Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 詞性及語意限制對詞彙歧義解困的影響：中文歧義詞處理的眼動研究
The influence of syntactic category and semantic constraints on lexical ambiguity resolution: An eye-movement study of processing Chinese homographs作者 陳柏亨
Chen, Po Heng貢獻者 蔡介立
Tsai, Jie Li
陳柏亨
Chen, Po Heng關鍵詞 詞類歧義
詞彙歧義解困
次要語義偏向效應
眼動
syntactic category ambiguity
lexical ambiguity resolution
subordinate bias effect
eye movement日期 2013 上傳時間 6-Aug-2014 11:36:57 (UTC+8) 摘要 兩種語句處理模型曾被提出以解釋閱讀句子時語法及語意資訊的互動。句法優先模型(syntax-first models)認為詞性判斷必定先於語意分析，而制約滿足模型(constraint-satisfaction models)則認為不同的資訊在語句理解的過程中會同時被處理。本研究檢驗兩種語句處理模型能否解釋語句中的詞彙歧義解困(lexical ambiguity resolution)。\n許多眼動研究曾發現詞彙歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應(subordinate bias effect)，顯示語意偏向次要語義的語境能加速激發歧義詞的次要語義並且產生語義競爭。然而，語境的語法在詞彙歧義解困中扮演的角色並不清楚。因而，不同語義分屬不同詞性的詞性歧義詞便提供我們一個媒介以檢驗詞彙歧義解困中詞性及語意限制的互動。\n本研究的目的有二：(一) 檢驗詞性限制能否決定中文詞性歧義詞的語義解困；(二) 檢驗中文歧義詞語義的詞性是否會影響次要語義偏向效應。實驗一我們將四種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於語法及語意皆為次要語義偏向的句子裡；實驗二則將四種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於語法為次要語義偏向但語意中立的句子裡。受試者閱讀句子時的眼動表現會即時被記錄。\n實驗一的結果發現：(一) 四類型歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應只反映在目標詞後區域的二次閱讀指標上；(二) 就效果量而言，NV歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應在目標詞及目標詞後兩個區域都比VN歧義詞來得大。實驗二的結果則發現：(一) VN歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應從目標詞區的首次閱讀指標就出現，並且持續至目標詞及目標詞後兩個區域的二次閱讀指標；(二) 另外三類型歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應直到所有分析區域的二次閱讀指標才反映出來；(三) NV歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應比VN歧義詞出現得更晚也更不明顯。整體而言，本研究的結果顯示詞性限制並不是影響中文詞性歧義詞語義解困的唯一因素。此結果支持制約滿足模型，並反對句法優先模型的預測。
Two primary sentence processing models have been proposed to account for the interaction between syntactic and semantic information in reading sentences: Syntax-first models assume that syntactic-category assignment must precede semantic analysis, while constraint-satisfaction models propose that information from different sources is processed and weighed at the same time during sentence comprehension. The present study examined whether these sentence processing models, which assume different contribution of syntactic category and semantic context, can explain the resolution of lexical ambiguity in sentences.\nSeveral eye movement studies have demonstrated the subordinate bias effect (SBE) for lexical-semantic ambiguous words (i.e., NN/VV homographs), indicating that a subordinate-biased semantic context can boost the activation of the subordinate meaning of ambiguous words and causes meaning competition (Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988). However, the role of syntactic context in lexical ambiguity resolution is less clear. Syntactic category ambiguous words (i.e., SCA words; VN/NV homographs), whose alternative meanings differ in syntactic category (e.g., watch in English), serve as a means of examining the interaction between syntactic category and semantic constraints during lexical ambiguity resolution.\nThe purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine whether the syntactic category constraint can determine the semantic resolution of Chinese SCA words, and (b) to investigate whether syntactic category of alternative meanings of Chinese homographs can influence the SBE during lexical ambiguity resolution. Four types of Chinese biased homographs (NN, VV, VN, and NV) were embedded into syntactically and semantically subordinate-biased sentences (Experiment 1) and into syntactically subordinate-biased but semantically neutral sentences (Experiment 2). Participants’ eye movements were recorded as they read each sentence.\nIn Experiment 1, the results showed: (1) The SBE for the four types of homographs was significant only in the second-pass reading on the post-target words. (2) Numerically, the NV homographs revealed a larger effect size of SBE than VN homographs on both target and post-target words. In Experiment 2, the results showed: (1) The SBE for VN appeared from the first-pass reading on the target words and lasted to the second-pass reading on the target and post-target words. (2) The SBE for the other types of homographs did not occur until the second-pass reading in all analyzed regions. (3) The SBE for NV occurred much later and less obviously than that for VN. In general, our findings support the constraint-satisfaction models and reject the prediction of the syntax-first models, suggesting that the syntactic category constraint is not the only factor influencing the semantic resolution of SCA words.參考文獻 Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus. (2004). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica. \nBaayen, 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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005\nBates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (Version R package version 0.999999-0). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4\nBeretta, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006\nBurgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language, 33(1), 86-103. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(88)90056-9\nCarpenter, P. A., & Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 137-160. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90357-1\nChinese Wordnet. (2005). from Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/\nDuffy, 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. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.\nDuffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(88)90066-6\nFedermeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123, 2552-2566. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.12.2552\nFolk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31(1), 87-99. doi: 10.3758/bf03196085\nFrazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/302925499 \nFrazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.\nFrazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical reprsentation and process (pp. 505-528). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\nFrazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210. \nFrazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of Syntactic Category Ambiguities: Eye-Movements in Parsing Lexically Ambiguous Sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5), 505-526. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(87)90137-9\nFrazier, 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)90071-7\nFriederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50(3), 259-281. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brln.1995.1048\nFriederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8\nFriederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuroreport, 15(1), 165-169. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200401190-00032\nFriederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1219-1248. \nFriederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183-192. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(93)90026-2\nFriederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 438-453. \nGawlickgrendell, L. A., & Woltz, D. J. (1994). Meaning dominance norms for 120 homographs. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 26(1), 5-25. doi: 10.3758/bf03204557\nGentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.\nGentner, D. (2006). Why verbs are hard to learn. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 544-564). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.\nGibson, E. (2006). The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 363-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.005\nGlucksberg, S., Kreuz, R. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 323-335. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.12.3.323\nHagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439-483. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407585\nHahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194-205. doi: 10.1162/089892999563328\nHahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13(3), 339-356. doi: 10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00127-6\nHahne, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2001). What’s left if the Jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 199-212. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00071-9\nHogaboam, 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)80070-3\nIsel, F., Hahne, A., Maess, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2007). Neurodynamics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 337-346. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.003\nJones, A. C., Folk, J. R., & Brusnighan, S. M. (2012). Resolving syntactic category ambiguity: An eye-movement analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 672-688. \nKauschke, C., & Stenneken, P. (2008). Differences in Noun and Verb Processing in Lexical Decision Cannot be Attributed to Word Form and Morphological Complexity Alone. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(6), 443-452. doi: 10.1007/s10936-008-9073-3\nKlepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2518\nKlepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001\nKlepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123(1), 11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007\nKlepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1534-1543. doi: 10.1037/a0013012\nKutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463-470. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6\nKutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0\nLee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2006). To mind the mind: An event-related potential study of word class and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research, 1081, 191-202. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.058\nLee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(4), 538-555. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003\nLi, P. (1998). Crosslinguistic variation and sentence processing: The case of Chinese Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 31) (pp. 33-53): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.\nLiu, Y., Hua, S., & Weekes, B. S. (2007). Differences in neural processing between nouns and verbs in Chinese: Evidence from EEG. Brain and Language, 103(1-2), 75-77. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.052\nLyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nMacdonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(5), 692-715. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1035\nMacdonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.101.4.676\nMacdonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 581-611). Amsterdam: Elsevier.\nMarslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3\nNeville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(2), 151-165. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151\nOnifer, 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. doi: 10.3758/bf03196957\nOsterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785-806. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z\nOsterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786-803. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.4.786\nPacht, 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. \nPickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556-573. \nR Development Core Team. (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/\nRösler, F., Streb, J., & Haan, H. (2001). Event-related brain potentials evoked by verbs and nouns in a primed lexical decision task. Psychophysiology, 38(4), 694-703. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3840694\nRayner, K. (1977). Visual-attention in reading: Eye-movements reflect cognitive-processes. Memory & Cognition, 5(4), 443-448. doi: 10.3758/bf03197383\nRayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye-movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 358-374. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90236-0\nRayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word-frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191-201. doi: 10.3758/bf03197692\nRayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779-790. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779\nRayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Visual and linguistic processing during eye fixations in reading. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action : eye movements and the visual world (pp. 59-104). New York: Psychology Press.\nRayner, 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. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1025\nRevised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary. (1994). from Ministry of Education, R.O.C. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/\nRodd, 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. \nSchvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 243-256. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.2.2.243\nSeidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 489-537. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2\nSereno, J. A. (1999). Hemispheric differences in grammatical class. Brain and Language, 70(1), 13-28. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2137\nSereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25(4), 425-437. doi: 10.3758/bf03201119\nSereno, 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), 296-300. \nSimpson, 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. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90356-x\nSimpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28-39. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28\nSimpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(91)90029-j\nStites, M. C., Federmeier, K. D., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2013). Cross-Age Comparisons Reveal Multiple Strategies for Lexical Ambiguity Resolution During Natural Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1823-1841. doi: 10.1037/a0032860\nSwaab, T., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86(2), 326-343. doi: 10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00547-3\nSwinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645-659. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90355-4\nTabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(88)90058-7\nTabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2-3), 161-167. doi: 10.1007/bf00308682\nTabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 359-372. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1019\nTanenhaus, M. K., & Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1984). Syntactic context and lexical access. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(4), 649-661. doi: 10.1080/14640748408402184\nTanenhaus, 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. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90237-8\nTrueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.\nTrueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285-318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014\nTrueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528-553. \nTyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J., & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124, 1619-1634. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.8.1619\nTyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 638-657. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(87)90107-0\nVigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407-426. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007\nVu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the Subordinate Bias Effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52(4), 853-855. \nVu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236-252. \nVu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 979-1001. doi: 10.3758/bf03201178\nWang, S. P., Mo, D. Y., Xiang, M., Xu, R. P., & Chen, H. C. (2013). The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in reading Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 577-596. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.660169\nWest, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Robust effects of syntactic structure on visual word-processing. Memory & Cognition, 14(2), 104-112. doi: 10.3758/bf03198370\nWright, B., & Garrett, M. (1984). Lexical decision in sentences: Effects of syntactic structure. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 31-45. doi: 10.3758/bf03196995\nYang, J. M., Wang, S. P., Chen, H. C., & Rayner, K. (2009). The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 37(8), 1164-1176. doi: 10.3758/mc.37.8.1164\nYokoyama, S., Miyamoto, T., Riera, J., Kim, J., Akitsuki, Y., Iwata, K., . . . Kawashima, R. (2006). Cortical mechanisms involved in the processing of verbs: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(8), 1304-1313. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1304\nYu, J., & Zhang, Y. X. (2008). When Chinese semantics meets failed syntax. Neuroreport, 19(7), 745-749. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282fda21d\nZhang, Y. X., Li, P., Piao, Q. H., Liu, Y. Y., Huang, Y. J., & Shu, H. (2013). Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese. Brain and Language, 126(1), 8-19. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.001\nZhang, Y. X., Yu, J., & Boland, J. E. (2010). Semantics does not need a processing license from syntax in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 765-781. doi: 10.1037/a0019254\n任桂琴, 韩玉昌, & 于泽. (2008). 句子语境中汉语词汇歧义消解的眼动研究. [Effects of Sentence Context on the the Resolution of Chinese Lexical Ambiguity]. 心理科学, 4, 875-879. \n周治金, & 陈永明. (2006). 词语境中汉语歧义词多个意义的加工过程. [The Semantic Processing of Chinese Ambiguous Words in Word-context]. 湖北大學學報（哲學社會科學版）, 33(6), 801-805. \n武宁宁, & 舒华. (2003b). 汉语词类歧义解决(Ⅱ). [The Resolution of Syntactic Category Ambiguity in Chinese (Ⅱ)]. 心理科学, 1052-1055. \n胡志偉, 陳貽照, 張世華, & 宋永麒. (1996). 中文多字多義詞自由聯想常模. 中華心理學刊, 38(2), 67-168. \n袁暉. (2001). 現代漢語多義詞詞典(修訂本). 大陸: 書海出版社.\n張亞旭, 劉友誼, 舒華, & 孫茂松. (2003). 中文句子中雙音節兼類詞句法分析歷程初探. [The Parsing of Disyllable Words with Syntactic Category Ambiguities in Chinese Sentence Reading]. Acta Psychology Sinica, 35(4), 433-440. \n陳怡蓉. (2008). 詞義相關性在詞彙歧義理解上的效應: 以中文動詞為例. (碩士論文), 國立臺灣師範大學, 台北市. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22097NTNU5238011%22.&searchmode=basic \n楊芝瑜. (2010). 記憶廣度與語境效應對閱讀歧義句的影響：來自眼動的證據. (碩士論文), 國立中央大學, 桃園縣. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22098NCU05464005%22.&searchmode=basic \n盧怡璇. (2012). 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. (碩士論文), 國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22100NCCU5462012%22.&searchmode=basic \n韩玉昌, 于泽, & 李立洁. (2009). 句子语境中歧义动词的歧义消解. 辽宁师范大学学报 (社会科学版), 6, 47-51. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
100555004
102資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100555004 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蔡介立 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Tsai, Jie Li en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳柏亨 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Po Heng en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳柏亨 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Po Heng en_US dc.date (日期) 2013 en_US dc.date.accessioned 6-Aug-2014 11:36:57 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 6-Aug-2014 11:36:57 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Aug-2014 11:36:57 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100555004 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=76576 - 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) 100555004 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 兩種語句處理模型曾被提出以解釋閱讀句子時語法及語意資訊的互動。句法優先模型(syntax-first models)認為詞性判斷必定先於語意分析，而制約滿足模型(constraint-satisfaction models)則認為不同的資訊在語句理解的過程中會同時被處理。本研究檢驗兩種語句處理模型能否解釋語句中的詞彙歧義解困(lexical ambiguity resolution)。\n許多眼動研究曾發現詞彙歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應(subordinate bias effect)，顯示語意偏向次要語義的語境能加速激發歧義詞的次要語義並且產生語義競爭。然而，語境的語法在詞彙歧義解困中扮演的角色並不清楚。因而，不同語義分屬不同詞性的詞性歧義詞便提供我們一個媒介以檢驗詞彙歧義解困中詞性及語意限制的互動。\n本研究的目的有二：(一) 檢驗詞性限制能否決定中文詞性歧義詞的語義解困；(二) 檢驗中文歧義詞語義的詞性是否會影響次要語義偏向效應。實驗一我們將四種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於語法及語意皆為次要語義偏向的句子裡；實驗二則將四種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於語法為次要語義偏向但語意中立的句子裡。受試者閱讀句子時的眼動表現會即時被記錄。\n實驗一的結果發現：(一) 四類型歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應只反映在目標詞後區域的二次閱讀指標上；(二) 就效果量而言，NV歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應在目標詞及目標詞後兩個區域都比VN歧義詞來得大。實驗二的結果則發現：(一) VN歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應從目標詞區的首次閱讀指標就出現，並且持續至目標詞及目標詞後兩個區域的二次閱讀指標；(二) 另外三類型歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應直到所有分析區域的二次閱讀指標才反映出來；(三) NV歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應比VN歧義詞出現得更晚也更不明顯。整體而言，本研究的結果顯示詞性限制並不是影響中文詞性歧義詞語義解困的唯一因素。此結果支持制約滿足模型，並反對句法優先模型的預測。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Two primary sentence processing models have been proposed to account for the interaction between syntactic and semantic information in reading sentences: Syntax-first models assume that syntactic-category assignment must precede semantic analysis, while constraint-satisfaction models propose that information from different sources is processed and weighed at the same time during sentence comprehension. The present study examined whether these sentence processing models, which assume different contribution of syntactic category and semantic context, can explain the resolution of lexical ambiguity in sentences.\nSeveral eye movement studies have demonstrated the subordinate bias effect (SBE) for lexical-semantic ambiguous words (i.e., NN/VV homographs), indicating that a subordinate-biased semantic context can boost the activation of the subordinate meaning of ambiguous words and causes meaning competition (Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988). However, the role of syntactic context in lexical ambiguity resolution is less clear. Syntactic category ambiguous words (i.e., SCA words; VN/NV homographs), whose alternative meanings differ in syntactic category (e.g., watch in English), serve as a means of examining the interaction between syntactic category and semantic constraints during lexical ambiguity resolution.\nThe purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine whether the syntactic category constraint can determine the semantic resolution of Chinese SCA words, and (b) to investigate whether syntactic category of alternative meanings of Chinese homographs can influence the SBE during lexical ambiguity resolution. Four types of Chinese biased homographs (NN, VV, VN, and NV) were embedded into syntactically and semantically subordinate-biased sentences (Experiment 1) and into syntactically subordinate-biased but semantically neutral sentences (Experiment 2). Participants’ eye movements were recorded as they read each sentence.\nIn Experiment 1, the results showed: (1) The SBE for the four types of homographs was significant only in the second-pass reading on the post-target words. (2) Numerically, the NV homographs revealed a larger effect size of SBE than VN homographs on both target and post-target words. In Experiment 2, the results showed: (1) The SBE for VN appeared from the first-pass reading on the target words and lasted to the second-pass reading on the target and post-target words. (2) The SBE for the other types of homographs did not occur until the second-pass reading in all analyzed regions. (3) The SBE for NV occurred much later and less obviously than that for VN. In general, our findings support the constraint-satisfaction models and reject the prediction of the syntax-first models, suggesting that the syntactic category constraint is not the only factor influencing the semantic resolution of SCA words. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iv\nList of Tables viii\nList of Figures x\nChinese Abstract xi\nEnglish Abstract xiii\nChapter 1 Introduction 1\n1.1 General background 1\n1.2 Research questions 7\nChapter 2 Literature Review 7\n2.1 Mechanisms of sentence processing 8\n2.1.1 Syntax-first models 8\n2.1.2 Constraint-satisfaction models 12\n2.2 Issues of lexical ambiguity resolution 14\n2.2.1 Meaning dominance 15\n2.2.2 Syntactic category 17\n2.2.3 Contextual constraints 26\n2.2.3.1 Semantic constraint 26\n2.2.3.2 Syntactic constraint 30\n2.3 Implications of sentence processing models for lexical ambiguity resolution 35\n2.4 Processing of Chinese ambiguous words 37\nChapter 3 Experiment One: Syntactic category and semantic constraint effects on lexical ambiguity resolution 41\n3.1 Method 43\n3.1.1 Participants 43\n3.1.2 Materials and design 44\n3.1.2.1 Norming study 1: Meaning dominance 48\n3.1.2.2 Norming study 2: Meaning relatedness 50\n3.1.2.3 Norming study 3: Word predictability and syntactic category bias 52\n3.1.2.4 Norming study 4: Semantic bias 55\n3.1.2.5 Norming study 5: Syntactic category judgment of target words 55\n3.1.2.6 Norming study 6: Sentence plausibility 56\n3.1.3 Apparatus 56\n3.1.4 Procedure 57\n3.2 Data analysis 59\n3.3 Results 62\n3.3.1 Target words 62\n3.3.1.1 Duration measures 62\n3.3.1.2 Probability measures 64\n3.3.2 Post-target words 67\n3.3.2.1 Duration measures 67\n3.3.2.2 Probability measures 69\n3.4 Discussion 73\nChapter 4 Experiment Two: Lexical ambiguity resolution with syntactic category constraint 79\n4.1 Method 81\n4.1.1 Participants 81\n4.1.2 Materials and design 82\n4.1.3 Norming studies of ambiguous words and sentential contexts 84\n4.1.3.1 Norming study 1: Meaning dominance 85\n4.1.3.2 Norming study 2: Meaning relatedness 86\n4.1.3.3 Norming study 3: Word predictability and syntactic category bias 86\n4.1.3.4 Norming study 4: Semantic bias 87\n4.1.3.5 Norming study 5: Syntactic category judgment of target words 89\n4.1.3.6 Norming study 6: Disambiguation 90\n4.1.3.7 Norming study 7: Sentence plausibility 90\n4.1.4 Apparatus 91\n4.1.5 Procedure 91\n4.1.6 Data analysis 91\n4.2 Results 92\n4.2.1 Target words 92\n4.2.1.1 Duration measures 92\n4.2.1.2 Probability measures 95\n4.2.2 Post-target words 98\n4.2.2.1 Duration measures 98\n4.2.2.2 Probability measures 102\n4.2.3 Disambiguating words 105\n4.2.3.1 Duration measures 105\n4.2.3.2 Probability measures 108\n4.3 Discussion 111\nChapter 5 General Discussion 115\n5.1 Syntax-first or Constraint-satisfaction 117\n5.2 Syntactic category constraint 119\n5.3 Semantic constraint 122\n5.4 Inherent processing difficulty 124\n5.5 Future research 127\nReferences…………………………………………………………………………. 130\nAppendixes 140\nA. Materials of Experiment 1 140\nB. Examples of the questionnaire in Norming study 1: Meaning dominance…. ..145\nC. Examples of the questionnaire in Norming study 2: Meaning relatedness……………………………………………………………... 146\nD. Examples of the questionnaire in Norming study 3 to 6: Word predictability, syntactic category bias, semantic bias, syntactic category judgment of target words, and sentence plausibility 147\nE. Materials of Experiment 2 148 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1404244 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100555004 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞類歧義 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) 眼動 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) syntactic category ambiguity 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) eye movement en_US dc.title (題名) 詞性及語意限制對詞彙歧義解困的影響：中文歧義詞處理的眼動研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The influence of syntactic category and semantic constraints on lexical ambiguity resolution: An eye-movement study of processing Chinese homographs en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus. (2004). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica. \nBaayen, 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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005\nBates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (Version R package version 0.999999-0). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4\nBeretta, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006\nBurgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language, 33(1), 86-103. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(88)90056-9\nCarpenter, P. A., & Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 137-160. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90357-1\nChinese Wordnet. (2005). from Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/\nDuffy, 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. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.\nDuffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(88)90066-6\nFedermeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123, 2552-2566. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.12.2552\nFolk, J. R., & Morris, R. K. (2003). Effects of syntactic category assignment on lexical ambiguity resolution in reading: An eye movement analysis. Memory & Cognition, 31(1), 87-99. doi: 10.3758/bf03196085\nFrazier, L. (1979). On Comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/302925499 \nFrazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.\nFrazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical reprsentation and process (pp. 505-528). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\nFrazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210. \nFrazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of Syntactic Category Ambiguities: Eye-Movements in Parsing Lexically Ambiguous Sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5), 505-526. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(87)90137-9\nFrazier, 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)90071-7\nFriederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50(3), 259-281. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brln.1995.1048\nFriederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78-84. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8\nFriederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuroreport, 15(1), 165-169. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200401190-00032\nFriederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1219-1248. \nFriederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183-192. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(93)90026-2\nFriederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 438-453. \nGawlickgrendell, L. A., & Woltz, D. J. (1994). Meaning dominance norms for 120 homographs. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 26(1), 5-25. doi: 10.3758/bf03204557\nGentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.\nGentner, D. (2006). Why verbs are hard to learn. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 544-564). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.\nGibson, E. (2006). The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 363-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.005\nGlucksberg, S., Kreuz, R. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 323-335. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.12.3.323\nHagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439-483. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407585\nHahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194-205. doi: 10.1162/089892999563328\nHahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13(3), 339-356. doi: 10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00127-6\nHahne, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2001). What’s left if the Jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), 199-212. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00071-9\nHogaboam, 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)80070-3\nIsel, F., Hahne, A., Maess, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2007). Neurodynamics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 337-346. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.003\nJones, A. C., Folk, J. R., & Brusnighan, S. M. (2012). Resolving syntactic category ambiguity: An eye-movement analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 672-688. \nKauschke, C., & Stenneken, P. (2008). Differences in Noun and Verb Processing in Lexical Decision Cannot be Attributed to Word Form and Morphological Complexity Alone. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37(6), 443-452. doi: 10.1007/s10936-008-9073-3\nKlepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2518\nKlepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001\nKlepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123(1), 11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007\nKlepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1534-1543. doi: 10.1037/a0013012\nKutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463-470. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6\nKutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0\nLee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2006). To mind the mind: An event-related potential study of word class and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research, 1081, 191-202. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.058\nLee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(4), 538-555. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.08.003\nLi, P. (1998). Crosslinguistic variation and sentence processing: The case of Chinese Sentence Processing: A Crosslinguistic Perspective (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 31) (pp. 33-53): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.\nLiu, Y., Hua, S., & Weekes, B. S. (2007). Differences in neural processing between nouns and verbs in Chinese: Evidence from EEG. Brain and Language, 103(1-2), 75-77. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.052\nLyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nMacdonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(5), 692-715. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1035\nMacdonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.101.4.676\nMacdonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 581-611). Amsterdam: Elsevier.\nMarslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3\nNeville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(2), 151-165. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151\nOnifer, 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. doi: 10.3758/bf03196957\nOsterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785-806. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z\nOsterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786-803. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.4.786\nPacht, 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. \nPickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556-573. \nR Development Core Team. (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/\nRösler, F., Streb, J., & Haan, H. (2001). Event-related brain potentials evoked by verbs and nouns in a primed lexical decision task. Psychophysiology, 38(4), 694-703. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3840694\nRayner, K. (1977). Visual-attention in reading: Eye-movements reflect cognitive-processes. Memory & Cognition, 5(4), 443-448. doi: 10.3758/bf03197383\nRayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye-movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 358-374. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90236-0\nRayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word-frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191-201. doi: 10.3758/bf03197692\nRayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779-790. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779\nRayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Visual and linguistic processing during eye fixations in reading. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action : eye movements and the visual world (pp. 59-104). New York: Psychology Press.\nRayner, 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. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1025\nRevised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary. (1994). from Ministry of Education, R.O.C. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/\nRodd, 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. \nSchvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 243-256. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.2.2.243\nSeidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 489-537. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2\nSereno, J. A. (1999). Hemispheric differences in grammatical class. Brain and Language, 70(1), 13-28. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2137\nSereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25(4), 425-437. doi: 10.3758/bf03201119\nSereno, 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), 296-300. \nSimpson, 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. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90356-x\nSimpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 28-39. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.11.1.28\nSimpson, G. B., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(91)90029-j\nStites, M. C., Federmeier, K. D., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2013). Cross-Age Comparisons Reveal Multiple Strategies for Lexical Ambiguity Resolution During Natural Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1823-1841. doi: 10.1037/a0032860\nSwaab, T., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86(2), 326-343. doi: 10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00547-3\nSwinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645-659. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90355-4\nTabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(88)90058-7\nTabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: Effects of context and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2-3), 161-167. doi: 10.1007/bf00308682\nTabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 359-372. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1019\nTanenhaus, M. K., & Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1984). Syntactic context and lexical access. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(4), 649-661. doi: 10.1080/14640748408402184\nTanenhaus, 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. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90237-8\nTrueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.\nTrueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285-318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014\nTrueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528-553. \nTyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J., & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124, 1619-1634. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.8.1619\nTyler, L. K., & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 638-657. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(87)90107-0\nVigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407-426. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007\nVu, H., & Kellas, G. (1999). Contextual strength modulates the Subordinate Bias Effect: Reply to Rayner, Binder, and Duffy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52(4), 853-855. \nVu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 28(2), 236-252. \nVu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 979-1001. doi: 10.3758/bf03201178\nWang, S. P., Mo, D. Y., Xiang, M., Xu, R. P., & Chen, H. C. (2013). The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in reading Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 577-596. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.660169\nWest, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Robust effects of syntactic structure on visual word-processing. Memory & Cognition, 14(2), 104-112. doi: 10.3758/bf03198370\nWright, B., & Garrett, M. (1984). Lexical decision in sentences: Effects of syntactic structure. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 31-45. doi: 10.3758/bf03196995\nYang, J. M., Wang, S. P., Chen, H. C., & Rayner, K. (2009). The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 37(8), 1164-1176. doi: 10.3758/mc.37.8.1164\nYokoyama, S., Miyamoto, T., Riera, J., Kim, J., Akitsuki, Y., Iwata, K., . . . Kawashima, R. (2006). Cortical mechanisms involved in the processing of verbs: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(8), 1304-1313. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1304\nYu, J., & Zhang, Y. X. (2008). When Chinese semantics meets failed syntax. Neuroreport, 19(7), 745-749. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282fda21d\nZhang, Y. X., Li, P., Piao, Q. H., Liu, Y. Y., Huang, Y. J., & Shu, H. (2013). Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese. Brain and Language, 126(1), 8-19. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.001\nZhang, Y. X., Yu, J., & Boland, J. E. (2010). Semantics does not need a processing license from syntax in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 765-781. doi: 10.1037/a0019254\n任桂琴, 韩玉昌, & 于泽. (2008). 句子语境中汉语词汇歧义消解的眼动研究. [Effects of Sentence Context on the the Resolution of Chinese Lexical Ambiguity]. 心理科学, 4, 875-879. \n周治金, & 陈永明. (2006). 词语境中汉语歧义词多个意义的加工过程. [The Semantic Processing of Chinese Ambiguous Words in Word-context]. 湖北大學學報（哲學社會科學版）, 33(6), 801-805. \n武宁宁, & 舒华. (2003b). 汉语词类歧义解决(Ⅱ). [The Resolution of Syntactic Category Ambiguity in Chinese (Ⅱ)]. 心理科学, 1052-1055. \n胡志偉, 陳貽照, 張世華, & 宋永麒. (1996). 中文多字多義詞自由聯想常模. 中華心理學刊, 38(2), 67-168. \n袁暉. (2001). 現代漢語多義詞詞典(修訂本). 大陸: 書海出版社.\n張亞旭, 劉友誼, 舒華, & 孫茂松. (2003). 中文句子中雙音節兼類詞句法分析歷程初探. [The Parsing of Disyllable Words with Syntactic Category Ambiguities in Chinese Sentence Reading]. Acta Psychology Sinica, 35(4), 433-440. \n陳怡蓉. (2008). 詞義相關性在詞彙歧義理解上的效應: 以中文動詞為例. (碩士論文), 國立臺灣師範大學, 台北市. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22097NTNU5238011%22.&searchmode=basic \n楊芝瑜. (2010). 記憶廣度與語境效應對閱讀歧義句的影響：來自眼動的證據. (碩士論文), 國立中央大學, 桃園縣. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22098NCU05464005%22.&searchmode=basic \n盧怡璇. (2012). 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. (碩士論文), 國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22100NCCU5462012%22.&searchmode=basic \n韩玉昌, 于泽, & 李立洁. (2009). 句子语境中歧义动词的歧义消解. 辽宁师范大学学报 (社会科学版), 6, 47-51. zh_TW
