學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 詞彙歧義解困的次要語義偏向效應再視：中文多義詞的眼動研究證據
Revisiting the subordinate bias effect of lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements in reading Chinese作者 盧怡璇
Lu, I Hsuan貢獻者 蔡介立
盧怡璇
Lu, I Hsuan關鍵詞 同形異義詞
眼動
詞彙歧義解困
次要語義偏向效應
口語理解-視覺典範
Homograph
Eye movements
Lexical ambiguity resolution
Subordinate bias effect
Visual world paradigm日期 2011 上傳時間 30-十月-2012 11:16:27 (UTC+8) 摘要 過去二十多年來，心理語言學研究關注詞彙歧義解困 (lexical ambiguity resolution)歷程發生時，語義脈絡與多義詞的語義頻率之間的交互作用。許多研究發現，當語境支持非均勢同形異義詞 (unbalanced homograph) 的次要語義時，同形異義詞的凝視時間長於與其有相同字形頻率的單義詞 (unambiguous control)，此為次要語義偏向效應 (subordinate bias effect)。根據再排序觸接模型 (reordered-access model)，次要語義偏向效應來自於主要語義與次要語義的競爭；相對地，選擇觸接模型 (selective access model)則認為只有與語境相關的語義被激發，因此，次要語義偏向效應是因為提取到一個使用頻率較低的語義。本論文進行兩個眼動實驗。實驗一檢視中文多義詞的次要語義偏向效應以區辨兩種詞彙歧義解困模型分別提出的解釋。本實驗的材料使用了低頻同形異義詞、低頻單義詞、以及高頻單義詞。結果顯示，當使用的單義詞與多義詞字形頻率相同時，在目標詞及後目標詞上(目標詞後一個詞)皆發生了次要語義偏向效應。實驗二利用口語理解─視覺典範中透過受試者理解語音訊息時同步記錄眼動的作業方式來探究次要語義偏向效應是否來自於主要語義的激發。當口語句子中的目標詞被唸出後，會計算出隨著時間增加眼睛落在四個雙字詞的凝視比例。結果發現次要語義因為語境的選擇在聽到目標詞後大約500毫秒時就可被激發，主要語義則在一聽完多義詞後被激發。因此，多義詞的兩個語義在聽到目標詞後大約900至1300毫秒時(相當於在後目標詞時)發生競爭。整體而言，本研究顯示即使語境支持多義詞的次要語義，主要語義依然會被激發。因此，次要語義偏向效應是由兩個語義競爭後所造成的結果，符合再排序觸接模型的解釋。
Research in psycholinguistics throughout the last two decades has focused on the interaction between linguistic context and meaning dominance during lexical ambiguity resolution. Many studies demonstrated the subordinate bias effect when the preceding context biased for the subordinate meaning (i.e. infrequent meaning) of an unbalanced homograph. According to the reordered access model, the SBE is due to competition between the dominant and subordinate meanings. On the contrary, the selective access model assumes only the context-relevant meaning is activated and the SBE is a result of access to a low frequent meaning. Two eye tracking experiments of sentence reading and sentence listening were conducted. Experiment 1 examined the SBE of Chinese homographs to differentiate the two accounts. We utilized low frequency homographs along with their matched low and high-frequency unambiguous words. The results showed the SBE emerging in fixation durations of the target region and post-target region (i.e. next two words of the target), when unambiguous controls were matched to the word-form frequency of ambiguous words. Experiment 2 used visual world paradigm to explore temporal dynamics of dominant meaning activation responsible for the SBE in an instructional eyetracking-during-listening task. Fixation probabilities on four disyllabic printed words were analyzed during a time period after a target word was uttered in a spoken sentence. The results supported the reordered access model. The subordinate meaning was activated by contextual information at about 500 ms after the onset of acoustic homograph at the time when context penetrated to make its favored meaning available. Soon after the offset of homograph, the dominant meaning became active. Both meanings associated with the homograph were activated during the time windows of 901 ms to 1300 ms, which approximately corresponding to the acoustic onset of post target. In sum, our studies demonstrate that the dominant meaning is activated even when the contextual information biases to the subordinate meaning of a homograph. The subordinate bias effect is the result of competition from two meanings, conforming to the reordered access model.參考文獻 Ahrens, K. (2001). On-Line Sentence Comprehension of Ambiguous Verbs in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10(4), 337-358. Ahrens, K., Chang, L., Chen, K., & Huang, C. R. (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational linguistics and Chinese language processing, 3(1), 45-60. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340-357. 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. Binder, K. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 690-702. Binder, K. S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1999). Extraction of information to the left of the fixated word in reading Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1162-1172. Booth, J. R., Harasaki, Y., & Burman, D. D. (2006). Development of lexical and sentence level context effects for dominant and subordinate word meanings of homonyms. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 35(6), 531-554. Chen, L., & Boland, J. (2008). Dominance and context effects on activation of alternative homophone meanings. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1306-1323. doi: 10.3758/mc.36.7.1306Chen, Y. R. (2009). The effect of sense relatedness on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from Chinese verbs. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive psychology, 42(4), 317-367. Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixation in reading: a test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461-476. Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical Ambiguity and Fixation Times in Reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Frauenfelder, U. H., Segui, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1990). Lexical effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhibitory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 77-91. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.77Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181-200. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(90)90071-7Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265-274. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80070-3Hue, C. W., Chen, Y. J., Chang, S. H., & Sung, Y. C. (1996). Word Association to 600 Chinese Homographs. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 67-168. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96(1), B23-B32. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2004). The on-line processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eyetracking. The online study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond, 187-207. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 15(8), 985-1018. Huettig, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2007). The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 460-482. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.02.001Huettig, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2011). The nature of the visual environment induces implicit biases during language-mediated visual search. Memory & Cognition, 1-17. Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363-372. Kellas, G., & Vu, H. (1999). Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 511-517. Li, P., Shu, H., Yip, M., Zhang, Y., & Tang, Y. (2002). Lexical ambiguity in sentence processing: Evidence from Chinese. Crosslinguistic sentence processing. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications, 111-129. Li, P., & Yip, M. C. (1996). Lexical ambiguity and context effects in spoken word recognition: Evidence from Chinese.Li, P., & Yip, M. C. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing, 10(3), 223-243. Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The Dynamics of Lexical Competition During Spoken Word Recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133-156. doi: 10.1080/03640210709336987Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of subordinate bias effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52(A), 813-839. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive psychology, 18(1), 1-86. Mcqueen, J. M., & Viebahn, M. C. (2007). Tracking recognition of spoken words by tracking looks to printed words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(5), 661-671. Mirman, D. (2008). Mechanisms of semantic ambiguity resolution: Insights from speech perception. Research on Language & Computation, 6(3), 293-309. Morris, R. K. (2006). Lexical processing and sentence context effects. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 377-401): Elsevier Science & Technology.Morris, R. K., & Binder, K. S. (2002). What happens to the unselected meaning of an ambiguous word in skilled reading? In D. D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 139-153). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225-236. Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 251-271. doi: 10.1007/bf01067833Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124(3), 372. Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual Strength and the Subordinate Bias Effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(4), 841-852. doi: 10.1080/713755868Rayner, K., Cook, A. E., Juhasz, B. J., & Frazier, L. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467-482. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Mem Cognit, 14(3), 191-201. 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. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Chapter 12 - Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading. In P. G. V. G. Roger, H. F. Martin, S. M. Wayne & L. H. Robin (Eds.), Eye Movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 271-292). Oxford: Elsevier.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. Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Meyer, D. E. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 2(2), 243-256. Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 21(3), 582-595. Sereno, S. C., Brewer C. C and O`Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological science, 14, 328-333. Sereno, S. C., O`Donnell, P. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: investigating the subordinate-bias effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 32(2), 335-350. doi: 2006-04604-010 [pii]10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.335Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological science, 3, 296-300. Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3(5), 296. Sheridan, H., Reingold, E. M., & Daneman, M. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements. Psychon Bull Rev, 16(5), 875-881. doi: 16/5/875 [pii]10.3758/PBR.16.5.875Simpson, 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., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28-39. Simpson, G. B., & Kreuger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627-643. Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627-643. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-660. Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2), 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. Tsai, J.-L., & McConkie, G. W. (2003). Where do Chinese readers send their eyes? In R. R. H. D. J. Hyona (Ed.), The Mind`s Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movements (pp. 159-176). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland /Elsevier Science Publishers.Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236-252. doi: 10.3758/bf03213803Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Mem Cognit, 26(5), 979-1001. 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. Zhang, Y., Wu, N., & Yip, M. (2006). Lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese sentence reading. In P. Li, L H. Tan, E. Bates & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics (Vol. 1:Chinese, pp. 268-278). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.袁暉. (Ed.) (2001) 現代漢語多義詞詞典(修訂本). 書海出版社(山西人民社).On-line resourcesAcademia Sinica Balanced Corpus. (2004) [CDROM]: Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.10) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/ (Retrieved March, 2012.)Chinese Wordnet. http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/ (Retrieved May, 2011)教育部國語推行委員會編. 1998 [2007]. 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本(臺灣學術網第四版 ver.2). http://140.111.34.46/newDict/dict/index.html (Retrieved May, 2011) 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
97555016
100資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097555016 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蔡介立 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 盧怡璇 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Lu, I Hsuan en_US dc.creator (作者) 盧怡璇 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lu, I Hsuan en_US dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 30-十月-2012 11:16:27 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 30-十月-2012 11:16:27 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-十月-2012 11:16:27 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0097555016 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54511 - 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) 97555016 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 過去二十多年來，心理語言學研究關注詞彙歧義解困 (lexical ambiguity resolution)歷程發生時，語義脈絡與多義詞的語義頻率之間的交互作用。許多研究發現，當語境支持非均勢同形異義詞 (unbalanced homograph) 的次要語義時，同形異義詞的凝視時間長於與其有相同字形頻率的單義詞 (unambiguous control)，此為次要語義偏向效應 (subordinate bias effect)。根據再排序觸接模型 (reordered-access model)，次要語義偏向效應來自於主要語義與次要語義的競爭；相對地，選擇觸接模型 (selective access model)則認為只有與語境相關的語義被激發，因此，次要語義偏向效應是因為提取到一個使用頻率較低的語義。本論文進行兩個眼動實驗。實驗一檢視中文多義詞的次要語義偏向效應以區辨兩種詞彙歧義解困模型分別提出的解釋。本實驗的材料使用了低頻同形異義詞、低頻單義詞、以及高頻單義詞。結果顯示，當使用的單義詞與多義詞字形頻率相同時，在目標詞及後目標詞上(目標詞後一個詞)皆發生了次要語義偏向效應。實驗二利用口語理解─視覺典範中透過受試者理解語音訊息時同步記錄眼動的作業方式來探究次要語義偏向效應是否來自於主要語義的激發。當口語句子中的目標詞被唸出後，會計算出隨著時間增加眼睛落在四個雙字詞的凝視比例。結果發現次要語義因為語境的選擇在聽到目標詞後大約500毫秒時就可被激發，主要語義則在一聽完多義詞後被激發。因此，多義詞的兩個語義在聽到目標詞後大約900至1300毫秒時(相當於在後目標詞時)發生競爭。整體而言，本研究顯示即使語境支持多義詞的次要語義，主要語義依然會被激發。因此，次要語義偏向效應是由兩個語義競爭後所造成的結果，符合再排序觸接模型的解釋。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Research in psycholinguistics throughout the last two decades has focused on the interaction between linguistic context and meaning dominance during lexical ambiguity resolution. Many studies demonstrated the subordinate bias effect when the preceding context biased for the subordinate meaning (i.e. infrequent meaning) of an unbalanced homograph. According to the reordered access model, the SBE is due to competition between the dominant and subordinate meanings. On the contrary, the selective access model assumes only the context-relevant meaning is activated and the SBE is a result of access to a low frequent meaning. Two eye tracking experiments of sentence reading and sentence listening were conducted. Experiment 1 examined the SBE of Chinese homographs to differentiate the two accounts. We utilized low frequency homographs along with their matched low and high-frequency unambiguous words. The results showed the SBE emerging in fixation durations of the target region and post-target region (i.e. next two words of the target), when unambiguous controls were matched to the word-form frequency of ambiguous words. Experiment 2 used visual world paradigm to explore temporal dynamics of dominant meaning activation responsible for the SBE in an instructional eyetracking-during-listening task. Fixation probabilities on four disyllabic printed words were analyzed during a time period after a target word was uttered in a spoken sentence. The results supported the reordered access model. The subordinate meaning was activated by contextual information at about 500 ms after the onset of acoustic homograph at the time when context penetrated to make its favored meaning available. Soon after the offset of homograph, the dominant meaning became active. Both meanings associated with the homograph were activated during the time windows of 901 ms to 1300 ms, which approximately corresponding to the acoustic onset of post target. In sum, our studies demonstrate that the dominant meaning is activated even when the contextual information biases to the subordinate meaning of a homograph. The subordinate bias effect is the result of competition from two meanings, conforming to the reordered access model. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements ivList of Tables ixList of Figures xi國立政治大學研究所碩士論文提要 xiiiAbstract xvChapter 1 11.1 General background 11.2 Research questions 6Chapter 2 82.1 Issues of lexical ambiguity resolution 82.1.1 Processing models of lexical ambiguity resolution 82.1.2 Empirical evidence for lexical ambiguity resolution 132.1.2.1 Eye-tracking paradigm and lexical ambiguity resolution 132.2 Subordinate Bias Effect (SBE) revisited 162.2.1 Reordered versus selective access model 172.2.2 The fate of unselected meaning 222.2.3 Visual world paradigm 232.3 Chinese lexical ambiguity resolution 272.3.1 The linguistic characteristics of Chinese word 272.3.2 Studies of lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese 29Chapter 3 333.1 Norming study one: Interpretation Preference Task 333.1.1 Participants 343.1.2 Materials 343.1.3 Procedure 343.1.4 Results 353.2 Norming study two : Meaning Relatedness Task 363.2.1 Participants 363.2.2 Materials 363.2.3 Procedure 363.2.4 Results 373.3 Norming study three : Cloze Task 373.3.1 Participants 383.3.2 Materials 383.3.3 Procedure 383.3.4 Results 393.4 Norming study four : Contextual Bias Task 403.4.1 Participants 403.4.2 Materials 403.4.3 Procedure 403.4.4 Results 41Chapter 4 434.1 Method 444.1.1 Participants 444.1.2 Materials and Design 444.1.3 Apparatus 464.1.4 Procedure 474.2 Data Analysis 494.3 Results 524.3.1 Target word region 524.3.2 Pre-target and post-target region 534.4 Discussion 56Chapter 5 595.1 Method 615.1.1 Participants 615.1.2 Materials and Design 615.1.3 Norming studies 655.1.3.1 Norming study one: Cloze Task 655.1.3.2 Norming study two: Plausibility Rating 655.1.3.3 Norming study three: Semantic Relatedness Rating 665.1.4 Procedure 685.2 Results 705.3 Discussion 75Chapter 6 796.1 Dynamic processing of context influence and meaning dominance 796.2 The competition account of subordinate bias effect 826.3 Time course of activation of ‘unselected’ semantic representation 836.4 Future Research 86Reference 89Appendixes 95A. Examples of questionnaire in Norming study two: Meaning Relatedness Task (Experiment 1) 95B. Norming study four: Contextual Bias Task (Experiment 1) 96C. Experiment materials of Experiment 1 97D. Experiment materials of Experiment 2 100 zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097555016 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同形異義詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 眼動 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞彙歧義解困 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 次要語義偏向效應 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 口語理解-視覺典範 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Homograph en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Eye movements en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Lexical ambiguity resolution en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Subordinate bias effect en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Visual world paradigm en_US dc.title (題名) 詞彙歧義解困的次要語義偏向效應再視：中文多義詞的眼動研究證據 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Revisiting the subordinate bias effect of lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements in reading Chinese en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ahrens, K. (2001). On-Line Sentence Comprehension of Ambiguous Verbs in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10(4), 337-358. Ahrens, K., Chang, L., Chen, K., & Huang, C. R. (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational linguistics and Chinese language processing, 3(1), 45-60. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340-357. 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. Binder, K. S. (2003). Sentential and discourse topic effects on lexical ambiguity processing: An eye movement examination. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 690-702. Binder, K. S., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1999). Extraction of information to the left of the fixated word in reading Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1162-1172. Booth, J. R., Harasaki, Y., & Burman, D. D. (2006). Development of lexical and sentence level context effects for dominant and subordinate word meanings of homonyms. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 35(6), 531-554. Chen, L., & Boland, J. (2008). Dominance and context effects on activation of alternative homophone meanings. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1306-1323. doi: 10.3758/mc.36.7.1306Chen, Y. R. (2009). The effect of sense relatedness on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from Chinese verbs. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive psychology, 42(4), 317-367. Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixation in reading: a test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461-476. Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. In D. D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical Ambiguity and Fixation Times in Reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Frauenfelder, U. H., Segui, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1990). Lexical effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhibitory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 77-91. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.77Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181-200. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(90)90071-7Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265-274. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80070-3Hue, C. W., Chen, Y. J., Chang, S. H., & Sung, Y. C. (1996). Word Association to 600 Chinese Homographs. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 67-168. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96(1), B23-B32. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2004). The on-line processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eyetracking. The online study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond, 187-207. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 15(8), 985-1018. Huettig, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2007). The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 460-482. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.02.001Huettig, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2011). The nature of the visual environment induces implicit biases during language-mediated visual search. Memory & Cognition, 1-17. Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363-372. Kellas, G., & Vu, H. (1999). Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: A reply to Binder and Rayner. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 511-517. Li, P., Shu, H., Yip, M., Zhang, Y., & Tang, Y. (2002). Lexical ambiguity in sentence processing: Evidence from Chinese. Crosslinguistic sentence processing. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications, 111-129. Li, P., & Yip, M. C. (1996). Lexical ambiguity and context effects in spoken word recognition: Evidence from Chinese.Li, P., & Yip, M. C. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones. Reading and Writing, 10(3), 223-243. Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The Dynamics of Lexical Competition During Spoken Word Recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133-156. doi: 10.1080/03640210709336987Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. Martin, C., Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Metcalf, K. (1999). Strength of discourse context as a determinant of subordinate bias effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52(A), 813-839. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive psychology, 18(1), 1-86. Mcqueen, J. M., & Viebahn, M. C. (2007). Tracking recognition of spoken words by tracking looks to printed words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(5), 661-671. Mirman, D. (2008). Mechanisms of semantic ambiguity resolution: Insights from speech perception. Research on Language & Computation, 6(3), 293-309. Morris, R. K. (2006). Lexical processing and sentence context effects. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 377-401): Elsevier Science & Technology.Morris, R. K., & Binder, K. S. (2002). What happens to the unselected meaning of an ambiguous word in skilled reading? In D. D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 139-153). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225-236. Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 251-271. doi: 10.1007/bf01067833Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124(3), 372. Rayner, K., Binder, K. S., & Duffy, S. A. (1999). Contextual Strength and the Subordinate Bias Effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(4), 841-852. doi: 10.1080/713755868Rayner, K., Cook, A. E., Juhasz, B. J., & Frazier, L. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467-482. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Mem Cognit, 14(3), 191-201. 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. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Chapter 12 - Modeling the effects of lexical ambiguity on eye movements during reading. In P. G. V. G. Roger, H. F. Martin, S. M. Wayne & L. H. Robin (Eds.), Eye Movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 271-292). Oxford: Elsevier.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. Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Meyer, D. E. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 2(2), 243-256. Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 21(3), 582-595. Sereno, S. C., Brewer C. C and O`Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological science, 14, 328-333. Sereno, S. C., O`Donnell, P. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: investigating the subordinate-bias effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 32(2), 335-350. doi: 2006-04604-010 [pii]10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.335Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological science, 3, 296-300. Sereno, S. C., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1992). The effect of meaning frequency on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Psychological Science, 3(5), 296. Sheridan, H., Reingold, E. M., & Daneman, M. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements. Psychon Bull Rev, 16(5), 875-881. doi: 16/5/875 [pii]10.3758/PBR.16.5.875Simpson, 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., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28-39. Simpson, G. B., & Kreuger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627-643. Simpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 627-643. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-660. Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2), 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. Tsai, J.-L., & McConkie, G. W. (2003). Where do Chinese readers send their eyes? In R. R. H. D. J. Hyona (Ed.), The Mind`s Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movements (pp. 159-176). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland /Elsevier Science Publishers.Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236-252. doi: 10.3758/bf03213803Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Mem Cognit, 26(5), 979-1001. 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. Zhang, Y., Wu, N., & Yip, M. (2006). Lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese sentence reading. In P. Li, L H. Tan, E. Bates & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics (Vol. 1:Chinese, pp. 268-278). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.袁暉. (Ed.) (2001) 現代漢語多義詞詞典(修訂本). 書海出版社(山西人民社).On-line resourcesAcademia Sinica Balanced Corpus. (2004) [CDROM]: Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.10) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/ (Retrieved March, 2012.)Chinese Wordnet. http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/ (Retrieved May, 2011)教育部國語推行委員會編. 1998 [2007]. 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本(臺灣學術網第四版 ver.2). http://140.111.34.46/newDict/dict/index.html (Retrieved May, 2011) zh_TW
