First of all, in terms of the experimental method, in our cross-modal lexical
decision task, the ambiguous words (primes) are presented auditorily rather than
visually. Therefore, the word representation model proposed here (see Figure 6.2 in
Chapter 6) only provides the phonological (auditory) route of word processing.
According to Moss and Gaskell (1999), the mapping process from sound to meaning
may differ in important ways from that from text to meaning, especially in terms of its
time-course and the range of competitor words. As a result, further research on this
issue by using visual priming experiments would be needed in order to examine the
orthographic (visual) route of word processing and to give a more general account of
the word representation of ambiguity.
On the other hand, although the present study employs monosyllabic (or single
lexeme) words as ambiguous stimuli, most of the previous research on Mandarin
Chinese used disyllabic compound words (see Table 6.1). As indicated by Huang
(1994), Mandarin has a massive number of homophones and the degree of ambiguity
for monosyllabic words would be much higher than that for compounds. The
context-dependent access of homonymy found in our study but not in previous studies
may be due to the higher degree of ambiguity of monosyllabic words, which may thus
more rely on the contextual cues when being resolved in sentences. Consequently,
148
whether ambiguous words with different morphological or compositional structures
make the results different will be another important issue for further research,
especially the morpheme-based vs. word-based processing issue for compound words
(cf. the word representation for Chinese compounds proposed by Zhou &
Marslen-Wilson, 1995, 2000). In addition, the current research focuses only on
Chinese verbs. The resolution of ambiguous nouns and other syntactic categories
requires further investigation in order to empirically verify the effect of sense
relatedness in a more general way.
Moreover, in order to further investigate the interaction among the effects of
context, frequency and sense relatedness in the issue of lexical ambiguity resolution,
additional experiments by using the sentential contexts biased toward to the secondary
meaning of ambiguity would be needed, so as to see if the results will be the same as
the present study using the primary-meaning-biased contexts. Also, the timing issue
warrants further research to verify the assumption of the two stages of lexical
processing (initial semantic access stage and the post-lexical selection stage) as well
as the the lexical representation model of homonymy and polysemy, by employing a
different timing setting to detect the pre-access stage or the post-access stage of
lexical processing.
Another noteworthy issue is the relationship between personal working memory
capacity and lexical ambiguity resolution. Recent studies examining brain activities
(Mason & Just, 2007; see also Gunter, Wagner, & Friederici, 2003) have shown that
readers with higher working memory spans were more likely to initially maintain both
meanings of ambiguity in sentence comprehension and then to suppress the
contextually inappropriate one, but no such patterns were found for readers with
lower spans. It was more difficult for low spans readers to access and maintain the
multiple meanings. Hence, whether individual differences on working memory
capacity influence the resolution of lexical ambiguity will be also an intriguing
question worthwhile to be settled by further research.
150
References
Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Language, Tasks and Timing. In D.
Hillert (Ed.), Sentence Processing: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (pp. 11-31).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Ahrens, K. (1999). The Mutability of Noun and Verb Meaning. In Y. Yin, I. Yang & H.
Chan (Eds.), Chinese Languages and Linguistics V: Interactions in Language (pp. 335-548). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Ahrens, K. (2001). On-line Sentence Comprehension of Ambiguous Verbs in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10(4), 337-358.
Ahrens, K. (2002). Timing issues in lexical ambiguity resolution. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages (pp. 1-29). Stanford:
CSLI.
Ahrens, K. (2003). Verbal integration: The interaction of participant roles and sentential argument structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(5), 497-516.
Ahrens, K. (2006). The Effect of Visual Target Presentation Times on Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 677-696.
Ahrens, K., Chang, L.-L., Chen, K.-J., & Huang, C.-R. (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational
Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3, 46-50.
Ahrens, K., & Swinney, D. (1995). Participant Roles and the Processing of Verbs during Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(6), 533-547.
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic meaning: Volume one. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times Journal of memory and
language, 36, 484-504.
Balogh, J., Zurif, E., Prather, P., Swinney, D., & Finkel, L. (1998). Gap filling and end-of-sentence effects in real-time language processing: implications for modeling sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 61(2), 169-182.
Balota, D., Ferraro, R., & Connor, L. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The
psychology of word meanings (pp. 187-222). Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 22, 63-85.
Brisard, F., Rillaer, G. v., & Sandra, D. (2001). Processing polysemous, homonymous, and vague adjectives. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in
Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 261-284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration processes in language comprehension: Evidence from brain-imaging research. In M. S.
Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Caramazza, A., & Grober, E. (1976). Polysemy and the structure of the subjective lexicon. In C. Rameh (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language
and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of Language (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif.:
Brooks/Cole.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1983). Understanding old words with new meanings.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 591-608.
Colombo, L., & d'Arcais, G. B. F. (1984). The meaning of Dutch prepositions:
Psycholinguistic study of polysemy. Linguistics 22, 51-98.
Connine, C. M., Mullennix, J., Shernoff, E., & Yelen, J. (1990). Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1084-1096.
Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: a study of the subjective lexicon. Memory and Cognition 2(1A), 130-138.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24, 1238-1255.
Druks, J. (2002). Verbs and nouns—a review of the literature. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 15, 289-315.
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). The role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from Basque and Spanish1176.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 1171-1176.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
Durkin, K., & Manning, J. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic
152
Research 18, 577-612.
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. (2005). Cognitive Psychology: a student's handbook (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Field, J. (2004). Psycholinguistics: the key concepts. New York: Routledge.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An essay on faculty psychology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forster, K. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. . In R. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.),
New Approaches to Language Mechanism (pp. 257-287). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Forster, K., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition 4, 53-61.
Foster, K. (1979). Level of processing and structure of the language processor. In W.
E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistics
Studies Presented to Merill Garrett (pp. 257-287). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language, 29, 181-200.
Frisson, S., Niswander-Klement, E., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words. British Journal of
Psychology 99, 87-107.
Garfield, J. (1987). Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-language
Understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness'puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 223-272.
Gentner, D., & France, I. M. (1988). The verb mutability effect: Studies of the combinatorial semantics of nouns and verbs. In S. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell &
M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from
psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 343-382).
San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness and polysemy. Journal of
experimental psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
Glucksberg, S., Kreutz, 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, 323-335.
Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must, and should: A relevance theoretic account.
Journal of Linguistics 31(1), 53-79.
Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical
ambiguity resolution as revealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 15, 643-657.
Guo, J., Shu, H., & Li, P. (2007). Context effects in lexical ambiguity processing in Chinese: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Science, 8, 91-107.
Harley, T. A. (1996). The Psychology of Language: from data to theory. New York:
Psychology Press.
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming:
An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28, 686-713.
Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? . Journal of Memory and
Language, 55, 247-273.
Hogaboam, T. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14(3), 265-274.
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139-157.
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, C.-R., & Chang, R.-Y. (2004). Categorical ambiguity and information content:
A Corpus-based study of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and
Computing, 14(2), 157-165.
Huang, C.-R., Chen, C.-R., & Shen, C. C.-C. (2002). The nature of categorical ambiguity and its implications for language processing: A corpus-based study of Mandarin Chinese. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence Processing in East
Asian Languages (pp. 53-83). Stanford: CSLI.
Huang, C.-R., Kilgarriff, A., Wu, Y., Chiu, C.-M., Smith, S., Rychly, P., et al. (2005).
Chinese Sketch Engine and the Extraction of Collocations. Paper presented at
the the Fourth SigHan Workshop on Chinese Language Processing.Huang, S.-F. (1994). Chinese as a metonymic language. In M. Chen & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies of Language
and Language Change (pp. 223-252). Taipei: Pyramid Press.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology 13, 278-305.
Juhasz, B., Starr, M., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, L. (2003). The effects of morphology
154
on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions, and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 223-244.
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Non-linear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity:
A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language,
32, 474-516.
Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. (1985). Context effects in word identification. Journal of
Memory and Language, 24(3), 336-349.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words.
Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259-282.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 548-570.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205-233.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about
the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon.
Cognitive Linguistics 1, 207-246.
Li, F., & Kuiper, K. (1999[2006]). Semantics: a course book. Shanghai: Shanghai Wai Yu Jiao Yu Chu Ban She.
Li, P. (1998). Crosslinguistic variation and sentence processing: the case of Chinese.
In D. Hillert (Ed.), Sentence Processing: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (pp.
33-53). San Diego: Academic Press.
Li, P., Shu, H., Yip, M., Zhang, Y., & Tang, Y. (2002). Lexical ambiguity in sentence processing: Evidence from Chinese. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence
Processing in East Asian Languages (pp. 111-129). Stanford: CSLI.
Li, P., & Yip, M. (1996). Lexical ambiguity and context effects in spoken word recognition: evidence from Chinese. In G. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the
18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 228-232). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Li, P., & Yip, M. (1998). Context effects and the processing of spoken homophones.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 223-243.
Li, X., Shu, H., Liu, Y., & Li, P. (2006). Mental representation of verb meaning:
Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 1774-1787.
Lin, C.-J. C. (1999). Multiple senses of Mandarin Chinese nominals: Implications for
lexical access. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Chengchi University,
Taipei.Lin, C.-J. C., & Ahrens, K. (2000). Calculating the number of senses: Implications for ambiguity advantage effect during lexical access. In H. Y. Tai & C. Y. L. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (pp. 141-155). Chai-yi: National Chung-Cheng University.
Lin, C.-J. C., & Ahrens, K. (in press). Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research.
Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Spoken word recognition. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 265-301). San Diego: Academic Press.
Locker, L. J., Simpson, G. B., & Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of polysemous words. Memory and Cognition 31, 505-515.
Lucas, M. (1987). Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence contexts. Language and Speech, 31(1), 25-46.
Lucas, M. (1999). Context effects in lexical access: a meta-analysis. Memory and
Cognition, 27, 385-398.
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36.
Lupker, S. J. (2007). Representation and processing of lexically ambiguous words. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 159-174).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maratsos, M. P. (1991). How the acquisition of nouns may be different from that of verbs. In N. A. Krasnegor & D. M. Rumbaugh (Eds.), Biological and
behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognition Psychology, 10, 29-63.
Mason, R., & Just, M. A. (2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain
Research, 1146, 115-127.
McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interaction in language processing. In M.
Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading
156 part-of-speech information on lexical processes. Journal of Memory and
Language, 56, 472-489.
Metcalf, K. A. (2003). The influence of meaning relatedness on lexical ambiguity
resolution: the importance of featural representations. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Kansas, Kansas.
Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time:
Now you see it, now you don't. . Memory and Cognition, 17, 141-147.
Moss, H. E., & Gaskell, M. G. (1999). Lexical semantic processing during speech. In S. Garrod & M. Pickering (Eds.), Language Processing (pp. 59-99). Hove:
Psychology Press.
Myers, J. (2006). Processing Chinese compounds: A survey of the literature. In G.
Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound
words (pp. 169-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: introduction and overview.
In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible
patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 3-30). Hawthorne, N.Y.:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Nicol, J., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using Cross-Modal Lexical Decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1229-1238.
Nicol, J., Swinney, D., Love, T., & Hald, L. (2006). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: An examination of dual task paradigms. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 35(3), 215-231.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics
and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Oden, G., & Spira, J. (1983). Influence of context on the activation and selection of ambiguous word senses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
35(A), 51-64.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency-of-meaning and contextual bias. Memory
and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paul, S. T., Kellas, G., Martin, M., & Clark, M. B. (1992). The influence of contextual
features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 703-717.
Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 53, 323-334.
Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 27, 556-573.
Piercey, C. D., & Joordens, S. (2000). Turning an advantage into a disadvantage:
Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Memory and
Cognition 28(4), 657-666.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The Representation of polysemy:
MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97-109.
Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (2000). Polysemy: An overview. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 1-29).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading:
Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory
and Cognition, 14, 191-201.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
Rayner, K., & Morris, R. K. (1991). Comprehension processes in reading ambiguous sentences. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp.
175-198). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Rice, S. A. (1992). Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society (pp. 89-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and
Language, 46, 245-266.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
Ruhl, C. (1989). On Monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: SUNY Press.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words:
Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal
158
of Experimental Psychology, 42(A), 529-567.
Seidenberg, M., Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & 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.
Sereno, S. C. (1995). Resolution of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from an eye movement priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 21(3), 582-595.
Simpson, G. B. (1981). Meaning dominance and semantic context in the processing of lexical ambiguity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 120-136.
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316-340.
Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A.
Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 359-374). San Diego:
Academic Press.
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., & Krueger, M. A. (1991). Selective access of homograph meanings in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 627-643.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Cognitive Psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Swaab, T., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86(2), 326-343.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension:
(Re)Consideration of content effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 18, 645-659.
Swinney, D., & Love, T. (1996). Co-reference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 5-24.
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324-340.
Tabossi, P., Colombo, L., & Job, R. (1987). Accessing lexical ambiguity: effects ofcontext and dominance. Psychological Research, 49(2-3), 161-167.
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of
Memory and Language 32, 359-372.
Tamminen, J., Cleland, A. A., Quinlan, P. T., & Gaskell, M. G. (2006). Processing semantic ambiguity: different loci for meanings and senses. In Proceedings of
the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.
2222-2227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J., & Seidenberg, M. (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.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Dell, G. S., & Carlson, G. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing: A connectionist approach to modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.),
Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding
(pp. 83-108). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Till, R., Mross, E., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 16, 283-298.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Lin, Y. C., Tzeng, O. J.-L., & Hung, D. L. (2006).
Neighborhood size effects of Chinese words in lexical decision and reading.
Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 659-675.
Tsai, P.-S. (2005). Psycholinguistic processing of Chinese polysemy. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273-290.
Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory
and Language, 26, 188-208.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighbourhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication
Disorders, 3, 64-73.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 760-770.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., Metcalf, K., & Herman, R. (2000). The influence of global discourse on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition, 28(2), 236-252.
Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of sentence constraint on lexical
160
ambiguity resolution. Memory and cognition, 26(5), 979-1001.
Williams, J. N. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 193-218.
Wu, D. (2002). The relatedness of meanings in Chinese lexical ambiguity resolution.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Beijing Normal University, Beijing.
Wu, N., & Shu, H. (2002). Meaning activation of Chinese syntactic category ambiguous words in sentence context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34, 454-461.
Zgusta, L. (1971). Manual of lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
Zhang, Y., Wu, N., & Yip, M. (2006). Lexical ambiguity resolution in Chinese sentence reading. In P. Li, L. Tan, E. Bates & O. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of
East Asian Psycholinguistics (Vol. Chinese, pp. 268-278). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Morphological structure in the Chinese mental lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 545-601.
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2000). Lexical representation of compound words: Crosslinguistic evidence. Psychologia, 43, 47-66.
On-Line Resources
Chinese Word Sketch. http://corpora.fi.muni.cz/chinese_all/ (Retrieved August, 2008).
Chinese Wordnet. http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/ (Retrieved August, 2008).
WordNet 3.0. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (Retrieved August, 2008).
中 研 院 語 言 學 研 究 所 . 1996. 中 央 研 究 院 現 代 漢 語 平 衡 語 料 庫 4.0 版 . http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/kiwi1/mkiwi.sh (Retrieved August, 2008).
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 路 第 四 版 ver.2). http://140.111.34.46/newDict/dict/index.html (Retrieved October, 2008).
全球華語文數位教與學資源中心(鄭錦全等，2005). 現代漢語語料庫詞頻統計.
http://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw/CWordfreq.html (Retrieved October, 2008).
中 研 院 語 言 學 研 究 所 . 「 搜 文 解 字 」 － 「 搜 詞 尋 字 」 語 庫 查 詢 系 統 .
中 研 院 語 言 學 研 究 所 . 「 搜 文 解 字 」 － 「 搜 詞 尋 字 」 語 庫 查 詢 系 統 .