本研究旨在探討相對頻率及語意關聯程度兩個變項對於大學生在閱讀含有多義詞的句子時眼動型態及語意促發歷程的影響。實驗結果分為三部分：第一部分為答對率及反應時間，第二部分為在眼動實驗的視覺搜尋與詞意點選畫面中的眼動資料興趣區域，第三部分為視覺搜尋與詞意點選畫面中隨著時間點凝視比率的變化情形。
首先，在多義詞的詞意判讀階段上，大學生的答對率以及作答反應時間在分析上未獲得顯著性考驗的支持，僅可知大學生在進行多義詞的詞意判斷時，皆可正確地使用導引情境。
接著，在眼動資料興趣區域各指標分析結果，我們可以得知多義詞的主要、次要語意對應詞彙皆會受到語境導引干擾，且次要語意對應詞彙在讀者的多義詞認知閱讀歷程一開始就有顯著差異，但仍無法檢視多義詞的語意促發歷程。
因此，本研究採用視覺環境眼動派典的眼動技術可以看到隨著時間點凝視比率的變化情形。在視覺搜尋畫面的初始階段，低語意關聯/次要語意這組詞彙中的主要語意對應詞彙與次要語意對應詞彙相互干擾的現象最強，因多義詞與主次要語意對應詞彙的關聯度偏低，對讀者而言，主次要語意已沒有區別。在視覺搜尋畫面的晚期階段，可以發現當語境導引到主要語意時，因為多義詞的兩個主次要語意對應詞彙與多義詞間的關聯性偏強，所以在主要語意對應詞彙促發後，次要語意的干擾仍存在，且在低語意關聯/主要語意組別反應最為明顯。

By using Visual World Paradigm (VWP), an eye tracking paradigm, this thesis aims to explore the effects of relative frequency and semantic relatedness on college students’ reading of Chinese polysemous words. The data we collected include accuracy rate and response times, the area that participants look at during his/her visual exploration, and the ratio change of participants’ gaze.
The major findings are as follows. First, the accuracy rate and response time of the choice of a proper interpretation of a polysemous word are not statistically significant. This suggests only that college students can use guiding context in determining the correct meaning of the polysemous target word.
Second, the data collected from the Areas of Interest (AOI) indicate that both the domain-biased meaning and secondary-biased meaning of a polysemous are influenced by the guiding contexts and that the secondary-biased meaning has a significant positive effect from the beginning of the reader's semantic processing. These data, though significant, do not tell us much about the polysemy priming process.
To fix the problem, this thesis uses VWP to investigate the changes of the gaze ratio over time. In the initial stage of participant visual exploration, the domain-biased meaning and the secondary-biased meaning in the unrelated word senses/secondary-biased group shows the strongest interference effect. Due to low co-relation between polysemy and dominance/ secondary word, the distinction between dominant meaning and secondary meaning does not have any effect. In the late stage of visual exploration, when the context leads to domain-biased meanings, the dominance words and the secondary words were strongly related to the polysemous target word. After the dominance words were triggered, there was still interference of the secondary words, especially in the unrelated word senses/ domain-biased group.

目次 i
圖目次 ii
表目次 iii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 多義詞語意關聯程度對歧義消解的影響 7
第二節 多義詞相對頻率及語境效應對歧義消解的影響 10
第三節 視覺環境眼動派典相關研究 14
第三章 研究方法 17
第一節 研究對象 17
第二節 實驗材料 17
第三節 實驗程序 25
第四節 研究設備 29
第五節 資料分析 30
第四章 研究結果與討論 32
第一節 詞意點選正確率與反應時間 32
第二節 VWP視覺畫面搜尋時的眼動型態區域分析 34
第五章 結論、限制與建議 41
第一節 結論 41
第二節 研究限制 44
第三節 研究建議 45
參考文獻 46
附錄一：統計分析摘要表 50
附錄二：統計分析摘要圖 52
附錄三：實驗材料 0

邱麗景、王穗蘋、關心 (2009)。口語理解的視覺—情境範式研究。華南師範大學學報：社會科學版，(1)，130-136。
林桐、王娟(2018)。基於視覺情境範式的口語詞彙理解研究進展。心理技術與應用，6(9) ，570-576。
胡中凡、陳彥丞、卓淑玲、陳學志、張雨霖、宋曜廷(2017)。1200 個中文雙字詞的聯想常模與其被聯想反應參照表。教育心理學報，49(1)，137-160。
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)，67-169。
袁暉(主編)(2001)。現代漢語多義詞詞典。中國太原市：書海。
高佩如、李佳穎、蔡介立(2011)。語境預測力對中文一詞多義處理歷程的影響：來自眼動研究的證據。「第十二屆漢語詞彙語義學研討會」發表之論文，臺灣大學霖澤館。
國語推行委員會(2007)。重編國語辭典修訂本。取自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/
張嘉文(主編)(1996)。辭海。新北市：鐘文。
陳胎照(1998)。影響中文多義詞在句中辨識歷程的因素：工作記憶容量或多義 詞在語言中的比率。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
粘建良(2018)。詞彙能力與語境對大學生閱讀英文多義詞激發歷程的影響：視覺環境眼動派典的證據。國立清華大學 臺灣語言研究與教學研究所碩士論文。
郭云飛(2016)。認知語言學理論視角下的一詞多義現象實證研究。科技視界，5，32。
閆國利、巫金根、胡晏雯、白學軍(2010)。當前閱讀的眼動研究範式述評。心理科學進展，18(12)，1966-1976。
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。國立中央大學 學習與教學研究所碩士論文。
楊芝瑜、柯華葳、張毓仁(2012)。記憶廣度及語境效應對閱讀歧義詞彙的影響: 來自眼動的證據。教育與心理研究，35(3)，1-36。
鄒麗娟(2015)。聽覺詞彙識別中字形啟動的認知及神經機制。心理科學，38 (6)，1353－1358。
蕭惠貞、陳昱蓉(2014)。漢語詞彙歧異探究與教學應用。華語文教學研究，11(2)， 1-30。
Ahrens, K. (2006). The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language Linguistics, 7(3), 677-696.
Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 12(142), 5-32.
Barcelona, A. (2012). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective: Walter de Gruyter.
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology.
Dirven, R. (2003). Metonymy and metaphor: Conceptualisation strategies. Metaphor metonymy in comparison contrast, 75-111. doi:10.1515/9783110219197
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of memory & language, 27(4), 429-446.
Durkin, K., & Manning, J. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(6), 577-612.
Falkum, I. L., & Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua, 157, 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.002
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: MIT press.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language, 29(2), 181-200.
Huettig, F., Olivers, C. N., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). Looking, language, and memory: Bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. Acta psychologica, 137(2), 138-150.
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta psychologica 137(2), 151-171.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory Language, 45(2), 259-282.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of memory, language, Cognition, 47(4), 548-570.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223.
Logan, J. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2017). Evaluating the Role of Polysemous Word Knowledge in Reading Comprehension among Bilingual Adolescents. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(8), 1687-1704. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9745-1
Lyons, J. (1997). Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological review, 76, 165-178.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory Cognition, 9(3), 225-236.
Rayner, K., Cook, A. E., Juhasz, B. J., & Frazier, L. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: Evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97(4), 467-482.
Rayner, 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
Rayner, 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
Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 504-509.
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. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
Sereno, S. C., O'Donnell, P. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Eye Movements and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Investigating the Subordinate-Bias Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 335-350. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.335
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96(2), 316.
Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. Handbook of psycholinguistics, 22, 359-374.
Swaab, 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
Tabossi, P., & Zardon, F. (1993). Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory Language, 32(3), 359-372.
Taler, V., Klepousniotou, E., & Phillips, N. (2008). Lexical ambiguity processing in healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment: An ERP study. Brain Cognition, 67.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M.,& Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguisticinformation in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
Toon, J., & Kukona, A. (2020). Activating semantic knowledge during spoken words and environmental sounds: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Cognitive Science, 44(1), e12810.
van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsley, T. M., Reijntjes, A., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 21.
Vicente, A. (2018). Polysemy and word meaning: an account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content words. Philosophical Studies(175), 947–968. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0900-y
Wiley, J., & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 28(6), 1011-1021.
Yip, M. C., & Zhai, M. (2018). Processing Homophones Interactively: Evidence from eye-movement data. Scientific reports, 8(1), 9812.