臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文探討認知功能如何預測歧義字的處理及翻譯，並分別針對口、筆譯者和高階雙語人士施測四個與歧義字和認知功能相關的實驗，同時比較各組在反應時間和正確率上的差異。實驗參與者共計47人，皆(曾)就讀國立彰化師範大學的翻譯研究所或英語研究所。
本文包括四個實驗。在實驗一中，實驗參與者必須判別第一個出現的字，是否與接下來句中的歧義字相關；實驗二為閱讀廣度測驗(reading span task)，用於測驗工作記憶；實驗三中，實驗參與者須選出歧義字的相關或對應中譯；實驗四則為色彩念名測驗(Stroop color naming task)，用於測試實驗參與者的抑制能力。
實驗參與者在認知功能與歧義字翻譯的表現將被量化，並計算出每位實驗參與者、和各組別在四個實驗中的平均反應時間和平均正確率，最後再以SPSS 20統計軟體的ANOVA分析不同組別的認知功能與翻譯歧義字的正確率及反應時間之差異。接著進行回歸分析，以實驗二和四的認知功能結果預測實驗一和三的歧義字表現。結果顯示口譯組的工作記憶和抑制能力顯著高於雙語組，且認知功能也能有效預測實驗參與者理解並翻譯歧義字的正確率。

This thesis investigates how cognitive functions can predict the performance of translators, interpreters and bilinguals in understanding and translating a homonym in an ambiguous context in respect of reaction times and accuracy rates. The participants were separated into three groups: interpreters, translators, and bilinguals, who were students at either Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation or Graduate Institute of English at National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
The thesis included four experiments. In Experiment 1, the participants were required to decide the relation between an English word and its following sentence that contained two homonyms. Experiment 2 was a reading span task that was designed to test working memory span of the participants in English and in Chinese. In Experiment 3, the participants were asked to choose the most related or the literal Chinese translation of an English homonym highlighted in an English sentence. Experiment 4 was a Stroop color naming task that was designed to test the participants’ executive function.
Means of different groups’ reaction times and accuracy rates were computed with SPSS 20. An ANOVA was conducted to compare the participants’ performance differences in tasks testing homonym access and cognitive functions; secondly, a regression analysis was conducted to predict the homonym performance of the three participant groups (data in Experiments 1 and 3) from the cognitive functions data obtained in Experiment 2 and 4. The results suggested that interpreters had significant larger working memory and better inhibitory abilities than bilinguals, which could be predictive of their accuracy rates from the lexical access task (Experiment 1) and from the homonym translation task (Experiment 3).

Table of Contents
摘要 i
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Appendices ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 3
1.2 Motivation 4
1.3 Research Questions 5
1.4 Significance of the Study 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Lexical Access of a Homonym 8
2.1.1 What is Homonym? 8
2.1.2 Factors Disambiguating a Homonym 9
2.2 Working Memory and Inhibitory Abilities in Lexical Access of a Homonym 12
2.2.1 Cognitive Function: Working Memory Capacity 12
2.2.2 Relation between Working Memory and Homonyms 15
2.2.3 Cognitive Function: Inhibitory Abilities and Its Relation to Homonyms 18
2.3 Relation between Cognitive Functions and Translation/Interpretation 20
2.3.1 Cognitive Functions of Translation 21
2.3.2 Cognitive Functions of Interpretation 22
Chapter 3 Methodology 24
3.1 Participants 25
3.2 Materials 27
3.3 Procedure 28
3.4 Data Analysis 28
Chapter 4 Experiment 1: Homonym Relatedness Task 30
4.1 Participants 30
4.2 Materials 30
4.3 Procedure 31
4.4 Results and Discussion: Experiment 1 33
4.4.1 Accuracy Rates 33
4.4.2 Reaction Times 35
Chapter 5 Experiment 2: Reading Span Task 38
5.1 Participants 38
5.2 Materials 38
5.3 Procedure 39
5.4 Results and Discussion: Experiment 2 41
Chapter 6 Experiment 3: Homonym Translation Selection Task 44
6.1 Participants 44
6.2 Materials 44
6.3 Procedure 46
6.4 Results and Discussion: Experiment 3 47
6.4.1 Accuracy Rates 48
6.4.2 Reaction Times 51
Chapter 7 Experiment 4: Stroop Color Naming Task 54
7.1 Participants 54
7.2 Materials 54
7.3 Procedure 55
7.4 Results and Discussion: Experiment 4 56
7.4.1 Accuracy Rates 56
7.4.2 Reaction Times 58
Chapter 8 Post-experiment Questionnaire 63
8.1 Participants 63
8.2 Materials 63
8.3 Procedure 64
8.4 Results and Discussion: Post-experiment Questionnaire 64
Chapter 9 Results and Discussion: Cognitive Functions and Homonyms 67
9.1 Cognitive Functions and Experiment 1 67
9.2 Cognitive Functions and Experiment 3 72
Chapter 10 Conclusions 75
10.1 Summary and Discussion 75
10.1.1 Performance in homonym translation 75
10.1.2 Working Memory and Homonym Translation 78
10.1.3 Inhibitory Abilities and Homonym Translation 79
10.2 Research Limitations 80
10.3 Suggestions for Future Research 82
References 84
Appendices 90

References
Arêas da Luz Fontes, A. B., & Schwartz, A. I. (2010). Working memory influences on cross-language activation during bilingual lexical disambiguation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(03), 360-370. doi:10.1017/s1366728910000374
Arêas da Luz Fontes, A. B., & Schwartz, A. I. (2014). Bilingual access of homonym meanings: Individual differences in bilingual access of homonym meanings. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(04), 639-656. doi:10.1017/s1366728914000509
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 5-28. doi:10.1080/713755608
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851-864. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.11.851
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47-89.
Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2003). Event-related potential and reaction time evidence for inhibition between alternative meanings of ambiguous words. Brain and Language, 86(2), 167-192. doi:10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00527-8
Cognition. (2013). In American Psychological Association. Retreived from http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary.aspx?tab=3
Cris Hamilton, A., & Martin, R. C. (2005). Dissociations among tasks involving inhibition: A single-case study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(1), 1-13. doi:10.3758/cabn.5.1.1
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
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(4), 481-501. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2526
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2013). An introduction to language (10 ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Gadsby, N., Arnott, W. L., & Copland, D. A. (2008). An investigation of working memory influences on lexical ambiguity resolution. Neuropsychology, 22(2), 209-216. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.22.2.209
Goldenberg, G. (2001). Neuropsychology of memory and the central executive. In F. Henn, N. Sartorius, H. Helmchen, & H. Lauter (Eds.), Contemporary Psychiatry: Volume 1 Foundations of Psychiatry, Volume 2 Psychiatry in Special Situations, Volume 3 Specific Psychiatric Disorders (pp. 223-237). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Working memory and lexical ambiguity resolution as Rrevealed by ERPs: A difficult case for activation theories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(5), 643-657. doi:10.1162/jocn.2003.15.5.643
Hiltunen, S., Paakkonen, R., Vik, G. V., & Krause, C. M. (2014). On interpreters' working memory and executive control. International Journal of Bilingualism. doi:10.1177/1367006914554406
Huang, L.-s. A. (2005). What sense makes aense? Beginning translators' difficulties with English polysemous words. Studies of Translation and Interpretation(9), 201-234.
Ibáñez, A. J., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2010). Language access and language selection in professional translators. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 257-266. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.009
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 47-70. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
Keele, S. W., & Neill, W. T. (1978). Mechanisms of attention. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of Perception: Perceptual Processing (Vol. 9, pp. 3-47). New York: Academic Press.
Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2014). The working memory Stroop effect when internal representations clash With external stimuli. Psychological science, 25(8), 1619-1629.
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81(1-3), 205-223. doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2518
Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: an EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain Lang, 123(1), 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007
Konig, C. J., Buhner, M., & Murling, G. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not. Human Performance, 18(3), 243-266. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1803_3
Lin, H. Z. (2009). Polysemant’s meaning restricted by coocurence in translation. Journal of Hunan University of technology social science edtion, 14(6), 118-121.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012
Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children: (pp. 141-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A., & Van Diviner, B. (2008). Assessment and intervention for executive function difficulties: Taylor & Francis.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current directions in psychological science, 21(1), 8-14. doi:10.1177/0963721411429458
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
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 and Language, 33(2), 175-202.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, 11, 264-336.
Neill, W. T. (1977). Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 444-450. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.3.444
Neill, W. T. (1989). Lexical ambiguity and context: An activation-suppression model. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving Semantic Ambiguity (pp. 63-83). New York, NY: Springer New York.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225-236. doi:10.3758/bf03196957
Revlin, R. (2012). Cognition: Theory and practice. New York: Worth Publisher.
Rodd, J. M., Lopez Cutrin, B., Kirsch, H., Millar, A., & Davis, M. H. (2013). Long-term priming of the meanings of ambiguous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 180-198. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.08.002
Signorelli, T. M., Haarmann, H. J., & Obler, L. K. (2011). Working memory in simultaneous interpreters: Effects of task and age. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 198-212. doi:10.1177/1367006911403200
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(1), 28-39.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.
Titz, C., & Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. Psychological Research, 78(6), 852-868. doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0537-1
Tsai, P.-S. (2014). Interpretation, translation, the mind and the brain: New directions for cross-disciplinary research. SPECTRUM ： NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, 12(1), 87-101.
Tsai, P.-S. (2016). Flipping the Translation in Popular Science: In Both Directions Between English and Chinese. Oxford, UK: Chartridge Books Oxford.
Twilley, L. C., Dixon, P., Taylor, D., & Clark, K. (1994). University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 111-126. doi:10.3758/bf03202766
Tzou, Y. Z., Eslami, Z. R., Chen, H. C., & Vaid, J. (2011). Effect of language proficiency and degree of formal training in simultaneous interpreting on working memory and interpreting performance: Evidence from Mandarin-English speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 213-227. doi:10.1177/1367006911403197
Yang, P.-L. (2015). Interaction of working memory capacity and foreign language proficiency. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 41, 95-115.
Zhang, W., & Wang, K. F. (2007). Interpreting and working memory: Views and comments. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1, 43-47.