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

Effect of Vocabulary Size on Semantic Processing of Chinese Characters for Fifth Graders and Adults

10.30074/FJMH.200912_22(4).0001

李姝慧(Shu-Hui Lee)；陳修元(Shiou-Yuan Chen)；周泰立(Tai-Li Chou)

語意 ； 語音 ； 字形 ； 語意關聯強度 ； semantics ； phonology ； orthography ； semantic association strength

中華心理衛生學刊

22卷4期（2009 / 12 / 01）

345 - 382

繁體中文

研究目的：目前探討中文識字能力的研究主要在字形處理及語音處理兩個取向，但尚未有語意處理與中文識字能力的關係的研究。因此，本研究以語意判斷作業進行三個實驗，探討五年級孩童及成人、五年級高／低識字能力孩童在語意處理上的差異。研究方法：本實驗操弄三種語意關聯強度字對（高、低、無關語意），要求參與者判斷視覺－聽覺呈現的兩個中文的字對是否具有語意關係。研究結果：隨著語意關聯強度減弱，參與者的正確率都隨之下降，所需反應時間皆隨之增加。成人在高低語意判斷間的差異，較孩童在高低語意判斷間的差異來得大。高識字能力孩童較低識字能力的孩童，在高低語意判斷上都呈現較優的表現。研究結論：一、年齡與識字能力的差異，反映語意處理之間的差異，孩童較成人在搜尋和整合正確的語意特徵時，做出判斷反應上有困難。二、低識字能力孩童無法掌握字彙的字形、語音及語意的對應關係，因此在語意判斷作業的表現比高識字能力孩童差。

Purpose: Reading fluency requires the ability to integrate orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations. While many studies have focused on the effect of vocabulary size on orthographic and phonological processes with Chinese characters, few have explored the effect of vocabulary size on semantic processing. Three cross-modal experiments of semantic relatedness judgment were conducted to address this topic. Experiment 1 evaluated the difference between 24 fifth graders and 24 adults. Experiment 2 replicated the findings in Experiment 1 through matched intelligence scores between 12 adults and 12 fifth graders. In Experiment 3, we tested the semantic judgments of 2 groups of fifth graders with different vocabulary sizes. Methods: We manipulated the semantic association between character pairs (strong, weak, and unrelated). The first character was presented visually and the second character was presented orally. Participants indicated whether the 2 characters were semantically related. Results: Reduced accuracy and longer reaction times were found for character pairs with weak associations, as compared to those with strong associations across the 3 experiments, suggesting that there are increased selection demands when processing distantly related pairs. In the first experiment, as in the second experiment with paired intelligence scores, the difference between strong and weak association strength was larger for the adults than for the fifth graders. The findings remained after partialling out working memory scores with ANCOVA analyses. In the third experiment, fifth graders with a larger vocabulary size showed better performance for both strong and weak association character pairs as compared to fifth graders with a smaller vocabulary size. The findings remained after partialling out working memory scores by ANCOVA analyses. Conclusions: Both age and vocabulary size were found to be related to semantic processing. The visual-auditory presentation required participants to select a semantically appropriate answer for the second homophonic character. This selection mechanism required searching for and integrating the overlapping semantic features of the 2 presented characters. In Experiments 1 and 2, fifth graders demonstrated poorer search and integration of semantic features as compared to adults. Adults may have more close connections in their semantic representational systems available to process strongly related pairs than weakly related pairs. In contrast, fifth graders may not be able to differentiate effectively the semantic relationship between strong and weak pairs. As age increases, children with more reading experience may have more elaborate semantic representations and thus more close semantic connections with which to process characters. Moreover, participants may need to be competent in mapping visual form, sound, and meaning between the first and the second characters in these cross modal tasks. Mapping ability between lexical representations may affect participants' performance in selecting the semantically appropriate answer. Fifth graders with a smaller vocabulary size may be deficient in mapping among semantics, phonology, and orthography, producing poorer performance on meaning judgments as compared to fifth graders with a larger vocabulary size.

1. 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：
2. 李宏鎰、吳歡鵲、廖淑台(2007)。閱讀障礙者在心像旋轉作業上的表現。中華心理衛生學刊，20(2)，109-125。
   連結：
3. Baddeley, A. D.,Hitch, G. J.,G. H. Bower (Ed.)(1974).The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory.New York:Academic Press.
4. Balota, D. A.,Chumbley, J. I.(1984).Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The rule of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and PerFormance,10,340-357.
5. Beck, I.,McKeown, M.,R. Barr (Eds.),M. Kamil (Eds.),P. Mosenthal (Eds.),P. D. Pearson (Eds.)(1991).Handbook of reading research.White Plains, NY:Longman.
6. Bishop, D. V.,Snowling, M. J.(2004).Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different?.Psychological Bulletin,130,858-886.
7. Blewitt, P.,Toppino, T. C.(1991).The development of taxonomic structure in lexical memory.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,51,296-319.
8. Booth, J. R.,Lu, D.,Burman, D. D.,Chou, T. L.,Jin, Z.,Peng, D. L.,Zhang, L.(2006).Specialization of phonological and semantic processing in Chinese word reading.Brain Research,1071(1),197-207.
9. Bos, C. S.,Anders, P. I.(1990).Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students.Learning Disability Quarterly,13,31-42.
10. Bull, R.,Scerif, G.(2001).Executive functioning as a predictor of children's mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory.Developmental Neuropsychology,19(3),273-293.
11. Cain, K.(2006).Individual differences in children's memory and reading comprehension: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits.Memory,14(5),553-569.
12. Cain, K.,Oakhill, J.,Elbro, C.(2003).The ability to learn new word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties.Journal of Child Language,30,681-694.
13. Cain, K.,Oakhill, J.,Lemmon, K.(2004).Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity.Journal of Educational Psychology,96,671-681.
14. Cao, F.,Peng, D.,Liu, L.,Jin, Z.,Fan, N.,Deng, Y.,Booth, J. R..Developmental differences of neurocognitive networks for phonological and semantic processing in Chinese word reading.Human Brain Mapping.
15. Carey, S.,M. Halle (Eds.),J. Bresnan (Eds.),G. Miller (Eds.)(1978).Linguistic theory and psychological reality.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
16. Chou, T. L.,Booth, J. R.,Burman, D. D.,Bitan, T.,Bigio, J. D.,Lu, D.,Cone, N. E.(2006).Developmental changes in the neural correlates of semantic processing.Neuroimage,29,1141-1149.
17. Collins, A. M.,Loftus, E. F.(1975).A spreading activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82,240-248.
18. Coltheart, M.,G. Underwood (Ed.)(1978).Strategies of information processing.New York:Academic Press.
19. Coltheart, M.,Rastle, K.,Perry, C.,Langdon, R.,Ziegler, J.(2001).DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review,108,204-256.
20. Fletcher, P. C.,Shallice, T.,Dolan, R. J.(2000)."Sculpting the response space"-An account of left prefrontal activation at encoding.Neuroimage,12,404-417.
21. Harm, M. W.,Seidenberg, M. S.(2004).Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes.Psychological Review,111,662-720.
22. Holland, S. K.,Plante, E.,Byars, A. W.,Strawsburg, R. H.,Schmithorst, V. J.,Ball, W. S.(2001).Normal fMRI brain activation patterns in children performing a verb generation task.Neuroimage,14,837-843.
23. Holmes, J.,Adams, J.(2006).Working memory and children's mathematical skills: Implications for mathematical development and mathematics curricula.Educational Psychology,26(3),339-366.
24. Hudson, P. T. W.,Bergman, M. W.(1985).Lexical knowledge in word recognition: Word length and word frequency in naming and lexical decision task.Journal of Memory and Language,24(1),46-58.
25. Kim, A. H.,Vaughn, S.,Wanzek, J.,Wei, S.(2004).Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research.Journal of Learning Disabilities,37(2),105-118.
26. Kirk, R. E.(1995).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences.Belmont, CA:Brooks/Cole.
27. McClelland, J. L.,Rogers, T. T.(2003).The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,4(4),310-322.
28. 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.
29. McKeown, M. G.(1985).The acquisition of word meaning from context by children of high and low ability.Reading Research Quarterly,20,482-496.
30. Nation, K.,Snowling, M. J.(1999).Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming.Cognition,7,1-13.
31. 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.
32. Nelson, K.(1977).The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift revisited: A review of research and theory.Psychological Bulletin,84,93-116.
33. Passolunghi, M.,Siegel, L.(2004).Working memory and access to numerical information in children with disability in mathematics.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,88,348-367.
34. Petrey, S.(1977).Word associations and the development of lexical memory.Cognition,18,1191-1210.
35. Plaut, D. C.,J. D. Moore (Eds.),J. F. Lehman (Eds.)(1995).Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network.Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the cognitive science society,Hillsdale, NJ:
36. Plaut, D.,McClelland, J. L.,Seidenberg, M. S.,Patterson, K. E.(1996).Understanding normal and impaired reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.Psychological Review,103,56-115.
37. Powell, D.,Plaut, D. C.,Funnell, E.(2006).Does the PMSP connectionist model of single word reading learn to read in the same way as a child?.Journal of Research in Reading,29,229-250.
38. 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.
39. Ricketts, J.,Nation, K.,Bishop, D. V.(2007).Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills.Scientific Studies of Reading,11,235-257.
40. Seidenberg, M.,McClelland, J. L.(1989).A distributed, developmental model of word recognition.Psychological Review,96,523-568.
41. Stanovich, K. E.(1986).Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly,21,360-407.
42. Van Orden, G. C.,Goldinger, S. D.(1994).The interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology,20,1269-1291.
43. Yin, W. G.,Weekes, B.(2003).Dyslexia in Chinese: Clues from cognitive neuropsychology.Annals of Dyslexia,53,255-279.
44. 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.
45. 三民書局編撰委員會(1998)。學典。台北:三民書局。
46. 田慧娟(2004)。閱讀障礙學生與一般學生在視知覺上之比較研究。台東大學教育學報，15(1)，33-66。
47. 吳思娜、舒華、王彧(2004)。4-6年級小學生發展性閱讀障礙的異質性研究。心理發展與教育，20(3)，46-50。
48. 吳瑞屯、劉英茂(1987)。中文字詞語音、語意屬性的研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，計畫編號：NSC75-0301-H002-024。
49. 林清山(1992)。心理與教育統計學。台北:東華書局。
50. 柯華葳、李俊仁(1996)。國小低年級學生語音覺識能力與認字能力的發展：一個縱貫的研究。國立中正大學學報，7(1)，49-66。
51. 洪儷瑜(2002)。國小學童漢字視知覺能力三年縱貫研究。特殊教育研究學刊，22，1-26。
52. 胡永崇(2005)。國小四年級識字困難學生識字實驗教學後之學習表現與相關認知變項之相關研究。屏東師院學報，22，1-40。
53. 胡志偉、高千惠、羅明(2005)。六百個中文字的自由聯想常模。台北:台灣心理學會。
54. 教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北:教育部。
55. 曾世杰(2004)。聲韻覺識、念名速度與中文閱讀障礙。台北:心理出版社。
56. 黃秀霜(1997)。兒童早期音韻覺識對其三年後中文認字能力之縱貫性研究。台南師院學報，7(1)，49-66。
57. 黃秀霜(2001)。中文年級認字量表。台北:心理出版社。
58. 劉翔平、劉文理、張立娜、徐先金、張微、張秀秀、張婧喬(2006)。兒童識字能力與漢字規則意識規則研究。中國特殊教育，1，56-61。

1. Fan, Li-Ying,Chou, Tai-Li(2012).Hierarchical Model Comparisons on Effective Connectivity in Semantic Judgments of Chinese Characters.中華心理學刊,54(1),31-46.
2. 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.
3. 陳修元、洪國鈞、周泰立、李姝慧(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(3)，327-344。
4. 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。
5. 陳修元、翁巧涵、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(3)，293-307。
6. 陳學志、陳彥丞、張雨霖、胡中凡、卓淑玲、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。
7. 賴佳禾,李姝慧(2022)。The Influence of Positive and Negative Emotions on Semantic Processing in Alexithymia。中華心理學刊，64(3)，263-277。
8. 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。
9. (2010).Interaction Between Brain Regions During Semantic Processing in Chinese Adults.語言暨語言學,11(1),159-182.