Limitations and Future Work - 字詞辨識中個別差異之量度：個人詞彙行為之角色探究

Chapter 5 Conclusion

5.3 Limitations and Future Work

Limitations of this thesis are discussed in the following, some of which are presented along with suggestions for future work.

 In this preliminary exploration into the IDs of lexical behaviors, sixteen Chinese native speakers participated in the experiments. It is expected that when the number of participants increases in future research, it might give us other or deeper insight into the issue of individual differences (IDs). Besides, given that the Facebook posts are rather private data, our participants were all recruited from acquaintances. If a large number of participants will be recruited in the future, it is impossible that all of them will be acquaintances of the experimenters. In this case, researchers should be cautious of whether those who are willing to provide Facebook data are people with high lexical knowledge so that they are confident in showing the data to researchers. This situation should be avoided; otherwise, the IDs across participants will be minor, thus being unfavorable to the investigation of IDs.

 The present study examines word recognition by concentrating on the lexical decision task. To obtain a clearer picture of the IDs in recognition, it is suggested converging evidence from other types of extensively-used tasks, such as the naming task (Balota &

Chumbley, 1984, 1985), in future research.

 As presented in the discussion of Experiment 1 (Section 4.1.2), the experiment of the

frequency index of personal word usage can be replicated by using the data of personal

language usage collected from compositions in an academic exam. A comparison between the indices based on the compositions and the Facebook posts is able to clarify that whether the mixed modes and diverse topics in the naturalistic Facebook data would decrease the effectiveness of its frequency index in representing one’s lexical knowledge.

Furthermore, since compositions are required to be written around a given text length, they can be used to examine if personal lexical richness is capable of serving as a lexical behavior variable to account for the IDs in visual word recognition.

 In the Chinese Lexicon Profile (CLP) corpus introduced in Section 2.3.1, there provides a great number of characteristics of words per se. Researchers may try to compute and explore individual lexical behaviors from the available characteristics, aside from the word frequency which is utilized in this thesis.

References

Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

15(5), 802-814.

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data : A practical introduction to statistics using R.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of

Psychological Research, 3(2), 12-28.

Balota, 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.

Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1985). The locus of word frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production? Journal of Memory and

Language, 24(1), 89-106.

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., . . .

Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445-459.

Bever, T. G., Carrithers, C., Cowart, W., & Townsend, D. J. (1989). Language processing and familial handedness. In A. M. Galaburda (Ed.), From reading to neurons. Issues in the

biology of language and cognition (pp. 331-357). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

Breland, H. M. (1996). Word frequency and word difficulty: A comparison of counts in four corpora. Psychological Science, 7(2), 96-99.

Breland, H. M., Jones, R. J., & Jenkins, L. (1994). The College Board vocabulary study. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency

book. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co.

Chateau, D., & Jared, D. (2000). Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory

& Cognition, 28(1), 143-153.

Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335-359.

Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1979). Phonological encoding in the lexical decision task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A,

31(3), 489-507.

Crawley, M. J. (2002). Statistical computing: An introdution to data analysis using S-plus.

Chichester: Wiley.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.

Dupuy, H. (1974). The rationale, development, and standardization of a basic word

vocabulary text. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P., Méot, A., . . . Pallier, C. (2010).

The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 488-496.

Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 627-635.

Forster, K. I., & Dickinson, R. G. (1976). More on the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy:

Monte Carlo estimates of error rates for F1,F2,F', and min F'. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(2), 135-142.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, cconcreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 113(2), 256-281.

Graff, D., Chen, K., Kong, J., & Maeda, K. (2005). Chinese Gigaword second edition [CDROM]: Linguistic Data Consortium, PhiladelphiaCWN.

Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 228-244.

Huang, C.-H., & Hsieh, S.-K. (2010). Infrastructure for cross-lingual knowledge

representation ─ Towards multilingualism in linguistic studies. Taiwan

NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3).

Huang, H. W. (2003). Neighborhood size effect in the lexical decision of the Chinese

two-character words. MA thesis, National Yang Ming University, Taipei.

Jared, D., McRae, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). The basis of consistency effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 685-715.

Johns, B. T., & Jones, M. N. (2008). Predicting word-naming and lexical decision times from a semantic space model. Proceedings of the 30th Cognitive Science Society Meeting, 279-284.

Katz, L., Brancazio, L., Irwin, J., Katz, S., Magnuson, J., & Whalen, D. (in press). What lexical decision and naming tell us about reading. Reading and Writing.

Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American

English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

Lewellen, M. J., Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Greene, B. G. (1993). Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: Individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3),

316-330.

Mei, J.-J., Zhu, Y.-M., Gao, Y.-Q., & Yin, H.-X. (Eds.). (1983). Tongyici Cilin (同義詞詞林).

Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographical Press.

Moscoso del Prado, F. (Ed.). (2008). A fully analytical model of the lexical decision task Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Nelson, M. J., & Denny, E. C. (1960). The Nelson-Denny reading test. Boston: Houghton Miffilin.

New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Reexamining word length effects in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 45-52.

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory.

Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.

Parkin, A. J. (1982). Phonological recoding in lexical decision: Effects of spelling-to-sound regularity depend on how regularity is defined. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 43-53.

Parkin, A. J., & Ellingham, R. (1983). Phonological recoding in lexical decision: The influence of pseudohomophones. Language and Speech, 26(1), 81-90.

Parkin, A. J., & Underwood, G. (1983). Orthographic vs. phonological irregularity in lexical decision. Memory&Cognition, 11(4), 351-355.

Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with

“the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 416-426.

Schilling, H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory &

Cognition, 26(6), 1270-1281.

Sears, C., Siakaluk, P., Chow, V., & Buchanan, L. (2008). Is there an effect of print exposure on the word frequency effect and the neighborhood size effect? Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research, 37(4), 269-291.

Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9, 371-377.

Smith, J. (2009). As more asian developers build for Facebook, regional usage patterns change. Retrieved from Inside Facebook website: http://www.insidefacebook.com Stanovich, K. E., & Bauer, D. W. (1978). Experiments on the spelling-to-sound regularity

effect in word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 410-415.

Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York:

Bureau of Publications, Teachers College. Columbia University.

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.

Tweedie, F. J., & Baayen, R. H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32, 323-352.

Unsworth, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2003). The impact of reader skill on phonological processing in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,

56A(1), 63-81.

Wechsler, D. (1999). Manual for the Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word—nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 17(2), 143-154.

Woodcock, R. W., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III diagnostic

reading battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Sibley, D. E., & Ratcliff, R. (2012). Individual differences in visual word recognition: Insights from the English Lexicon Project. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 53-79.

若答案為是，請填寫哪位親人使用左手：_______________________

 請您於下表中，勾選您在下列活動中使用的慣用手：

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Note. The words marked with asterisks are the stimuli in Experiment 2.

108