Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37287


Title: 事件相關腦電位探討中文雙字詞語義歧義性之腦側化現象
Lateralization of the sense effect in reading Chinese disyllabic compounds: an event-related potential study
Authors: 黃騭瑩
Huang, Chih Ying
Contributors: 李佳穎
黃瓊之

Lee, Chia Ying
Huang, Chiung Chih

黃騭瑩
Huang, Chih Ying
Keywords: 中文雙字詞
多意詞
語意表徵
大腦處理
事件相關腦電位
Chinese compounds
polysemy
representation of senses
hemispheric processing
ERP
N400
Date: 2008
Issue Date: 2009-09-19 13:03:26 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本文透過操弄雙字詞詞首的語意(sense)多寡和左右視野,試圖探討中文雙字詞的語意表徵和左右大腦對於多意詞(polysemy)的處理機制。實驗一顯示的左右腦結果和Pylkkänen等人在2006年的MEG研究相似,也就是左腦的多意詞促進效果,支持多意詞單一表徵的型態;然而,右腦卻呈現多意詞抑制的效果。這樣的現象產生兩者可能解釋:(1) 右腦還是屬於單一語意表徵,但由於右半腦處理語意的特性,導致和左腦得到不同的結果;(2)右腦的結果是來自於右腦屬於語意多重表徵(separate entries)的因素。為了要釐清這些說法,實驗二進一步的改變作業深度,讓受試者做詞類判斷作業,企圖讓受試者進行比較深層的語意處理。實驗二結果顯示,在改變作業深度之後,我們的確得到右腦語意促進效果,所以證明右腦的語意屬於單一表徵,在比較深層作業處理階段,因為左右腦處理語意的特性,使得右腦有機會呈現實驗預期的結果。另外,在動詞、名詞事後分析的結果中,我們也發現動詞、名詞的語意效果在大腦有不同的分布區位。名詞的語意效果分布在大腦中間偏後的位置;動詞則是主要分布在大腦前額一帶
總結以上發現,本研究的發現支持過去學者所提出的多意詞單一表徵的說法;第二、本研究對左右半腦處理語意特性,也符合過去的假設,也就是左腦擅長主要、細微的辨識,右腦則擅長維持次要、普遍語意。第三、本研究額外的發現是,動詞、名詞的語意效果在大腦有不同的分布,意味著不同的詞類在大腦可能有不同的表徵。
<br>Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………iv
Tables…………….……………………………………………………………ix
Figures …………………………………………………………………………x
Chinese Abstract …………………………………………………………xii
English Abstract ………………………………………………………xiii

CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………..……1
1.1 What are senses? Homonymy vs. Polysemy …………………….1
1.2 English words vs. Chinese compounds ………………………….3
1.3 Hemispheric processing of semantic ambiguity ……………4

2. REVIEW OF RELATED PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH ………………6
2.1 Neighborhood size effect in English …………………………6
2.2 Neighborhood frequency effect …………………………….……9
2.3 Event-related potentials (ERPs) vs. neighborhood size effect....11
2.3.1 Event-related potentials ………………………………….11
2.3.2 The advantages of electrophysiological techniques …12
2.3.3 Language-related ERP components ……………………….…12
2.3.4 The neighborhood size effect and. ERPs ……………..14
2.4 Neighborhood size effect in Chinese ……………………….16
2.5 Lexical ambiguity in English—homonymy vs. polysemy……… 22
2.5.1 Mixed results of ambiguity effects ………………………23
2.5.2 Polysemy—separate entries or single entry? …………25
2.5.3Some evidence for single entry hypothesis of senses…27
2.6 Lexical ambiguity in Chinese …………………….……………26
2.7 Hemispheric asymmetry in lexicon processing ……………33

3. EXPERIMENT 1 ………………………………………………………………38
3.1 Experiment 1... ..……………………………………….….....39
3.1.1 Participants …………………………………………………………39
3.1.2 Materials ……………………………………………………………39
3.1.3 Procedure ……………………………………………………………40
3.2 EEG recording parameters …………………………………………41
3.3 EEG data analysis procedure …………………………….....42
3.4 Results ……………………………………………………………………43
3.4.1 Behavioral data of sense effect ……………………………43
3.4.2 Behavioral data of lexicality effect ……………………44
3.4.3 Event-related potentials ………………………………….…45
N170 (150- 180 ms) …………………………………………………46
Frontal P200 (220-260 ms) …………………………………….……47
N400 …………………………………………………………………48
3.5 Discussion ……………………………………………………………51

4. EXPERIMENT 2 ……………………………………………………………57
4.1 Experiment 2 …………………………………………………………58
4.1.1 Participants ………………………………………………………58
4.1.2 Materials …………………………………………………………58
4.1.3 Procedure ……………………………………………………………59
4.2 Results …………………………………………………………………60
4.2.1 Behavioral data ……………………………………………………60
4.2.2 ERP data ……………………………………………………………61
N170 (150-180 ms) ………………………………………………....62
Frontal P200 (220-260 ms) …………………………………………63
N400 (350-500 ms) …………………………………………………63
4.3 Discussion …………………………………………………………………….65
Nouns and verbs ………………………………………………………67
4.4 Re-analyses …………………………………………………………69
4.4.1 Behavioral data ……………………………………………………69
4.4.2 ERP data ……………………………………………………………....71
Nouns …………………………………………………………………71
Verbs …………………………………………………………………74
4.5 Discussion 2 ………………………………………………………77

5. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ………………………81
5.1 Separate entries or single entry? …………………………81
5.2 Hemispheric processing of polysemy in different depth of tasks ………....82
5.3 Nouns and verbs ………………………………………………………84
5.4 Conclusions …………………………………………………………….85

References ……………………………………………….……………………86

Appendixes ………………………………………………………….…….94
The current study used the manipulation of visual field and the number of senses of the first character in Chinese disyllabic compounds to investigate the representation of senses and the hemispheric processing of semantic polysemy. The ERP results in experiment 1 revealed crossover patterns in the LH and RH, which resembled the MEG data in Pylkkänen et al.’s study (2006). The sense facilitation in the LH was in favor of the assumption of single entry representation for senses. However, the inhibition in the RH yielded two possible interpretations: (1) the nature of hemispheric processing in dealing with semantic ambiguity; (2) the semantic activation from the separate-entry representation for senses. To clarify these possibilities, the depth of the task was changed. Experiment 2 was designed to push subjects to a deeper level of lexical processing through the word class judgment task. The results revealed the sense facilitation effect in the RH and suggested that in a deeper level, the RH had more possibility to observe the sense facilitation due to different efficiency of cerebral hemispheres in dealing with ambiguity. By chance, planned comparisons of the sense effect in different word classes suggested different distributions of the sense effects for nouns and verbs. For nouns, the sense effects were located in central-to-parietal areas while for verbs, the sense effects mainly were from the frontal area.
In sum, the current study was in support of the account of single entry representation for senses, which was consistent with previous findings proposed by Beretta et al. (2005), Pylkkänen et al. (2006), and Rodd et al. (2002). Second, the research demonstrated that cerebral hemispheres played a role in semantic activation in a complementary way in which the LH was engaged in fine and focused semantic coding while the RH was more sophisticated in coarse coding and maintaining alternate meanings (e. g. Beeman & Chiarello, 1998; Burgess and Simpson, 1988). When the depth of tasks was changed, the RH advantage for the processing of semantically related senses was observed. Third, different distributions of the sense effects for nouns and verbs implied the distinct representations for different parts of speech in the brain.
Reference: Academia Sinica balanced corpus (version 3). (1998). Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ahrens, K., Chang L.-L., Chen K.-J., & Huang C.-R. (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3(1), 45-60.
Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 802–814.
Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 234-254.
Azuma, T., & Van Orden, 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.
Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
Broca, P. (1865). Sur le siege de la faculte du langage articule. . Buletins de la Societe d' Anthropologie 6, 337-393.
Brown, C. H., & Witkowski, S. R. (1983). Polysemy, lexical change, and cultural importance. Man, 18, 72-89.
Burgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain Lang, 33(1), 86-103.
Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. Semantics: Theory and application, 181–206.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). NJ: Erlbaum: Hillsdale.
Cruse, A. D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Damasio A. R., & Daniel, T. (1993). Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differently distributed neural systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (1992). Brain and Language. Scientific American, 267 88-95.
Faust, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 36(9), 827-835.
Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. (2003). Semantically convergent and semantically divergent priming in the cerebral hemispheres: lexical decision and semantic judgment. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 585-597.
Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). Right words and left words: electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8(3), 373-392.
Fera, P., Joordens, S., Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Benser, D. (1992). Ambiguity in meaning and phonology: Effects on naming. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society.
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. New approaches to language mechanisms: a collection of psycholinguistic studie, 257–287.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: processing mutiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language(Print), 29(2), 181-200.
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. E. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language Development. Language, Thought and Culture (Vol. 2, pp. 301-334). NJ: Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic Processing in Visual Word Recognition: A Multiple Read-Out Model. PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW-NEW YORK-, 103, 518-565.
Grainger, J., O'Regan, J. K., Jacobs, A. M., & Segui, J. (1989). On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: the neighborhood frequency effect. Percept Psychophys, 45(3), 189-195.
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: an alternative to lexical access accounts Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 22(6), 1331-1356.
Holcomb, P. J., Grainger, J., & O'Rourke, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(6), 938-950.
Huang, C. M. (2004). An electrophysiological study of the neighborhood size effect in Chinese two-character words. National Yang-ming University, Taiwan., Taipei.
Huang, H. W., Lee, C. Y., Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. L., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2006). Orthographic neighborhood effects in reading Chinese two-character words. Neuroreport, 17(10), 1061-1065.
Huang, H.-W., Tsai, J.-L., Lee, C.-Y., Tzeng, O. J.-L., & Hung, D. L. (2006). The N400 effect of morphemic size in Chinese word recognition. Italy : Organization for Human Brain Mapping.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple Meaning, Number of Related Meanings, Frequency of Occurrence, and the Lexicon. Cognitive Psychology New York, N. Y., 13(2), 278-305.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The Representation of Polysemous Words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259-282.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 548-570.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203.
Lavidor, M., Hayes, A., Shillcock, R., & Ellis, A. W. (2004). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of orthographic neighborhood size. Brain Lang, 88(3), 312-320.
Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 207-246.
Li, P., Jin, Z., & Tan, L. H. (2004). Neural representations of nouns and verbs in Chinese: an fMRI study. Neuroimage, 21(4), 1533-1541.
Lin, C. C. (1999). Multiple senses of Mandarin Chinese nominals: Implications for lexical access. National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Lindell, A. K. (2006). In your right mind: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychology Review, 16, 131-148.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
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(5), 375-407.
Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: now you see it, now you don't. Memory & cognition, 17(2), 141-147.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76(2), 165-178.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The Non-Uniqueness of Semantic Solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy. An International Journal Austin, Tex., 3(2), 143-184.
Pulvermuller, F. (1992). Constituents of a neurological theory of language. Concepts in Neuroscience, 3, 157-200.
Pulvermuller, F. (1996). Hebb's concept of cell assemblies an the psychophysiology of word processing. Psychophysiology, 33(4), 317-333.
Pulvermuller, F., Lutzenberger, W., & Preissl, H. (1999). Nouns and Verbs in the Intact Brain: Evidence from Event-related Potentials and High-frequency Cortical Responses. Cerebral Cortex, 9(5), 497-506.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97-109.
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.
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487–494.
Rugg, M. D., & Coles, M. G. (1996). The ERP and cognitive psychology: conceptual issues. In
Electrophysiology of Mind: Event-Related Brain Potentials and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychol Rev, 89(1), 60-94.
Sears, C. R., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1995). Neighborhood size and neighborhood frequency effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 876-900.
Tsai, J.-L., Lee, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-C.,Tzeng, Ovid J. L., & Hung, Daisy, L. (2006). Neighborhood size effects of chinese words in lexical decision and reading. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 659-675.
Tsai, P. S., Yu, B. H.-Y., Lee, C.-Y., Tzeng, O. J. L., Hung, D., L., & Wu, D. H. (in press). An event-related potential study of the concreteness effect between Chinese nouns and verbs. Brain Research.
Tyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J., & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124(8), 1619.
Cheng, Y.-Y. (2006). Combinability and semantic transparency effects of semantic radical in reading Chinese characters. National Central University, Chung-li.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words. Psychological Science, 9(4), 325-329.
Zipf, G. K. (1945). The meaning-frequency relationship of words. Journal of General Psychology, 33, 251-256.
李佳穎. (1995). 漢語組合詞和成語詞在心理辭典中的表徵方式. 國立中正大學, 台灣:嘉義.
黃緒文. (2003). 鄰項個數多寡對中文雙字詞辭彙判斷的影響. 國立陽明大學, 台灣:台北.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
93555012
97
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555012
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
55501201.pdf122KbAdobe PDF986View/Open
55501202.pdf73KbAdobe PDF914View/Open
55501203.pdf163KbAdobe PDF1422View/Open
55501204.pdf89KbAdobe PDF950View/Open
55501205.pdf82KbAdobe PDF913View/Open
55501206.pdf86KbAdobe PDF1173View/Open
55501207.pdf139KbAdobe PDF1343View/Open
55501208.pdf83KbAdobe PDF971View/Open
55501209.pdf79KbAdobe PDF1168View/Open
55501210.pdf248KbAdobe PDF1138View/Open
55501211.pdf278KbAdobe PDF1037View/Open
55501212.pdf362KbAdobe PDF1111View/Open
55501213.pdf80KbAdobe PDF948View/Open
55501214.pdf114KbAdobe PDF1168View/Open
55501215.pdf186KbAdobe PDF915View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing