题名

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

并列篇名

A Longitudinal Study of Semantic Association and Categorical Relatedness on Children's Semantic Processing of Chinese Characters

DOI

10.6129/CJP.20131103

作者

翁巧涵(Ciao-Han Wong)；陳修元(Shiou-Yuan Chen)；周泰立(Tai-Li Chou)

关键词

語意發展 ； 語意關聯 ； 類別語意關係 ； semantic development ； semantic association ； categorical relatedness

期刊名称

中華心理學刊

卷期/出版年月

56卷1期（2014 / 03 / 01）

页次

65 - 81

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

過去中文語意發展的研究，皆採用橫斷式取向觀察年齡變化的差異，而且沒有將語意關聯與語意關係對於語意處理的影響清楚區分。語意關聯係指字對是以自由聯想建立的關聯性字對；語意關係則是指字對為同類別語意概念。本研究採縱貫式取向，正交地操弄語意關聯（高、低）與類別語意關係（高、低）兩個變項，進一步檢驗11歲兒童語意知識的發展，探討這兩個變項對語意處理的貢獻。實驗以語意判斷作業進行，24位兒童判斷依序出現的兩個中文字是否有意義關係，間隔兩年再次進行相同作業。本研究有兩項主要發現：（一）時間變項主要效果顯著，兒童第二次（兩年後）的判斷正確率優於第一次參與；（二）語意關聯與類別語意關係的交互作用顯著，高低類別語意關係的差異，在高語意關聯時達顯著，低語意關聯時則否；高低語意關聯的差異，在高類別語意關係達顯著，低類別語意關係時則否。推論：（一）隨著年齡成長與兩年的教育學習經驗，兒童對於語意表徵的掌握能力更加精緻化，能以抽象思考能力整合不同層級的類別語意關係；（二）語意關聯與類別語意關係的交互促進效果，在語意關聯與類別語意關係都有增強，穩定的語意促進效果是建立在字彙同時具有高語意關聯及高類別語意關係的組織方式上。
英文摘要

Previous developmental studies with regard to semantic processing used cross-sectional approaches to examine developmental changes and did not make distinctions between semantic association and categorical relatedness. Semantic association was defined as character pairs produced by free association tasks; categorical relatedness was referred to character pairs within the same semantic category. The present study used a longitudinal approach to further investigate the roles of semantic association and categorical relatedness in the developmental changes of semantic processing. We orthogonally manipulated semantic association (strong, weak) and categorical relatedness (high, low) to examine developmental changes of 11-year-old children in a two-year interval. Children were asked to decide whether two visually-presented Chinese characters were semantically related and tested again two years later. There were two main results. First, the main effect of time was significant. Children performed better on accuracy of the second measure as compared with the first measure. Second, we found an interaction between semantic association and categorical relatedness on accuracy. The difference between the high and low categorical relatedness was significant for the strong semantic association, not for the weak semantic association. The difference between the strong and weak semantic association was significant for the high categorical relatedness, not for the low categorical relatedness. There are two implications in the present study. First, as age increased, accumulated learning experiences may enhance children to build more elaborate semantic representations. They may use more abstract manners to integrate different categorical relationships. Second, the interaction of semantic association and categorical relatedness suggests that semantic knowledge may be organized by both semantic association and categorical relatedness. The stable semantic enhancement is based on characters with strong semantic association and high categorical relatedness.
主题分类 社會科學 > 心理學
参考文献
  1. Fan, L. Y.,Chou, T. L.(2012).Hierarchical model comparisons on effective connectivity in semantic judgments of Chinese characters.Chinese Journal of Psychology,54,31-46.
    連結：
  2. 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：
  3. 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：
  4. 翁巧涵、陳修元、周泰立、李姝慧(2011)。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。中華心理學刊，53，293-307。
    連結：
  5. 陳明蕾、王學誠、柯華葳(2009)。中文語意空間建置及心理效度驗證：以潛在語意分析技術為基礎。中華心理學刊，51，415-435。
    連結：
  6. Birren, J. E.(Ed.),Schaie, K. W.(Ed.)(1996).Handbook of the psychology of aging.San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
  7. Blumenfeld, H. K.,Booth, J. R.,Burman, D. D.(2006).Differential prefrontal-temporal neural correlates of semantic processing in children.Brain and Language,99,226-235.
  8. Booth, J. R.,Burman, D. D.,Meyer, J. R.,Gitelman, D. R.,Parrish, T. B.,Mesulam, M. M.(2002).Modality independence of word comprehension.Hum Brain Mapping,16,251-261.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Borghi, A. M.,Caramelli, N.(2003).Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: Form action to spatial relations.Cognitive Development,18,49-60.
  12. Burgess, C.(1998).From simple associations to the building blocks of language: Modeling meaning in memory with the HAL model.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,30,188-198.
  13. Cao, F.,Peng, D. L.,Liu, L.,Jin, Z.,Fan, N.,Deng, Y.(2009).Developmental differences of neurocognitive networks for phonological and semantics processing in Chinese word reading.Human Brain Mapping,30,797-809.
  14. Caramelli, N.,Setti, A.,Maurizzi, D. D.(2004).Concrete and abstract concepts in school age children.Psychology of Language and Communication,8,19-34.
  15. Chee, M. W.,Weekes, B.,Lee, K. M.,Soon, C. S.,Schreiber, A.,Hoon, J. J.(2000).Overlap and dissociation of semantic processing of Chinese characters, English words, and pictures: Evidence from fMRI.NeuroImage,12,392-403.
  16. Chenery, H. J.,Ingram, J. C. L.,Murdoch, B. E.(1990).Automatic and volitional semantic processing in aphasia.Brain and Language,38,215-232.
  17. Chou, T. L.,Booth, J. R.,Bitan, T.,Burman, D. D.,Bigio, J. D.,Cone, N. E.(2006).Developmental and skill effects on the neural correlates of semantic processing to visually presented words.Human Brain Mapping,27,915-924.
  18. Chou, T. L.,Booth, J. R.,Burman, D. D.,Bitan, T.,Bigio, J. D.,Lu, D.(2006).Developmental changes in the neural correlates of semantic processing.NeuroImage,29,1141-1149.
  19. Chou, T. L.,Chen, C. W.,Fan, L. Y.,Chen, S. Y.,Booth, J. R.(2009).Testing for a cultural influence on reading for meaning in the developing brain: The neural basis of semantic processing in Chinese children.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,3,1-9.
  20. Chou, T. L.,Chen, C. W.,Wu, M. Y.,Booth, J. R.(2009).The role of inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule in semantic processing of Chinese characters.Experimental Brain Research,198,465-475.
  21. Collins, A. M.,Loftus, E. F.(1975).A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82,407-428.
  22. Collins, A. M.,Quillian, M. R.(1969).Retrieval time form semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,8,240-247.
  23. Craik, F. I. M.(Ed.),Salthouse, T. A.(Ed.)(2000).The handbook of aging and cognitive.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Cree, G. S.,McRae, K.,McNorgan, C.(1999).An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming.Cognitive Science,23,371-414.
  25. Cronin, V. S.(2002).The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift and reading development.Journal of Child Language,29,189-204.
  26. Dietrich, E.(Ed.),Markman, A. B.(Ed.)(2000).Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Estes, Z.,Jones, L. L.(2009).Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,138,112-130.
  28. Gelman, S. A.(Ed.),Byrnes, J. P.(Ed.)(1991).Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  29. Hashimoto, N.,McGregor, K. K.,Graham, A.(2007).Conceptual organization at 6 and 8 years of age: Evidence from the semantic priming of object decisions.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,50,161-176.
  30. Hodgson, J. M.(1991).Informational constraints on pre-lexical priming.Language and Cognitive Processes,6,169-205.
  31. Howard, D.,Patterson, K. E.(1992).The pyramids and palm trees test: A test of semantic access from words and pictures.Bury St Edmunds, UK:Thames Valley Test.
  32. Hutchison, K. A.(2003).Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,10,785-813.
  33. Inhelder, B.,Piaget, J.(1964).The early growth of logic in the child: Classification and seriation.London, UK:Routledge.
  34. Kalénine, S.,Peyrin, C.,Pichat, C.,Segebarth, C.,Bonthoux, F.,Baciu, M.(2009).The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study.NeuroImage,44,1152-1162.
  35. Lee, S. H.,Booth, J. R.,Chen, S. Y.,Chou, T. L.(2011).Developmental changes in the inferior frontal cortex for selecting semantic representations.Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience,1,338-350.
  36. Lee, Y. S.,Chiang, W. C.,Hung, H. C.(2008).Lexical association and false memory for words in two cultures.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,37,49-58.
  37. Lin, E. L.,Murphy, G. L.(2001).Thematic relations in adults' concepts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130,3-28.
  38. Liu, L.,Vira, A.,Friedman, E.,Minas, J.,Bolger, D.,Bitan, T.(2010).Children with reading disability show brain differences in effective connectivity for visual, but not auditory word comprehension.PLoS ONE,5
  39. Lucariello, J.,Kyratzis, A.,Nelson, K.(1992).Taxonomic knowledge: What kind and when?.Child Development,63,978-998.
  40. Lucas, M.(2000).Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,7,618-630.
  41. Lund, K.,Burgess, C.(1996).Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence.Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers,28,203-208.
  42. Maki, W. S.,Buchanan, E.(2008).Latent structure in measures of associative, semantic, and thematic knowledge.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,15,598-603.
  43. Markman, E. M.,Hutchinson, J. E.(1984).Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relation.Cognitive Psychology,16,1-27.
  44. McClelland, J. L.,Rogers, T. T.(2003).The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,4,310-322.
  45. 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.
  46. McKoon, G.,Ratcliff, R.(1992).Spreading activation versus compound cue accounts of priming: Mediated priming revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,18,1155-1172.
  47. McNamara, T. P.(2005).Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word cognition.New York:Psychology.
  48. McRae, K.,Boisvert, S.(1998).Automatic semantic similarity priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,24,558-572.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. Moss, H. E.,Tyler, L. K.(1995).Investigating semantic memory impairments: The contribution of semantic priming.Memory,3,359-395.
  52. Murphy, G. L.(2002).The big book of concepts.Cambridge, MA:MIT.
  53. Nation, K.,Adams, J. W.,Bowyer-Crane, C. A.,Snowling, M. J.(1999).Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,73,139-158.
  54. 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.
  55. Nelson, K.(1974).Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development.Psychological Review,81,267-285.
  56. Nelson, K.(1977).The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift revisited: A review of research and theory.Psychological Bulletin,84,93-116.
  57. Nelson, K.(1985).Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning.New York:Academic.
  58. Nelson, K.(1973).Structure and strategy in learning to talk.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,38(1/2),1-135.
  59. Palermo, D. S.,Jenkins, J. J.(1964).Word association norms: Grade school through college.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
  60. Piaget, J.,Inhelder, B.(1959).La genèse des structures logiques élémentaires: Classifications et sériations.Neuchâtel, CH:Delachaux and Niestle.
  61. Rönnlund, M.,Nyberg, L.,Bäckman, L.,Nilsson, L. G.(2005).Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study.Psychology and Aging,20,3-18.
  62. Ross, B. H.(Ed.)(2011).The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory.New York:Academic Press.
  63. Sachs, O.,Weis, S.,Krings, T.,Huber, W.,Kircher, T.(2008).Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations.Neuropsychologia,46,409-418.
  64. Sachs, O.,Weis, S.,Zellagui, N.,Huber, W.,Zvyagintsev, M.,Mathiak, K.(2008).Automatic processing of semantic relations in fMRI: Neural activation during semantic priming of taxonomic and thematic categories.Brain Research,1218,194-205.
  65. Sass, K.,Sachs, O.,Krach, S.,Kircher, T.(2009).Taxonomic and thematic categories: Neural correlates of categorization in an auditory-to-visual priming task using fMRI.Brain Research,1270,78-87.
  66. Schaie, K. W.(1994).Developmental designs revisited.Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological contributions,Hillsdale, NJ:
  67. Shaywitz, B. A.,Shaywitz, S. E.,Pugh, K. R.,Mencl, W. E.,Fulbright, R. K.,Skudlarski, P.(2002).Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia.Biological Psychiatry,52,101-110.
  68. Shelton, J. R.,Martin, R. C.(1992).How semantic is automatic semantic priming?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,18,1191-1210.
  69. Shu, H.,Anderson, R. C.(1997).Role of radical awareness in the character and word adquisition of Chinese children.Reading Research Quarterly,32,78-89.
  70. Simon, T. J.(Ed.),Halford, G. S.(Ed.)(1995).Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  71. Sliwinski, M.,Buschke, H.(1999).Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships among age, cognition, and processing speed.Psychology and Aging,14,18-33.
  72. Smiley, S. S.,Brown, A. L.(1979).Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,28,249-257.
  73. Sternberg, R. J.(Ed.)(1983).Advances in the psychology of human intelligence.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. Zhang, Q.,Guo, C. Y.,Ding, J. H.,Wang, Z. Y.(2006).Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinese words.Brain and Language,96,59-68.
  77. 吳瑞屯、劉英茂(1987)。,台北=Taipei:行政院國科會=National Science Council。
  78. 洪儷瑜(1997)。「漢字視知覺測驗」編製初步報告。師大學報：教育類，42，59-73。
  79. 胡志偉、高千惠、羅明(2005)。六百個中文字的自由聯想常模。台北=Taipei:台灣心理學會=Taiwanese Psychological Association。
  80. 黃沛榮(1996)。漢字部件研究。第七屆中國文字學全國學術研討會論文集，台北=Taipei:
被引用次数
  1. 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。
  2. 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。
print cancel