本論文以語意學、認知語言學及心理語言學的觀點，探討中文名詞的多義現象。本篇論文討論詞彙多重意義的語言及心理語言表徵，並研究詞義如何在心理詞彙庫中被擷取。

文中藉由認知語言學者Tuggy（1993）所提出的認知語意架構，及詞彙語意學中「同形異義詞（homonymy）」、「一詞多義（polysemy）」及「模糊意義（vagueness）」等觀念之區辨，探索詞義之本質。本文所談之意義（sense）根據Ahrens（1999）之定義有以下三個特性：（1）意義非轉喻（metonymy）或部分/全體（meronymy）之延伸，但可以是隱喻性延伸；（2）意義之間的延伸關係無法由在同類名詞中直接以規律獲得；（3）除非特意，一詞的不同意義不會在同一語境中同時出現。

針對詞彙辨識歷程的語意效應，本論文有三大研究主題--意義數目效應、意義相關性效應及相對意義頻率效應。各效應之預測如下：「意義數目效應」認為意義數目較多的詞彙在詞彙判斷作業（lexical decision tasks）中比較容易辨識；「意義相關性效應」認為當一個詞的意義之間的相關性較高時，該詞的辨識時間亦會較快；「相對意義頻率效應」則認為一個詞意義之間頻率差異程度越小，該詞越有歧義之特質，也因此越容易辨識。

本研究旨在以實證方式探討這些語意向度在詞彙辨識歷程中所扮演的角色。由受試者提供200個中文名詞的意義並決定意義間的相關性；進行電腦詞彙判斷作業，得到辨識每個詞所需的反應時間；再由統計考驗反應時間來驗證各效應。

本研究結果發現只有「意義數目效應」達顯著水準，意義數目較多的詞彙在詞彙判斷作業中比較容易辨識。此一效應支持心理詞彙庫的隨機觸接模型（random access model）及平行觸接模型（parallel access model）並駁斥「序列搜尋模型（serial access model）」。

This thesis studies the multiple senses of Chinese nominals from semantic, cognitive linguistic, and psycholinguistic viewpoints. It discusses the linguistic and psycholinguistic representations of a word's multiple senses, and the access of these senses in the mental lexicon.

The nature of lexical meaning is examined by discussing lexical semantic notions such as homonymy, polysemy, and vagueness, and by introducing Tuggy's (1993) cognitive linguistic representation of a word's multiple lexical meanings. The "senses" of a word are defined according to the lexical semantic theory of Ahrens (1999) as having three properties: (1) A sense is not an instance of metonymic or meronymic extension, but may be an instance of metaphorical extension. (2) The extension links between two senses cannot be inherited by a class of nouns. (3) Senses cannot appear in the same context (unless the complexity is triggered).

This thesis specifically looks into three semantic effects on word recognition, including the word's number-of-sense (NOS) effect, the effect of sense relatedness, and the effect of relative sense frequency. The predictions of these effects are as follows: The NOS effect predicts that words with more senses are recognized faster than those with fewer senses. The effect of sense relatedness predicts that words with more closely related senses are easier to recognize than those with distantly related senses. The effect of relative sense frequency predicts that words with equal sense frequencies are more easily recognized than words with unequal sense frequencies.

This research aims at empirically verifying these three effects during the recognition of isolated lexical items. Subjects generate the senses of 200 Chinese nominals, and rate the relatedness among these senses. Lexical decision tasks are conducted to obtain the reaction times required to recognize each stimulus item. The semantic effects are verified by comparing the reaction times of different groups of experimental stimuli.

The experimental results confirm only the NOS effect, giving support to the random and parallel access models of lexical access, and refuting the serial access model of the mental lexicon.

Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexical ambiguity resolution: Languages, tasks, and timing. In Dieter Hillert (Ed.) Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 11-31). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ahrens, K. (1999). Lexical representation and lexical access of nominals. Paper presented at the Mini-Conference on Lexical Semantics and Variation, Green Bay, Taipei, May 29.
Ahrens, K. (in press). The mutability of noun and verb meaning. Chinese languages and linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Ahrens, K., Chang, L., Chen, K., & Huang, C. (1998). Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational linguistics and Chinese language processing, 3, 45-60.
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic meaning: Volume one. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed.). (1993). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Azuma, T. (1996). Familiarity and relatedness of word meanings: Ratings for 110 homographs. Behavior research methods, instruments and computers, 28, 109-124.
Azuma, T., & van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of memory and language, 36, 484-504.
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Conner, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature.” In Paula J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.) The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187-222). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 22, 63-85.
Britton, B. K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 1-7.
Carroll, L. (1960). Alice's adventures in wonderland & through the looking-glass (Introd. Horace Gregory). New York: Penguin Books.
Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. J. (1988). The nature of semantic relations: A comparison of two approaches. Related models of the lexicon: Representing knowledge in semantic networks (pp. 289-334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chumbley, J. I., & Balota, D. A. (1984). A word’s meaning affects the decision in lexical decision. Memory and cognition, 12, 590-606.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 12, 335-359.
Collins Cobuild English language dictionary. (1987). London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Cottrell, G. W. (1988). A model of lexical access of ambiguous words. In S. I. Small, G. W. Cottrell and M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.) Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistcs, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 179-194). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.
Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Deane, P. D. (1988). Polysemy and cognition. Lingua, 75, 325-361.
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 24, 1238-1255.
Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1987). Language and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Durkin, K., & Manning. J. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 18, 577-612.
Ferraro, F. R., & Kellas, G. (1990). Normative data for number of word meanings. Behavior research methods, instruments and computers, 22, 491-498.
Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and cognition, 4, 53-61.
Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 12, 627-635.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language, 29, 181-200.
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive linguistics, 4, 223-272.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness and polysemy. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
Gilhooly, K. J., and Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior research methods and instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gwoyeuryhbaw Dictionary '國語日報辭典'. (1989). Taipei: Gwoyeuryhbaw Press.
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 22, 1331-1356.
Huang, C. (1994). Corpus-based studies of Mandarin Chinese: Foundational issues of preliminary results. In M. Chen and O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies of language and language change (pp. 165-186). Taipei: Pyramid Press.
Huang, S. (1994). Chinese as a metonymic language. In M. Chen and O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies of language and language change (pp. 223-252). Taipei: Pyramid Press.
Hue, C-W., Chen Y., Chang, S., & Sung, Y. (1996). Word associations to 600 Chinese homographs. Chinese journal of psychology, 38, 67-168.
Hue, C-W., Yen, N-S., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Studies of homographs in Chinese. In H. W. Chang, J. T. Huang, C-W. Hue, and O. J. Tzeng (Eds.), Advances in the study of Chinese language processing, volume 1 (pp. 375-381). Taipei: Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University.
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 1, 130-136.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive psychology, 13, 278-305.
Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 14, 534-537.
Joordens, S., & Besner, D. (1994). When banking on money is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling.” Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 20, 1051-1062.
Jorgensen, J. C. (1990). The psychological reality of word senses. Journal of psycholinguistic research 19, 167-190.
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical smbiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of memory and language, 32, 474-516.
Kawamoto, A. H., Farrar, W. T. IV, & Kello, C. T. (1994). When two meanings are better than one: Modeling the ambiguity advantage using a recurrent distributed network. Journal of experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1233-1247.
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the time-course of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 14, 601-609.
Kilgarriff, A. (1993). Dictionary word Sense distinctions: An enquiry into their nature. Computers and the humanities, 26, 365-387.
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). 'I don’t believe in word senses.' Computers and the humanities, 31, 91-113.
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). What is word disambiguation good for? Proceedings of natural language processing in the Pacific rim (NLPRS’ 97) (pp. 209-214), Phuket, Thailand.
Kilgarriff, A., & Gazdar, G. (1995). Polysemous relations. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.) Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons (pp. 1-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1970). A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic inquiry, 1, 357-359.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Standard University Press.
Lao Tsu. (1972). Tao te ching (G. Feng & J. English, Trans.; Introd. Jacob Needleman). New York: Vintage Books.
Lee, J. (1995). 漢語組合詞與成語詞在心理辭典中的表徵方式 [The representation of Chinese compositional and idiomatic compounds in the mental lexicon.] Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Chung-Cheng University.
Lin, C. C. (in press). Dictionary meanings, subjects' intuition, and linguistic senses: Different versions of the same story? Proceedings of the 1999 NCCU conference of graduate students' research. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Lu, C. (1996). Chinese word recognition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing-Hua University.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics: Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masson, M. E., & Borowsky, R. (1995). Unsettling questions about semantic ambiguity in connectionist models: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994). Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 21, 509-514.
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol2: Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.). (1996). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Millis, M. L., & Button, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t. Memory and cognition, 17, 141-147.
Morton, J. (1979). Word recognition. In J. Morton and J. C. Marshall (Eds.) Psycholinguisitcs 2: Structure and processes (pp. 107-156). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Panman, O. (1982). Homonymy and polysemy. Lingua, 58, 105-136.
Pustejovsky, J., & Boguraev, B. (1996). Introduction: Lexical semantics in context. In James Pustejovsky and B. Boguraev (Eds.) Lexical semantics: The problem of polysemy (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. (1967). J. Stein. (Ed.). New York: Random House.
Revised Chinese Dictionary '重編國語辭典（修訂本）'. (1997). Computerized CD-Rom Version. Taipei: Ministry of Education, ROC.
Rubenstein, H., L., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 9, 487-494.
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon: Effects of systematicity and relative frequency of meanings. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 10, 57-62.
Rueckl, J. G. (1995). Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution—comment on Joordens and Besner (1994). Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 501-508.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shoen, L. M. (1988). Semantic flexibility and core meaning. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 17, 113-123.
Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological bulletin, 96, 316-340.
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 11, 28-39.
Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1988). Implications of lexical ambiguity resolution for word recognition and comprehension. In S. I. Small, G. W. Cottrell and M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.) Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistcs, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 271-288). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.
Su, L. I., & Liu, L. H. (1999). Metaphorical extension and lexical meaning. Proceedings of the thirteenth Pacific conference on language and computational linguistics (pp. 63-74). Taipei: PCLIC-13.
Taft, M., Huang, J., & Zhu, X. (1994). The influence of character frequency on word recognition responses in Chinese. In H. W. Chang, J. T. Huang, C. W. Hue and O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.) Advances in the study of Chinese language processing, volume 1 (pp. 59-73). Taipei: Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsai, C. (1994). Effects of semantic transparency on the recognition of Chinese two-character words: Evidence for a dual-process model. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Chung-Cheng University.
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive linguistics, 4, 273-290.
Ullman, S. (1957). The principles of semantics. London: Basil Blackwell.
Webster's New World Dictionary, Unabridged. (1981). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.
Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd ed). (1980). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition. (1994). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. (1976). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. (1981). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.
Wilks, Y. A., Slator, B. M., & Guthrie, L. M. (1996). Electric words: Dictionaries, computers, and meanings. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Williams, J. N. (1992). Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 21, 193-218.
Zhang, Q. (1998). Fuzziness--vagueness--generality--ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 29, 13-31.
Zwicky, A. M., & Sadock, J. M. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In John P. Kimball (Ed.) Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4 (pp.1-36). New York: Academic Press.