定義模糊,尤其未清楚陳明意義顯著性和意義頻率之間的關係;第二,在語意分析和詞義區分上缺乏清楚的操作型定義。
針對這些議題,本研究採取了語料庫語言學方法及認知語意學理論,並將其與心理語言學實驗結合。我們根據中文詞彙網路區別「詞義」和「義面」兩種不同層次的意義,並計算這些詞義在語料庫中的頻率。在一系列詞彙聯想作業和跨模組詞彙激發作業中,我們發現:顯著性高而屬於「詞義」層次的字面意義無法充分在偏向隱喻義的語境中被激發。此結果和層次顯著性假說的預測相反,卻與Ahrens等 (1998) 和Croft與Cruse (2004) 的詞彙語意理論相符,他們主張「詞義」層次的詞彙語意不能共存於同一語境之中。此研究的結果因此對層次顯著性假說並隱喻和詞彙擷取研究具有重要意義;我們特別認為,基於認知語言學的精細詞彙語意分析對此類研究十分必要。除此之外,本研究並闡明了詞義頻率與詞義顯著性的關係,亦即語料庫反映人類認知的程度,也顯示認知語意學理論能裨益心理語言學研究中對意義的詮釋。因此,此論文的成果對於認知科學研究將具有跨領域的貢獻。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Processing of metaphor has long been studied due to implications on human cognition. But less has been explored as to its relationship with lexical access. This is important, because comprehension of conventional metaphors fundamentally hinges on activation of lexicalized metaphorical meanings, but early lexical access models rarely consider a distinction between literal and metaphorical meanings. This study attempts to bring these two lines of research together by investigating processing of lexical metaphors, i.e., metaphorical polysemy (e.g., “pressure”) based on Giora’s (2003) graded salience hypothesis. The graded salience hypothesis states that salient meanings, i.e., “more frequent, more familiar, or more conventional” meanings, are always initially accessed in context. Giora’s model differs from previous models because it comprehensively interprets lexical access as well as figurative language processing, thus receiving much attention in literature (Gibbs, 2001). But it has two major problems: (1) Vague definition of salience, particularly its relationship with frequency, and (2) Unclear criteria for semantic analysis and meaning distinction.
To address these issues, this thesis combined a corpus linguistic approach and recent cognitive semantic theories with psycholinguistic experiments. I distinguished sense-level meanings from facet-level meanings based on Chinese Wordnet and calculate their sense frequencies in corpus. In one offline word association task and two online cross-modal lexical priming tasks, I found: Salient, sense-level literal meanings cannot be sufficiently activated in metaphorically-biased contexts. This contradicted the graded salience hypothesis’s prediction but corresponded to Ahrens et al.’s (1998) and Croft and Cruse’s (2004) lexical semantic theories that sense-level meanings cannot coexist in the same context. The study thus has significant implications on the graded salience hypothesis and for metaphor and lexical access research in general; particularly, a refined lexical semantic analysis based on cognitive linguistic theories is necessary. Besides, the results shed light on the relationship between frequency and salience, i.e., how corpus reflects human cognition, as well as how cognitive semantic theories can refine interpretations in psycholinguistic studies. Therefore, the study is expected to have a cross-domain contribution to the general field of cognitive science. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T20:02:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R95142005-1.pdf: 2889121 bytes, checksum: c970effca235d3db01182041239f13aa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
SIGNATURE PAGE I 誌謝 II 中文摘要 III ENGLISH ABSTRACT IV TABLE OF CONTENTS V LIST OF FIGURES XI LIST OF TABLES XII CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 THE GRADED SALIENCE HYPOTHESIS & PREDICTION 2 1.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE GRADED SALIENCE HYPOTHESIS 2 1.2.1 Unlimited Size of Linguistic Units 3 1.2.2 Unclear Definition of Salience 3 1.2.3 Unclear Criteria for Meaning Distinction 3 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THESIS 4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7 2.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 7 2.2 PROBLEMATIC ISSUES IN LEXICAL AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION LITERATURE 7 2.2.1 Distinction of Polysemous Meanings: A Cognitive Approach 8 2.2.1.1 Sense and Facet: An Overview 8 2.2.1.2 Operational Definitions of Sense and Facet 9 2.2.1.3 Intrinsic Reason: A Dynamic View on Lexical Meaning 10 2.2.1.4 Sense-facet Distinction vs. Homonymy-Polysemy Distinction 12 2.2.2 Investigation on Abstract Meanings 13 2.2.2.1 The Need to Investigate Abstract Meanings 13 2.2.2.2 Defining Abstract Meanings 14 2.2.3 Problematic Meaning Distinction in Lexical Ambiguity Literature 15 2.2.3.1 Early Lexical Access Models 15 2.2.3.2 Meaning Distinction in Lexical Ambiguity Literature 17 No-distinction Approach 17 Homonymy-Polysemy Approach 18 Sense-Facet Approach 21 2.2.4 Summary: An Integrated Approach and the Range of Meaning Covered in the Current Study 24 2.3 PROCESSING OF METAPHORICAL POLYSEMY 25 2.3.1 Conventional, Lexicalized Metaphorical Meanings 26 2.3.1.1 Definition and Differentiation 26 Conceptual and Image Metaphors 27 Conventional and Novel Metaphors 28 Conceptual and Lexical Metaphors 28 2.3.1.2 Significance of Conventional, Lexicalized Metaphorical Meanings 30 2.3.2 The Graded Salience Hypothesis 31 2.3.3 Inadequacies of the Graded Salience Hypothesis & Resolutions 33 2.3.3.1 Unclear Criteria for Meaning Distinction and Resolution 33 2.3.3.2 Unlimited Size of Linguistic Units and Resolution 34 2.3.3.3 Unclear Definition of Salience and Resolution 35 2.3.3.3.1 Measures of Salience Proposed in Giora (2003) 36 2.3.3.3.2 Measures of Salience Evaluated in this Study 37 Corpus-based Sense Frequency 37 Offline Measure: Word Association Task 39 Online Measure: Cross-modal Lexical Priming Task for Isolated Words 41 2.3.4 Summary: Issue of the Study 42 2.4 RESEARCH QUESTION, HYPOTHESIS, AND IMPLICATIONS 43 2.4.1 Research Question 43 2.4.2 Research Hypothesis 43 2.4.3 Implications 43 2.5 METHODOLOGICAL & MINOR ISSUES 45 2.5.1 Review of Ahrens (2006) 45 2.5.2 Matched-Targets, Switched-Targets, & Matched-Primes Design 49 Matched-Targets Design 49 Switched-Targets Design & Matched-Primes Design 50 2.5.3 Priming & Timing 51 2.5.4 Visual Target Word Collection, Criteria, & Tools 60 Trade-offs of the Criteria 64 Materials, Corpus Tools, & Lexical Resources Used in Search for Visual Target Words 66 2.5.5 Effects of Nonwords 67 2.5.6 Lexical Category 68 2.5.7 Creation of Contexts & Criteria 69 2.5.8 Memory Tests 71 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 72 3.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 72 Sample Stimuli: 74 Overview of Research Procedure 75 3.2 PREPARATION OF AMBIGUOUS WORDS AND SENSE TAGGINGS 77 3.3 PREPARATION OF SENTENTIAL STIMULI FOR AMBIGUOUS WORDS 80 3.3.1 Creating Sentential Stimuli 80 3.3.2 Pretest 1: Sentence Completion Task 81 Participants 81 Materials & Design 82 Procedure 82 Results & Discussion 82 3.4 PREPARATION OF VISUAL TARGETS 83 3.5 PREPARATION OF UNRELATED PRIMES AND SENTENCES 84 3.6 PREPARATION OF FILLERS, PRACTICE TRIALS, NONWORDS, AND MEMORY TEST TRIALS 85 3.6.1 Filler/Practice Prime Words and Sentences 85 3.6.2 Two Types of Nonword Visual Targets 86 3.6.3 Memory Test Words and Sentences 87 3.7 OFF-LINE PRETESTS: RELATEDNESS RATINGS FOR ISOLATED WORDS AND WORDS IN CONTEXT 88 3.7.1 Relatedness Ratings for Isolated Words 88 Participants 88 Materials & Design 89 Procedure 90 Results & Discussion 90 3.7.2 Relatedness Ratings for Words in Context 92 Participants 92 Materials & Design 93 Procedure 93 Results & Discussion 94 3.8 PREPARATION OF AUDITORY STIMULI 96 3.8.1 Sound Recordings & Apparatus 96 3.8.2 Measuring Critical Time Points 97 CHAPTER 4 COMPARING SALIENCE MEASURES TO DETERMINE SALIENT MEANINGS 98 4.1 CORPUS-BASED SENSE FREQUENCY 98 4.2 OFFLINE MEASURE: WORD ASSOCIATION TASK (EXPERIMENT 1) 98 Participants 98 Materials & Design 100 Procedure 100 Data Analysis 100 Results 101 Highly Literal Words 101 Highly Metaphorical Words 103 Discussion 105 4.3 ON-LINE MEASURE: CROSS-MODAL LEXICAL PRIMING TASKS FOR ISOLATED WORDS (PRETEST 4 & EXPERIMENT 2) 106 4.3.1 Pretest 4: Pseudohomophones 107 Participants 107 Materials & Design 107 Procedure 108 Apparatus 110 Results & Discussion 110 4.3.2 Experiment 2: Legal Nonwords 114 Participants 114 Materials & Design 114 Procedure 114 Apparatus 115 Results & Discussion 116 4.4 SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 119 Consistencies & Inconsistencies Between Salience Measures & Possible Reasons 119 Limitations of Salience Measures 121 CHAPTER 5 ONLINE CROSS-MODAL LEXICAL PRIMING TASK FOR WORDS IN CONTEXT (EXPERIMENT 3) 123 Participants 123 Materials & Design 123 Procedure 124 Apparatus 125 Results & Discussion 126 CHAPTER 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION 132 6.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS & RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTION & HYPOTHESIS 132 6.2 BACK TO BIG ISSUES 133 6.3 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY 134 6.4 FUTURE STUDY 136 REFERENCES 138 APPENDICES 147 APPENDIX I. EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS: METAPHORICAL PRIME WORDS AND MEANINGS 147 APPENDIX I.A Highly Literal Nouns 147 APPENDIX I.B Highly Metaphorical Nouns 148 APPENDIX I.C Highly Literal Verbs 149 APPENDIX I.D Highly Metaphorical Verbs 150 APPENDIX II. EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS: METAPHORICAL PRIME WORDS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING UNRELATED PRIMES AND TARGET WORDS, AND RELATEDNESS RATINGS FOR WORDS PRESENTED IN ISOLATION 151 APPENDIX II.A Highly Literal Nouns 151 APPENDIX II.B Highly Metaphorical Nouns 151 APPENDIX II.C Highly Literal Verbs 152 APPENDIX II.D Highly Metaphorical Verbs 152 APPENDIX III. EXPERIMENTAL ITEMS: METAPHORICAL PRIME WORDS, TARGET WORDS, SENTENTIAL STIMULI, AND RELATEDNESS RATINGS FOR WORDS IN CONTEXT 153 APPENDIX III.A Highly Literal Nouns 153 APPENDIX III.B Highly Metaphorical Nouns 154 APPENDIX III.C Highly Literal Verbs 155 APPENDIX III.D Highly Metaphorical Verbs 156 APPENDIX IV. FILLER /PRACTICE PRIMES, TARGETS (NONWORDS), SENTENTIAL STIMULI 157 APPENDIX IV.A Fillers Used in Pretest 4, Experiment 2, and 3 157 APPENDIX IV.B Practice Trials Used in Pretest 4, Experiment 2, and 3 160 APPENDIX IV.C Remaining Fillers 161 APPENDIX V. MEMORY TEST ITEMS 162 APPENDIX V.A Memory Test Items Used in Pretest 4 & Experiment 2 162 APPENDIX V.B Memory Test Items Used in Experiment 3 164 APPENDIX VI. SENTENCE COMPLETION TASK DATA 168 APPENDIX VI.A Highly Literal Nouns 168 APPENDIX VI.B Highly Metaphorical Nouns 176 APPENDIX VI.C Highly Literal Verbs 184 APPENDIX VI.D Highly Metaphorical Verbs 192 APPENDIX VII. WORD ASSOCIATION TASK DATA (EXPERIMENT 1) 200 APPENDIX VII.A Highly Literal Nouns 200 APPENDIX VII.B Highly Metaphorical Nouns 204 APPENDIX VII.C Highly Literal Verbs 208 APPENDIX VII.D Highly Metaphorical Verbs 212 APPENDIX VIII. INSTRUCTIONS OF SENTENCE COMPLETION TASKS, RELATEDNESS RATINGS FOR WORDS IN ISOLATION AND IN CONTEXT, EXPERIMENT 1, PRETEST 4, EXPERIMENT 2, AND SCREEN SHOTS 216 APPENDIX VIII.A Sentence Completion Task 216 APPENDIX VIII.B Relatedness Ratings for Words in Isolation 218 APPENDIX VIII.C Relatedness Ratings for Words in Context 220 APPENDIX VIII.D Experiment 1: Word Association Task 223 APPENDIX VIII.E Pretest 4: Cross-modal Priming Lexical Decision Task for Words in Isolation (Pseudohomophones) 225 APPENDIX VIII.F Experiment 2: Cross-modal Priming Lexical Decision Task for Words in Isolation (Legal Nonwords) 226 APPENDIX VIII.G Experiment 3: Cross-modal Priming Lexical Decision Task for Words in Context 227 List of Figures FIGURE 1. HOMONYMY, POLYSEMY, SENSE, & FACET. 13 FIGURE 2. RANGE OF MEANING COVERED IN THE STUDY. 25 FIGURE 3. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROCEDURE 76 FIGURE 4. MEAN RELATEDNESS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN ISOLATION. 91 FIGURE 5. RELATEDNESS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN CONTEXT. 95 FIGURE 6. PARTICIPANT PROFILE BY COLLEGE. 99 FIGURE 7. OVERALL COMPARISON OF FIRST ASSOCIATES FOR HIGHLY LITERAL WORDS AND HIGHLY METAPHORICAL WORDS. 105 FIGURE 8. MEAN RTS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN ISOLATION (PSEUDOHOMOPHONE). 112 FIGURE 9. MEAN RTS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN ISOLATION (LEGAL NONWORD). 117 FIGURE 10. FREQUENCY AND DEGREE OF SALIENCE IN CONVENTIONAL LEXICAL METAPHOR. 121 FIGURE 11. MEAN RTS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN CONTEXT. 127 FIGURE 12. PRIMING EFFECTS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN CONTEXT. 128 List of Tables TABLE 1. LEXICAL ACCESS MODELS IN AMBIGUITY LITERATURE. 16 TABLE 2. REANALYSIS OF STIMULI’S NUMBER OF MEANINGS (NOM) IN KLEPOUSNIOTOU & BAUM (2007) BASED ON WORDNET 3.0. 21 TABLES 3A & 3B. TIMING ISSUES IN CROSS-MODAL LEXICAL PRIMING FOR ISOLATED WORDS & CROSS-MODAL LEXICAL PRIMING FOR WORDS IN CONTEXT 53 TABLE 4. SAMPLE STIMULI FOR NOUNS AND VERBS WITH HIGHLY FREQUENT LITERAL MEANINGS (廢物 FEI4 WU3 ‘WASTE’; 吞下 TUN1 XIA4 ‘SWALLOW’). 79 TABLE 5. SAMPLE STIMULI FOR NOUNS AND VERBS WITH HIGHLY FREQUENT METAPHORICAL MEANINGS (角度 JIAO3 DU4 ‘ANGLE’; 打斷 DA3 DUAN4 ‘TO BREAK’). 79 TABLE 6. RELATIVE SENSE FREQUENCIES OF HIGHLY LITERAL NOUNS (HLN), HIGHLY LITERAL VERBS (HLV), HIGHLY METAPHORICAL NOUNS (HMN), AND HIGHLY METAPHORICAL VERBS (HMV). 80 TABLE 7. MEAN RELATEDNESS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN ISOLATION. 91 TABLE 8. MEAN RELATEDNESS RATINGS FOR WORDS IN CONTEXT. 95 TABLE 9. FIRST ASSOCIATES OF HIGHLY LITERAL NOUNS. 102 TABLE 10. FIRST ASSOCIATES OF HIGHLY LITERAL VERBS. 102 TABLE 11. FIRST ASSOCIATES OF HIGHLY METAPHORICAL NOUNS. 104 TABLE 12. FIRST ASSOCIATES OF HIGHLY METAPHORICAL VERBS. 104 TABLE 13. MEAN RTS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN ISOLATION (PSEUDOHOMOPHONE). 112 TABLE 14. MEAN RTS FOR HIGHLY LITERAL/METAPHORICAL WORDS IN ISOLATION (LEGAL NONWORD). 117 TABLE 15. MEAN RTS FOR WORDS IN CONTEXT. 127 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 隱喻多義詞之心理處理歷程:語境、詞義頻率與詞義顯著性 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Processing of Metaphorical Polysemy: Context, Frequency, and Salience | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.advisor-orcid | ,林千哲(clin@ntnu.edu.tw) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張顯達(Hintat Cheung) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 層次顯著性假說,詞義顯著性,語料庫詞義頻率,隱喻多義詞,詞彙隱喻,語境效應,約定俗成隱喻,認知語意學, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Graded salience hypothesis,Salience,Corpus sense frequency,Metaphorical polysemy,Lexical metaphor,Contextual effects,Conventional Metaphor,Cognitive semantics, | en |
dc.relation.page | 230 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-08-20 | |
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-98-1.pdf | 2.82 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。