國小三年級兒童識字能力與語意關係對中文語意處理的影響

The Impacts of Word Recognition Ability and Semantic Relation on Semantic Processing for Third Graders

10.6129/CJP.2011.5303.03

翁巧涵(Ciao-Han Wong)；陳修元(Shiou-Yuan Chen)；周泰立(Tai-Li Chou)；李姝慧(Shu-Hui Lee)

語意關係 ； 語意處理 ； 識字能力 ； 關聯強度 ； association strength ； semantic processing ； semantic relation ； word recognition ability

中華心理學刊

53卷3期（2011 / 09 / 01）

293 - 307

繁體中文

小學三年級是識字能力明顯增加的時期，此時語意發展亦處於區辨功能與類別語意關係的階段，但是關於識字能力與語意關係兩者如何影響語意處理，所知不多。過去研究中文兒童語意處理使用的語文材料皆選自成人常模，尚無使用兒童語文常模所進行的研究。因此本研究使用先前建立的「國小兒童中文雙字詞自由聯想常模」（翁巧涵、陳修元、李姝慧、周泰立，2009），針對小學三年級學生進行兩個實驗：實驗一比較不同識字能力兒童進行不同語意關聯強度（高語意、低語意）的語意判斷表現。發現隨著識字能力增加，語意判斷的正確率隨之上升；兒童對高語意關聯強度刺激的正確率與反應時間，皆優於低語意關聯強度。實驗二比較不同識字能力兒童進行不同語意關係（功能、類別）的語意判斷表現。結果顯示，高識字能力兒童的語意判斷正確率及反應時間，皆優於低識字能力兒童；兒童對於功能語意關係的正確率，優於類別語意關係。本研究推論：一、高識字能力兒童因為比較瞭解詞彙所包含的不同細緻概念，因此對於語意關係的掌握比低識字能力兒童好。二、高語意關聯強度詞對在語意網路中儲存位置較接近，兒童較易產生正確判斷。三、小學三年級學童以功能語意關係為主要表徵組織方式，尚未轉換到以類別語意關係組織語意表徵。

The ability to recognize words increases rapidly for third graders. This age group also starts to distinguish the functionally and categorically semantic relation of words. This study was aimed at determining whether word recognition ability would affect semantic processing and whether a shift of the semantic relation would occur for third graders. We used the child norms of association strength and selected stimuli from the norms to conduct two experiments. Participants were two groups of third graders with different word recognition abilities. In Experiment 1, participants performed semantic judgments on word pairs with either strong or weak association. Children with the better word recognition ability performed more accurately than those with the poorer recognition ability. Moreover, increased accuracy and faster reaction time were found for strong association pairs as compared to weak association pairs. In Experiment 2, participants performed semantic judgments on word pairs with either the functional or categorical relation. Children with the better word recognition ability performed more accurately and faster than those with the poorer recognition ability. Moreover, increased accuracy was found for word pairs with the functional relation as compared to those with the categorical relation. The findings suggest that word recognition abilities and semantic relation affect semantic processing for third graders. First, with more elaborate semantic representations, third graders with the better word recognition ability performed better semantic judgments than those with the poorer word recognition ability. Second, strong association pairs may correspond to closer conceptual links within semantic representations, resulting in increased accuracy as compared to weak association pairs. Third, the organization of semantic representation may be predominantly based on the functional rather than the categorical relation for third graders.

1. 王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2008)。一到九年級學生國字識字量發展。教育心理學報，39，555-568。
   連結：
2. 王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、陳秀芬(2007)。低識字能力學生識字量發展之研究─馬太效應之可能表現。特殊教育研究學刊，32(3)，1-16。
   連結：
3. 李姝慧、陳修元、周泰立(2009)。國小五年級孩童與成人的識字能力對中文字語意處理之效應的差異。中華心理衛生學刊，22，345-382。
   連結：
4. 洪國鈞、李姝慧、陳修元、周泰立(2010)。語意部件與關聯強度對成人與國小五年級孩童漢字語意處理效應的差異。中華心理學刊，52，327-344。
   連結：
5. 陳淑麗、曾世杰、洪儷瑜(2006)。原住民國語文低成就學童文化與經驗本位補救教學成效之研究。師大學報：教育類，51(2)，147-171。
   連結：
6. Booth, J. R.,Burman, D. D.,Meyer, J. R.,Lei, Z.,Choy, J.,Gitelman, D. R.(2003).Modality-specific and -independent developmental differences in the neural substrate for lexical processing.Journal of Neurolinguistics,16,383-405.
7. Booth, J. R.,Lu, D.,Burman, D. D.,Chou, T. L.,Jin, Z.,Peng, D. L.(2006).Specialization of phonological and semantic processing in Chinese word reading.Brain Research,1071,197-207.
8. Cao, F.,Peng, D. L.,Liu, L.,Jin, Z.,Fan, N.,Deng, Y.(2009).Developmental differences of neurocognitive networks for phonological and semantic processing in Chinese word reading.Human Brain Mapping,30,797-809.
9. Chwilla, D. J.,Hagoort, P.,Brown, C. M.(1998).The mechanism underlying backward priming in a lexical decision task: Spreading activation versus semantic matching.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A,51,531-560.
10. Cohen, S. H.(ed.),Reese, H. W.(ed.)(1994).Life-Span developmental psychology: Methodological contributions.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
11. Collins, A. M.,Loftus, E. F.(1975).A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82,407-428.
12. Collins, A. M.,Quillian, M. R.(1969).Retrieval time form semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,8,240-247.
13. Cramer, P.(1974).Idiodynamic sets as determinants of children's false recognition errors.Developmental Psychology,10,86-92.
14. Cree, G. S.,McNorgan, C.,McRae, K.(2006).Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,32,643-658.
15. Dietrich, E.(ed.),Markman, A. B.(ed.)(2000).Cogni t i v e dynami c s : Conc eptual and representational change in humans and machines.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
16. Dillon, R. F.(ed.),Schmeck, R. R.(ed.)(1983).Individual differences in cognition.New York:Academic Press.
17. Ehri, L. C.(2005).Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues.Scientific Studies of Reading,9,167-188.
18. Levelt, W. J. M.,Roelofs, A.,Meyer, A. S.(1999).A theory of lexical access in speech production.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22,1-75.
19. McClelland, J. L.,Rogers, T. T.(2003).The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,4,310-322.
20. McGregor, K. K.,Friedman, R. M.,Reilly, R. M.,Newman, R. M.(2002).Semantic representation and naming in young children.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,45,332-346.
21. McGregor, K. K.,Sheng, L.,Ball, T.(2007).Complexities of expressive word learning over time.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School,38,353-364.
22. McRae, K.,de Sa, V. R.,Seidenberg, M. S.(1997).On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126,99-130.
23. Meyer, D. E.,Schvaneveldt, R. W.(1971).Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90,227-234.
24. Moss, H. E.,Ostrin, R. K.,Tyler, L. K.,Marslen-Wilson, W. D.(1995).Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence form priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,21,863-883.
25. Murphy, G. L.(2002).The big book of concepts.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
26. Nation, K.,Snowling, M. J.(1999).Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence form semantic priming.Cognition,70,B1-B13.
27. Nation, K.,Snowling, M. J.(1998).Semantic processing and the development of word-recognition skills: Evidence form children with reading comprehension difficulties.Journal of Memory and Language,39,85-101.
28. Nation, K.,Snowling, M. J.,Clarke, P.(2007).Dissecting the relationship between language skills and learning to read: Semantic and phonological contributions to new vocabulary learning in children with poor reading comprehension.Advances in Speech-Language Pathology,9,131-139.
29. Nelson, K.(1977).The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift revisited: A review of research and theory.Psychological Bulletin,84,93-116.
30. Nelson, K.(1985).Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning.New York:Academic Press.
31. Nelson, K.(1973).Structure and strategy in learning to talk.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,38(1-2),1-135.
32. Nelson, K.(1974).Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development.Psychological Review,81,267-285.
33. Patterson, K.(ed.),Marsha, J. C.(ed.),Coltheart, M.(ed.)(1985).Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
34. Ricketts, J.,Bishop, D. V.,Nation, K.(2008).Investigating orthographic and semantic aspects of word learning in poor comprehenders.Journal of Research in Reading,31,117-135.
35. Simon, T.(ed.),Halford, G. S.(ed.)(1995).Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
36. Smith, E. E.,Shoben, E. J.,Rips, L. J.(1974).Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions.Psychological Review,81,214-241.
37. Szaflarski, J. P.,Schmithorst, V. J.,Altaye, M.,Byars, A. W.,Ret, J.,Plante, E.(2006).A longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging study of language development in children 5 to 11 years old.Annals of Neurology,59,796-807.
38. Tomasello, M.(2002).Things are what they do: Katherine Nelson's functional approach to language and cognition.Journal of Cognition and Development,3,5-19.
39. Woodworth, R. S.,Schlosberg, H.(1954).Experimental psychology.New York:Holt.
40. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2006)。識字量評估測驗。台北=Taipei:教育部=Ministry of Education。
41. 洪儷瑜、張郁雯、陳秀芬、李瑩玓、陳慶順(2003)。基本讀寫字綜合測驗。台北=Taipei:心理=Psychological。
42. 翁巧涵、陳修元、李姝慧、周泰立(2009)。兒童中文語意處理與識字能力的關係。第48屆台灣心理學年會，台北市=Taipei:
43. 教育部國語推行委員會(2002)。國小學童常用字詞調查報告書（二版）。台北=Taipei:教育部=Ministry of Education。
44. 黃秀霜(1999)。不同國語成就學生認字能力及與其他認知能力之關係。台南師院學報，32，27-59。
45. 黃秀霜(2001)。中文年級認字量表。台北市=Taipei:心理=Psychological。
46. 楊中芳主編、高尚仁主編(1991)。中國人、中國心：發展與教學篇。台北=Taipei:遠流=Yuan-Liou。
47. 錡寶香(2000)。國小低閱讀能力學童語言能力之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，20，69-96。
48. 魏金財、吳敏而(1993)。小學國語課文字彙數量、次序的安排與比較分析。國教學報，5，1-32。

1. Lee, Shu-Hui,Hung, Kuo-Chung,Chou, Tai-Li(2014).A Longitudinal Study of Association Strength and Semantic Transparency in Semantic Processing of Chinese Characters in Children.中華心理學刊,56(1),1-11.
2. 陳修元、翁巧涵、周泰立(2014)。語意關聯與類別語意關係對兒童中文語意發展影響的縱貫式研究。中華心理學刊，56(1)，65-81。
3. 劉敏,陳修元,翁巧涵,周泰立(2021)。國小二年級學童雙字詞聯想常模。本土心理學研究，56，83-120。
4. 劉敏、陳修元、周泰立、吳瑞屯(2018)。國小三年級、六年級兒童及大學生字彙處理歷程中語意部件扮演角色之發展變化。中華心理學刊，60(2)，81-100。
5. 翁巧涵、范利霙、周泰立、李姝慧(2013)。從語意處理及表徵到語意發展。中華心理學刊，55(3)，277-288。