請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65338
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 李佳霖 | |
dc.contributor.author | Nai-Wen Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張乃文 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T23:37:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2025-03-03 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-03-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-02-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 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, 278-289.
Besson, M., Kutas, M., & Petten, C. V. (1992). An event-related potential (ERP) analysis of semantic congruity and repetition effects in sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(2), 132-149. Bever, T., Carrithers, C., & Cowart, W. Townsend, D.J. (1989). Language processing and familial handedness. In A.M. Galaburda (Ed.), From Reading to Neurons (pp.331-360), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bever, T. G., Carrithers, C., & Townsend, D. J. (1987). A tale of two brains; or, the sinistral quasimodularity of language. In Proceedings of the ninth annual cognitive science society meetings (pp. 764-773). Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain research reviews, 59(1), 55-73. Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the Proper Treatment of the N400 and P600 in Language Comprehension. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1327. Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain research, 1446, 127-143. Chen, M. H. (2016). Brain asymmetry in syntactic processing of word class in Chinese: an ERP study. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT press, Cambridge, MA. Chou, L. C. (2016). An Event-Related Potential Study for the Effect of Emotional Expectation in Sentence Processing. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Chow, W. Y., & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain research, 1506, 76-93. Chinese Writing Test (2019). Retrieved from https://www.cwt.org.tw/CWTFrontEnd/FileDownload.aspx CKIP. (n.d.). Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. Retrieved from https://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/ Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 19(4), 450-466. Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540-551. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999a). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of memory and Language, 41(4), 469-495. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999b). Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8(3), 373-392. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (2005). Aging in context: age‐related changes in context use during language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 42(2), 133-141. 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. Fernandez, G., Weyerts, H., Tendolkar, I., Smid, H. G., Scholz, M., & Heinze, H. J. (1998). Event-related potentials of verbal encoding into episodic memory: dissociation between the effects of subsequent memory performance and distinctiveness. Psychophysiology, 35(6), 709-720. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive psychology, 47(2), 164-203. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 31(1), 45-63. Golden, C. J., Espe-Pfeifer, P., & Wachsler-Felder, J. (2000). Neuropsychological interpretation of objective psychological tests. Springer Science & Business Media. Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D. (2010). The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and cognitive processes, 25(2), 149-188. Grey, S., Tanner, D., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). How right is left? Handedness modulates neural responses during morphosyntactic processing. Brain Research, 1669, 27-43. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: the P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1531-1549. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and cognitive processes, 8(4), 439-483. Hancock, R., & Bever, T. G. (2013). Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of language. Biolinguistics, 7, 75-95. Hoeks, J. C., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive brain research, 19(1), 59-73. Juottonen, K., Revonsuo, A., & Lang, H. (1996). Dissimilar age influences on two ERP waveforms (LPC and N400) reflecting semantic context effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 4(2), 99-107. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and cognitive processes, 15(2), 159-201. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 15(1), 98-110. Kandhadai, P., & Federmeier, K. D. (2010). Hemispheric differences in the recruitment of semantic processing mechanisms. Neuropsychologia, 48(13), 3772-3781. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of memory and language, 52(2), 205-225. 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. Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., Van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and language, 85(1), 1-36. Kos, M., Van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Individual variation in the late positive complex to semantic anomalies. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 318. Kos, M., Vosse, T. G., Van Den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in psychology, 1, 222. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain research, 1146, 23-49. Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic, and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and cognitive processes, 21(5), 489-530. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and language, 100(3), 223-237. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive brain research, 17(1), 117-129. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., & Lakshmanan, B. M. (2008). Neuroanatomical distinctions within the semantic system during sentence comprehension: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage, 40(1), 367-388. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(12), 463-470. Kutas, M., & 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. Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., & Urbach, T. (2014). The “negatives” and “positives” of prediction in language. The Cognitive Neurosciences V, 649-56. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203-205. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory & cognition, 11(5), 539-550. Kutas, M., & Iragui, V. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 108(5), 456-471. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 326-338. Leckey, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2019). The P3b and P600 (s): Positive contributions to language comprehension. Psychophysiology, e13351. 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, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press. Li, P., Bates, E., Liu, H., & MacWhinney, B. (1992). Cues as functional constraints on sentence processing in Chinese. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 90, pp. 207-234). North-Holland. MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 23(2), 127-150. Mitchell, P. F., Andrews, S., Fox, A. M., Catts, S. V., Ward, P. B., & McConaghy, N. (1991). Active and passive attention in schizophrenia: an ERP study of information processing in a linguistic task. Biological Psychology, 32(2-3), 101-124. Miyamoto, T., Katayama, J. I., & Koyama, T. (1998). ERPs, semantic processing and age. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 29(1), 43-51. Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36(3), 217-226. 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. Nguyen, Emma. & Sprouse, J. (2017, November). The (non-)satiation of P600/SPS effects to distinct grammatical violations. Poster presented at the 9th Annual Society for the Neurobiology of Language Conference, Baltimore, MD. Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus--norepinephrine system. Psychological bulletin, 131(4), 510. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113. Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and language, 59(3), 494-522. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of memory and language, 31(6), 785-806. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 413-437. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786-803. Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and language, 34(6), 739-773. Paczynski, M., Kreher, D. A., Ditman, T., Holcomb, P., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2006). Electrophysiological evidence for the role of animacy and lexico-semantic associations in processing nouns within passive structures. Cogn. Neurosci. Suppl., Abstract. Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2728-2744. Salisbury, D. F. (2004). Semantic memory and verbal working memory correlates of N400 to subordinate homographs. Brain and cognition, 55(2), 396-399. Salmon, N., & Pratt, H. (2002). A comparison of sentence-and discourse-level semantic processing: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 83(3), 367-383. Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 514-523. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 402-433. Stroud, C., & Phillips, C. (2012). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and language, 120(2), 108-126. Tanner, D. (2019). Robust neurocognitive individual differences in grammatical agreement processing: A latent variable approach. Cortex, 111, 210-237. Tanner, D., Grey, S., & van Hell, J. G. (2017). Dissociating retrieval interference and reanalysis in the P600 during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 54(2), 248-259. Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 367-382. Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289-301. Tombaugh, T. N., Kozak, J., & Rees, L. (1999). Normative data stratified by age and education for two measures of verbal fluency: FAS and animal naming. Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 14(2), 167-177. Townsend, D. J., Carrithers, C., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Familial handedness and access to words, meaning, and syntax during sentence comprehension. Brain and language, 78(3), 308-331. Van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241-255. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & cognition, 18(4), 380-393. Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176-190. Van Petten, C., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H. K., & Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological science, 8(3), 238-242. Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in the use of sentence context information. Neuropsychologia, 45(13), 3001-3014. Zhang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2008). Brain responses to agreement violations of Chinese grammatical aspect. Neuroreport, 19(10), 1039-1043. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65338 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探討大腦在處理三種類型的語言錯誤時,所引發的晚期正向波。儘管這些晚期正向波皆分佈於大腦後區,且皆出現於刺激材料出現後約500至1000毫秒左右,根據引發情況的不同,分別被命名為「句法P600」(句法錯誤所引發)、「語意P600」(論旨角色錯誤所引發)以及「LPC」(語意錯誤所引發)。然而,上述這些正向波是否由類似的認知機制所產生,目前仍然沒有一致的解釋。考量過去文獻所述,個體差異對於句法P600以及LPC所產生的影響,以及語意P600在各文獻中不一致的腦波呈現,我們致力於透過觀察同一批受試者對於這三種語言相關錯誤情況所引發的腦波來探究這三種正向波。因此,我們記錄並分析了28位慣用右手、擁有右例家族史(FS-)、且以台灣地區中文為母語的年輕人,在閱讀句法、語意或論旨角色錯誤的句子時,所引發的腦波反應。此外,我們也透過問卷及神經心理測驗的方式,收集受試者的閱讀經驗、中文能力、以及認知能力的相關資訊,並進一步分析中文能力及工作記憶對於正向波的影響。在操弄上述三種句型錯誤的情況時,受試者皆引發了我們預期觀察的腦波:句法P600、LPC、和語意P600。然而,我們只發現了語意P600的振幅和受試者的中文能力呈顯著正相關,句法P600及LPC則沒有任何顯著關聯性。我們進一步將在這些正向波之前出現、且個體變異性也大的N400效果的影響納入考量,評估受試者的「主導反應指數(RDI)」,也就是在閱讀各類型錯誤的句子時,引發正向波的傾向。綜觀RDI分析結果,這群FS-的年輕受試者只有在句法錯誤的情況下,仍具有引發晚期正向波句法P600的趨勢。類似的趨勢卻沒有在LPC和語意P600中出現。整體而言,本研究結果指出了語意、論旨角色錯誤在處理時的相似之處,也點出個別差異在研究語言處理時的重要性。然而,這些結論需要更多的數據支持。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis investigated three types of late positivities that have been observed to linguistic anomalies. With similar posterior distribution and latency at about 600 ms post stimuli-onset, “syntactic P600”, “semantic P600”, and “Late Positive Complex (LPC)” are primarily linked to syntactic anomalies, thematic anomalies, and semantic anomalies respectively. Whether these positivities involve similar underlying mechanisms, however, is still an ongoing debate. In view of great individual variations documented for syntactic P600 and LPC and inconsistent findings for semantic P600 across studies, the present study proposed to delineate the problem space by comparing these positivities in a same group of individuals. To that end, we tested twenty-eight young native Taiwan Mandarin speakers. ERPs to syntactic, semantic, or thematic anomalies were collected; language experience, proficiency, and related cognitive abilities were assessed through neuropsychological tests or questionnaires. Further analyses were conducted on participants’ native language proficiency and working memory capacity to observe whether these factors might influence the elicitation of the positivities. Participants were right-handed and did not have any familial sinistrality background (FS-). Our ERP results successfully replicated the three types of positivities. Reliable correlation was only noted between the magnitude of semantic P600 and language proficiency, while no significant correlation was found for syntactic P600 and LPC. To assess these participants’ general bias to elicit late positivities when accounting for possible and variable N400 responses in each case, we computed each participant’s Response Dominance Index (RDI) for each anomaly type. Larger RDIs index greater bias to elicit positivities over and beyond possible N400 effects. Only syntactic P600s showed an average RDI that was reliably different from 0. These results suggest that while FS- young right-handers as a group have a robust bias to elicit syntactic P600 in response to syntactic anomalies, no reliable tendencies were found for LPC and semantic P600. Together, these results constituted the first dataset of syntactic P600, semantic P600 and LPC with Chinese materials from a same group of FS- individuals that uniquely characterized these positivities from the perspective of individual differences. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T23:37:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-109-R05142005-1.pdf: 2392859 bytes, checksum: 3a478bded32d2df4294aee48c490df97 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 致謝辭……………………………………………...…………….................i
中文摘要…………………………………………………………...………ii Abstract……………………………………………...………….................iii 1. Introduction…………...………………………...……...…………..……1 2. Literature Review…………………...…………...……………................4 2.1 Literature on Anomaly- Related Posterior Positivities.…….......4 2.1.1 Syntactic P600……………………….........……...…………4 2.1.2 Late Positive Complex (LPC)…………....………………….7 2.1.3 Semantic P600…………………………….…..…………….9 2.2 Theories on the Mechanism(s) of Semantic P600………………..11 2.2.1 Multi-Stream Models………………….................….…..11 2.2.2 Single Stream Model……………………………...…..…...14 2.2.3 Empirical Evidence: Comparison between Semantic P600 and Syntactic P600…………………………………………15 2.3 Individual Differences in Anomaly-Related Positivities……....17 2.3.1 Syntactic P600………………….……………………..…...17 2.3.2 Late Positive Complex (LPC)…………..…………….....19 2.3.3 Semantic P600……………………………..…….………...20 2.4 Factors of Individual Variations………………………………….21 2.4.1 Familial Sinistrality…………………….………….…..…..21 2.4.2 Working Memory…………………….………….…..….....21 2.4.3 Language Proficiency……………………………………...22 2.5 Current Study……………………………..…………...……..…...23 2.5.1 Experimental Design……………………..……………......24 2.5.2 Hypothesis and Predictions……………….………………26 3. Method…………...………………………………………...………..….28 3.1 Participants………………….……………...………………..…...28 3.2 Materials……………….…………………...………………..…...30 3.2.1 Familiarity and Concreteness of Target Words…..33 3.2.2 Frame Plausibility…………………….……………...….....33 3.2.3 Cloze Probability and Sentence Constraint……...33 3.2.4 Sentence Plausibility Rating…………………….........34 3.3 Procedure…………….………..…………………….....…………35 3.4 EEG Recording Parameters……………………………...….……36 3.5 EEG Data Analysis………………………….……….…………...37 4. Results…………………………………………………………...……..39 4.1 Behavioral Results…………………………….……….…………39 4.2 General ERP Results…………………………………...…...……40 4.3 Results of Neuropsychological Assessment………................…44 4.4 Results of Response Dominance Index (RDI) Analysis………...47 5. Discussion……...…………………................................………………52 5.1 Replications of Syntactic P600, LPC and Semantic P600 to Syntactic, Semantic, and Thematic Anomalies……………....……53 5.2 Correlational Results between Positivities, Language Proficiency, and Working Memory Capacity…………..………………....54 5.3 Distribution of RDI Responses……………………………...……55 5.4 Concluding Remarks……………………….…...…………...…...57 References……………………………....……………………...…...….…62 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 個體差異對處理後區正向波之影響—句法、語意、及論旨角色錯誤之探究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Individual Differences in Anomaly- Related Posterior Positivities— Syntactic P600, Late Positive Complex (LPC), and Semantic P600 | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李佳穎,詹曉蕙 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 個體差異,家族慣用手,事件相關電位,句法P600,LPC,語意P600,語意錯誤,句法錯誤,論旨角色錯誤, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | individual difference,familial sinistrality,ERPs,syntactic P600,semantic P600,LPC,semantic anomaly,syntactic anomaly,thematic anomaly, | en |
dc.relation.page | 74 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202000522 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-02-20 | |
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-109-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.34 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。