1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 外國語文學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 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
作者 黃騭瑩
Huang, Chih Ying
貢獻者 李佳穎<br>黃瓊之
Lee, Chia Ying<br>Huang, Chiung Chih
黃騭瑩
Huang, Chih Ying
關鍵詞 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
日期 2008
上傳時間 19-九月-2009 13:03:26 (UTC+8)
摘要 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。

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.
參考文獻 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.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
93555012
97
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 李佳穎<br>黃瓊之zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lee, Chia Ying<br>Huang, Chiung Chihen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 黃騭瑩zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Huang, Chih Yingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 黃騭瑩zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Huang, Chih Yingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2008en_US
dc.date.accessioned 19-九月-2009 13:03:26 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 19-九月-2009 13:03:26 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 19-九月-2009 13:03:26 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0093555012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37287-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 93555012zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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。

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		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 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		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 125720 bytes-
dc.format.extent 74802 bytes-
dc.format.extent 167648 bytes-
dc.format.extent 91335 bytes-
dc.format.extent 84917 bytes-
dc.format.extent 88243 bytes-
dc.format.extent 143335 bytes-
dc.format.extent 85619 bytes-
dc.format.extent 81264 bytes-
dc.format.extent 254234 bytes-
dc.format.extent 285602 bytes-
dc.format.extent 371264 bytes-
dc.format.extent 82844 bytes-
dc.format.extent 117122 bytes-
dc.format.extent 191005 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555012en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中文雙字詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多意詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意表徵zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 大腦處理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 事件相關腦電位zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Chinese compoundsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) polysemyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) representation of sensesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) hemispheric processingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) ERPen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) N400en_US
dc.title (題名) 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zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Lateralization of the sense effect in reading Chinese disyllabic compounds: an event-related potential studyen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Academia Sinica balanced corpus (version 3). (1998). Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Broca, P. (1865). Sur le siege de la faculte du langage articule. . Buletins de la Societe d` Anthropologie 6, 337-393.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, C. H., & Witkowski, S. R. (1983). Polysemy, lexical change, and cultural importance. Man, 18, 72-89.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Burgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain Lang, 33(1), 86-103.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. Semantics: Theory and application, 181–206.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cruse, A. D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (1992). Brain and Language. Scientific American, 267 88-95.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Faust, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 36(9), 827-835.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. New approaches to language mechanisms: a collection of psycholinguistic studie, 257–287.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic Processing in Visual Word Recognition: A Multiple Read-Out Model. PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW-NEW YORK-, 103, 518-565.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Huang, C. M. (2004). An electrophysiological study of the neighborhood size effect in Chinese two-character words. National Yang-ming University, Taiwan., Taipei.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The Representation of Polysemous Words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259-282.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 207-246.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Li, P., Jin, Z., & Tan, L. H. (2004). Neural representations of nouns and verbs in Chinese: an fMRI study. Neuroimage, 21(4), 1533-1541.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lin, C. C. (1999). Multiple senses of Mandarin Chinese nominals: Implications for lexical access. National Chengchi University, Taipei.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lindell, A. K. (2006). In your right mind: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychology Review, 16, 131-148.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76(2), 165-178.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Nunberg, G. (1979). The Non-Uniqueness of Semantic Solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy. An International Journal Austin, Tex., 3(2), 143-184.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pulvermuller, F. (1992). Constituents of a neurological theory of language. Concepts in Neuroscience, 3, 157-200.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pulvermuller, F. (1996). Hebb`s concept of cell assemblies an the psychophysiology of word processing. Psychophysiology, 33(4), 317-333.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97-109.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rugg, M. D., & Coles, M. G. (1996). The ERP and cognitive psychology: conceptual issues. Inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Electrophysiology of Mind: Event-Related Brain Potentials and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J., & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124(8), 1619.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cheng, Y.-Y. (2006). Combinability and semantic transparency effects of semantic radical in reading Chinese characters. National Central University, Chung-li.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words. Psychological Science, 9(4), 325-329.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Zipf, G. K. (1945). The meaning-frequency relationship of words. Journal of General Psychology, 33, 251-256.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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.zh_TW