政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/155914

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/155914

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文笔数/总笔数 : 114895/145933 (79%)
造访人次 : 53863879 在线人数 : 660

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜寻范围

查询小技巧：

您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果

若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据

进阶搜寻

主页 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上传 ‧ 说明 ‧ 关于政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手机版

政大機構典藏 > 外國語文學院 > 英國語文學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/155914

请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/155914

题名:	英文歧義句消解：華語英語學習者使用介系詞短語之事件相關電位研究 The resolution of syntactic ambiguity in English: An ERP study of prepositional phrase attachment in Chinese-English bilinguals
作者:	張哲 Zhang, Zhe
贡献者:	詹曉蕙張郇慧 Chan, Shiao-Hui Chang, Hsun-Hui 張哲 Zhang, Zhe
关键词:	第二語言介系詞短語認知資源語言處理數學運算 L2 Prepositional phrase (PP) attachment Cognitive resources Language processing Arithmetic operation
日期:	2025
上传时间:	2025-03-03 13:45:42 (UTC+8)
摘要:	本論文探討了第二語言閱讀理解中句法歧義的消解，重點關注工作記憶和數學運算的作用。通過使用事件相關電位手段，本研究聚焦於兩個主要研究問題：一、第二語言學習者如何處理英文句法歧義；二、非語言因素，如工作記憶和數學運算能力，如何影響第二語言學習者對句法歧義的解決。實驗1檢視了第二語言學習者如何處理介系詞短語所引發的句法歧義，並著重於工作記憶的影響。結果顯示，工作記憶容量顯著影響介系詞短語的處理。擁有更高工作記憶的參與者對處於低節點的介系詞短語表現出更強的N400效應，顯示具有更大認知靈活性的大腦在處理過程中可能會預測句子結構。實驗2透過引入四則混合運算作為影響因數來進一步研究。研究結果顯示，較高的算術需求（以增強的P300表示）影響了隨後的介系詞短語的處理：當先前是低算術需求的算式，或是參與者屬於低工作記憶的組別時，後續的句法處理會出現P600效應──前者乃因低算術需求不會干擾後續的句法整合或重新分析；後者則因低工作記憶的參與者需要更多的認知資源來解決介系詞短語的歧異。上述結果表明，解決句法歧義依賴於數學和語言之間的共用認知資源，突顯語言處理和數學運算之間的複雜互動。總之，本論文增進了我們對第二語言學習者如何解決句法歧義及非語言因素（如工作記憶和數學運算）對此過程影響的理解，進一步的研究需要更大且更具多樣性的樣本，以擴展和證實上述發現。 This dissertation investigates second language (L2) syntactic ambiguity resolution during reading comprehension, with a focus on the roles of working memory and arithmetic computation. Using event-related potentials (ERP), the study addresses two primary questions: (1) How do L2 learners resolve syntactic ambiguities during sentence parsing? (2) How do non-linguistic factors, such as working memory and arithmetic ability, influence L2 learners' resolution of syntactic ambiguities? In Experiment 1, we examined how L2 learners process syntactic ambiguities, particularly prepositional phrase (PP) attachment, with an emphasis on the impact of working memory. The results indicate that working memory capacity significantly influences PP attachment processing. Participants with higher working memory exhibited a stronger N400 response to low PP attachment, likely reflecting mismatch detection and suggesting that those with greater cognitive flexibility may construct predicted sentence structures during processing. Experiment 2 extended this investigation by introducing arithmetic computation as a contextual factor. The findings revealed that higher arithmetic demand, marked by an increased P300, influenced subsequent syntactic processing, particularly in PP attachment. A P600 effect emerged when the preceding context involved low arithmetic demand (which did not interfere with further syntactic integration or reanalysis) or when the low working memory group was involved (which required more cognitive resources to resolve PP attachment). These results suggest that resolving syntactic ambiguity depends on shared cognitive resources between math and language, highlighting the complex interplay between linguistic and mathematical tasks. In conclusion, this dissertation enhances our understanding of how L2 learners resolve syntactic ambiguities and the impact of non-linguistic factors, such as working memory and arithmetic computation, on this process. Further research with larger and more diverse samples is necessary to expand on these findings.
參考文獻:	Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 129-144. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191-238. Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(4), 146-152. Altmann, G. T. M., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J.-A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory & Language, 38(4), 459-484. Amoruso, L., Gelormini, C., Aboitiz, F., Alvarez Gonzalez, M., Manes, F., Cardona, J. F., & Ibanez, A. (2013). N400 ERPs for actions: building meaning in context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 57. Anderson, E. C., & Florack, J. M. (2013). The N400 in Exact and Approximate Mental Arithmetic. Paper presented at the The 25th Annual Cognitive Science Society, Boston, USA. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 Baddeley, A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. (2018). Exploring Working Memory: Selected Works of Alan Baddeley. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Bernolet, S., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.005 Biau, E., Fromont, L. A., & Soto‐Faraco, S. (2017). Beat Gestures and Syntactic Parsing: An ERP Study. Language Learning, 68(S1), 102-126. doi:10.1111/lang.12257 Boland, J. E. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(4), 423-484. doi:10.1080/016909697386808 Bornkessel, I. D., Fiebach, C. J., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: An individual differences approach. Cognitive Brain Research, 21(1), 11-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.05.007 Boudewyn, M., Zirnstein, M., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2013). Priming prepositional phrase attachment: Evidence from eye-tracking and event-related potentials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(3), 424-454. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.815237 Brothers, T., Zeitlin, M., Perrachione, A. C., Choi, C., & Kuperberg, G. (2022). Domain-general conflict monitoring predicts neural and behavioral indices of linguistic error processing during reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(7), 1502-1519. doi:10.1037/xge0001130 Mathematics and the brain, (2002). Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Bahavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-126. Cárdenas, S. Y., Silva-Pereyra, J., Prieto-Corona, B., Castro-Chavira, S. A., & Fernández, T. (2021). Arithmetic processing in children with dyscalculia: an event-related potential study. PeerJ, 9, e10489. Carroll, S. (2001). Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Chen, X., Wang, S., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2022). Error-based structure prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from verb bias effects in a visual-world structural priming paradigm for Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 48(1), 60-71. doi:10.1037/xlm0001048 Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic Structures (2nd ed.). New York, NY, USA: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. (2015). The Minimalist Program: 20th Anniversary Edition Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press. Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory & Language, 65(2), 128-144. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.007 Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3-42. doi:10.1017/s0142716406060024 Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(12), 564-570. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002 Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2017). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693-706. doi:10.1017/s0272263117000250 Clifton, C. J., Speer, S., & Abney, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory & Language, 30(2), 251-271. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105. Cunnings, I. (2017). Interference in native and non-native sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 712-721. doi:10.1017/s1366728916001243 D'Arcy, R. C. N., Service, E., Connolly, J. F., & Hawco, C. S. (2005). The influence of increased working memory load on semantic neural systems: A high-resolution event-related brain potential study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res, 22(2), 177-191. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.007 Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9-21. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 Dickson, D. S., & Wicha, N. Y. Y. (2019). P300 amplitude and latency reflect arithmetic skill: An ERP study of the problem size effect. Biological Psychology, 148, 107745. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31470071 Dowens, M. G., & Carreiras, M. (2006). The shallow structure hypothesis of second language sentence processing: What is restricted and why? Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(01), 49-52. doi:10.1017/s0142716406230030 Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101-116. Dussias, P. E., & Scaltz, T. R. C. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501-513. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.004 Erdocia, K., Laka, I., Mestres-Missé, A., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2009). Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from basque. Brain & Language, 109(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.003 Evans, W. S., Caplan, D., Ostrowski, A., Michaud, J., Guarino, A., & Waters, G. (2015). Working memory and the revision of syntactic and discourse ambiguities. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 136-155. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 41, 469-495. Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E., & Rohde, D. (2006). The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 541-553. Felser, C. (2017). Syntactic ambiguity in real-time language processing and diachronic change. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 271-291). NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11-15. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. J. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 25(3), 348-368. Ferreira, F., Engelhardt, P. E., & Jones, M. W. (2009). Good enough language processing: A satisficing approach. Cognitive Science Proceedings, 413-418. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The "Good Enough" approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71-83. Ferstl, E. C. (1994). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: The location of prepositional phrase attachment. (Ph.D.). University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, USA. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (9518618) Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (1998). Reanalysis in Sentence Processing: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(5), 407-434. Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory & Language, 56(3), 357-383. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. (Ph.D.). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review (Vol. 12). East Sussex, UK: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Ltd. Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in human sentence processing mechanism? In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension Processes in Reading (pp. 303-330). New York, NY, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93-126. doi:10.1080/01690968908406359 Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291-325. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1 Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50(1), 119-148. doi:10.1080/027249897392251 Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model aased on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain & Language, 50, 259-281. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1219-1248. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(1), 45-63. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology, 47(3), 193-221. doi:10.1016/s0301-0511(97)00033-1 Frisch, S., Schlesewsky, M., Saddy, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition 85, 83-92. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 37, 58-93. Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (2000). Distinguishing serial and parallel parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 231-240. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gilabert, R., & Muñoz, C. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 19-42. Gompel, R. P. G. v. (1999). The architecture underlying syntactic processing. (Ph.D.). University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (13819003) Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Tunstall, S. (2002). Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 46(2), 267-295. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439-483. doi:10.1080/01690969308407585 Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of Language (pp. 273-316). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hahne, A. (2001). What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 251-266. Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 123-141. doi:10.1017/S1366728901000232 Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25-38. doi:10.1017/s0272263100010457 Hedier, A., Pozniak, C., & Hemforth, B. (2020). Mathematical to language priming: New evidence from French. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing. Hemforth, B., Fernandez, S., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., & Walter, M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43-64. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.010 Hodapp, A., & Rabovsky, M. (2021). The N400 ERP component reflects an error-based implicit learning signal during language comprehension. The European journal of neuroscience, 54(9), 7125-7140. doi:10.1111/ejn.15462 Hopf, J.-M., Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2003). Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 165-177. Hsieh, Y., Boland, J. E., Zhang, Y., & Yan, M. (2009). Limited syntactic parallelism in Chinese ambiguity resolution. Language & Cognitive Processes, 24(7-8), 1227-1264. Jackson, C. N., Lorimor, H., & van Hell, J. G. (2020). The ERP correlates of thematic role assignment for passive versus active sentences. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 54, 100886. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100886 Jung, T.-P., Makeig, S., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., Courchesne, E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 1745-1758. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159-201. doi:10.1080/016909600386084 Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003a). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: a comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 621-635. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00175-7 Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003b). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98-110. doi:10.1162/089892903321107855 Katsika, K. (2009). Exploring the minimal structure in prepositional phrase attachment ambiguities: Evidence from Greek. Lingua, 119, 1482-1500. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.04.006 Kemper, S., & Herman, R. E. (2006). Age differences in memory-load interference effects in syntactic processing. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Science, 61B(6), 327–332. Kennedy, A., Murray, W. S., Jennings, F., & Reid, C. (1989). Parsing complements: Comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3/4), 151-176. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory & Language, 52(2), 205-225. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002 Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory & Language, 33(2), 149-174. Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100(3), 223-237. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006 Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology, 69(3), 218-233. Kweon, S.-O. (2009). Resolving PP attachment ambiguity in lexically-biased constructions in L2 sentence processing. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 171-196. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). The N400 as a snapshot of interactive processing: Evidence from regression analyses of orthographic neighbor and lexical associate effects. Psychophysiology, 48(2), 176-186. Lewis, R. L. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (Vol. 21, pp. 247-284). Netherlands: Springer. Lim, J. H. (2017). Syntactic ambiguity resolution and task influence by Korean learners of English. Language Research, 53(2), 321-341. doi:10.30961/lr.2017.53.2.321 Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 861-883. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2) Long, D. L., & Prat, C. S. (2008). Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Readers vary in their use of plausibility information. Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 375-391. Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontier of Human Neuroscience, 8, 213. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213 MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(2), 157-201. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703. Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory & Language, 58(3), 879-906. Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2009). Memory operations that support language comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), 1231-1239. Martin, A. E., & McElree, B. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory & Language, 64(4), 327-343. Matzke, M., Mai, H., Nager, W., Rüsseler, J., & Münte, T. (2002). The costs of freedom: An ERP study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 844-852. McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111-123. McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 48(1), 67-91. Meier, M. A., Heidekum, A. E., Vogel, S. E., & Grabner, R. H. (2023). Individuals with low arithmetic abilities are sensitive to interference during knowledge retrieval from long-term memory across different domains. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 561-570. Miller, A. K. (2015). Intermediate traces and intermediate learners: Evidence for the use of intermediate structure during sentence processing in second language French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(3), 487-516. doi:10.1017/s0272263114000588 Miyake, A., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory & Language, 33(2), 175-202. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1009 Mueller, J. L., Hahne, A., Fujii, Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Native and nonnative speakers' processing of a miniature version of Japanese as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1229-1244. Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., & Mangun, G. R. (1993). Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(3), 335-344. doi:10.1162/jocn.1993.5.3.335 Niedeggen, M., Rösler, F., & Jost, K. (1999). Processing of incongruous mental calculation problems: evidence for an arithmetic N400 effect. Psychophysiology, 36(3), 307-324. Oberauer, K., & Göthe, K. (2006). Dual-task effects in working memory: Interference between two processing tasks, between two memory demands, and between storage and processing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 493-519. doi:10.1080/09541440500423038 Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 31, 785-806. Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: the role of lexical and contextual information. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 109-138. Park, Y. (2015). Roles of shifting attention, alternating attention and inhibition on temporary syntactic ambiguity resolution and use of context in younger and older adults. (Ph.D.). City University of New York, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Central database. Peckenpaugh, T. (2019). Prepositional phrase attachment ambiguities in declarative and interrogative contexts: Oral reading data. (Ph.D.). City University of New York, New York, USA. Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA); ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. Piai, V., & Roelofs, A. (2013). Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming. Acta Psychologica, 142(3), 332-342. Polich, J. (2012). Neuropsychology of P300. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components (pp. 159-188). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pozniak, C., Copin, M., Turco, G., & Hemforth, B. (2022). How specific are linguistic structures? Mathematical priming on relative clause attachment in French. Linguistic Evidence 2022. Pozniak, C., Hemforth, B., & Scheepers, C. (2018). Cross-domain priming from mathematics to relative-clause attachment: A visual-world study in French. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-20. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02056 Pozniak, C., & Scheepers, C. (2017). Cross-domain priming from mathematics to relative-clause attachment: A visual-world study in French. Paper presented at the Frontier Psychology. Qi, Z., Love, J., Fisher, C., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2020). Referential Context and Executive Functioning Influence Children's Resolution of Syntactic Ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 46(10), 1922-1947. doi:10.1037/xlm0000886 Rah, A., & Adone, D. (2010a). L2 learners’ processing of PP attachment ambiguities: A production study. Paper presented at the 2008 Second Language Research Forum: Exploring SLA Perspectives, Positions, and Practices, Somerville, MA, USA. Rah, A., & Adone, D. (2010b). Processing of the reduced relative clause versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficicency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(1), 79-109. doi:10.1017/S027226310999026X Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 358-374. Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 2030-2048. Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120(8), 2022-2039. Scheepers, C., Sturt, P., Martin, C. J., Myachykov, A., Teevan, K., & Viskupova, I. (2011). Structural priming across cognitive domains: From simple arithmetic to relative-clause attachment. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1319-1326. doi:10.1177/0956797611416997 Schmidt-Kassow, M., Roncaglia-Denissen, M. P., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Why pitch sensitivity matters: Event-related potential evidence of metric and syntactic violation detection among Spanish late learners of German. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 131-142. Schütze, C. T. (1995). PP attachment and argumenthood. In Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition (pp. 95–151). MA, USA: The MIT Press. Shoghi Javan, S. (2024). The impact of visual contextual information and verb argument structure on syntactic parsing preferences: A behavioral-electrophysiological investigation of ambiguous structures in Dutch. (Ph.D.). University of Groningen, Groningen, Nederland. Speer, S. R. (1988). Syntactic and thematic contributions to on-line sentence comprehension. (Ph.D.). The University of Texas at Austin, (8901396) Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(2), 276. Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 24(6), 1521-1543. Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 393-417. doi:10.1093/applin/amu028 Stetina, J., & Nagao, M. (1997). Corpus based PP attachment ambiguity resolution with a semantic dictionary. Paper presented at the Fifth Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Hong Kong. Stevenson, S. (1994). Competition and recency in a hybrid network model of syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23(4), 295-322. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201-216. doi:10.3758/mc.36.1.201 Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 64-81. doi:10.1037/3445.136.1.64 Szűcs, D., & Soltész, F. (2010). Event-related brain potentials to violations of arithmetic syntax represented by place value structure. Biological Psychology, 84(2), 354-367. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20394796 Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory & Language, 27(6), 597-632. Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173-204. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050102 Townsend, J. T. (1971). A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial process. Perception & Psychophysics, 10(3), 161-163. Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 566-585. Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1991). Tense, temporal context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(4), 303-338. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528-553. Truscott, J., & Smith, M. S. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1-20. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 55(2), 157-166. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 65, 247-263. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002 van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory & Language, 45(2), 225-258. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2773 VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. VanPatten, B., & Jegerski, J. (2010). Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. (2016). How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65-82. Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Schriefers, H., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(1), 65-103. doi:10.1080/01690960042000085 Wu, W. (2023). Literature Review: ERP evidence on the factors affecting L2 syntactic processing. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, 6(12), 210-215. Zavrel, J., Daelemans, W., & Veenstra, J. (1997). Resolving PP attachment ambiguities with memory-based learning. Paper presented at the CoNLL97: Computational Natural Language Learning. Zhou, H., Rossi, S., & Chen, B. (2017). Effects of working memory capacity and tasks in processing L2 complex sentence: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-10.
描述:	博士國立政治大學英國語文學系 102551506
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102551506
数据类型:	thesis
显示于类别:	[英國語文學系] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	大小	格式	浏览次数
150601.pdf	3681Kb	Adobe PDF	0	检视/开启

在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回馈