汉语双音节复合词识别中的频率效应
|
摘要
对于词汇认知来讲，频率是最重要的变量，视觉词汇认知的模型大多也是依据频率效应进行建构的。但已有研究对复合词识别中频率效应的认识依然存在着较大的分歧，主要表现在对词素频率效应和词素家族效应的性质、频率因素之间的关系、频率因素与语义透明度的关系、频率因素发生作用的阶段等方面的认识上。对已有文献分析发现，产生研究分歧的原因主要有两个：一是，较多的研究忽略了作为自变量的频率因素和作为无关变量的频率因素之间的交互作用；二是，一些研究采用的目标刺激呈现时间不同。因此，本研究在处理好上述两个方面的前提下，通过五个实验探讨了频率因素之间的关系及频率因素发生作用的阶段，揭示汉语复合词识别中词素家族效应、词素频率效应的发生机制和语义透明度在复合词识别中的作用。其中前两个实验探讨词素家族大小、词素频率的性质以及频率因素之间的关系，后三个实验探讨频率因素发生作用的阶段。实验1还考察目标刺激呈现时间长短对频率效应的影响，为消除复合词识别中频率效应的研究分歧提供了实验依据。
实验1实验1选用与以往研究相类似的词汇材料，探讨在不同目标刺激呈现时间条件下的汉语透明复合词识别过程中词素家族大小、词频和词素频率的关系，一方面是为了弄清造成复合词识别研究分歧的主要原因，另一方面也是为进一步准确地观察词素频率、词频和语义透明度之间的关系奠定基础。实验1发现：（1）词素家族效应是促进性的，且词素家族大小与词频之间、词素家族大小与词素频率之间均存在着交互作用。（2）词素频率是抑制性的，具体表现为高词素频率阻碍了低频透明复合词的识别。（3）实验1a-1e的结果显示，目标刺激呈现时间长短影响频率效应的表现。通过对比实验1a-1e与其它研究的实验结果，发现目标刺激呈现时间不同、忽略作为自变量的频率因素和作为无关变量的频率因素之间的交互作用对实验结果的影响，是造成复合词识别研究存在分歧的主要原因。
实验2在排除了词素家族大小对复合词识别影响的前提下，探讨了目标刺激呈现时间为2000ms、500ms、300ms条件下的词素频率、词频与语义透明度之间的关系，并将目标刺激呈现500ms和300ms条件下的实验结果与已有研究进行了对比。结果表明：（1）在目标刺激呈现2000ms条件下，词素频率效应在低频透明复合词识别中是抑制性的，而在不透明复合词识别中是促进性的；（2）再一次表明目标刺激呈现时间不同、忽略作为自变量的频率因素和作为无关变量的频率因素之间的交互作用是复合词识别研究存在分歧的主要原因。根据实验2a的结果，本研究推论词素频率效应的性质是由词素表征激活扩散的程度来决定的，而词素表征激活扩散的程度受到两个因素的影响：一是词素和整词语义的关联度（语义透明度）大小，识别系统依此来决定是否允许词素表征进一步激活扩散，二是词素频率和词频的高低，这决定着识别系统对词素表征激活扩散的抑制早晚。识别系统根据对词素语义和整词语义关联性大小的评估，来决定是否允许词素表征进一步激活扩散，这就意味着无论高频复合词还是低频复合词的整词语义表征都应出现得较早。已有研究表明不透明词的通达是经由整词形式进行的（王春茂，彭聃龄，2000；Sandra，1990；Marslen-Wilson et al.，1994），高频透明词是经由整词通达的，低频透明词的通达则是经由词素表征通达的（Caramazza，Laudanna&Romani，1988；田宏杰，2005），不支持低频透明词的整词语义表征出现较早的观点。因此，需要为“低频透明复合词整词语义表征出现得较早”的推论寻找有效的实验证据。（3）实验2d以语义透明逆序词为材料，采用前掩蔽启动范式，在平衡了笔画数、词素频率、词素家族大小等因素，并控制了词素启动的基础上，以高频复合词整词语义表征的激活时间为标准，验证低频复合词整词语义表征也激活较早的推论，结果发现在启动时间为43ms的条件下，高频复合词和低频复合词的整词语义表征均已经激活，只是低频词的整词语义表征激活的程度较小，仅对低频词识别的错误率产生影响。实验2d的结果支持了低频复合词整词语义表征也激活较早的推论，为词素频率效应发生机制的推论提供了实验依据。
实验3采用与实验1相同的实验材料，使用时间精密度较高的眼动追踪技术考察词素家族大小在透明复合词识别中发生作用的阶段。结果发现词频和词素家族大小在透明复合词首次注视时间上的交互作用边缘显著，表明词素家族大小在复合词识别的早期发生作用。
实验4采用与实验2相同的实验材料，使用眼动追踪技术探讨词频在复合词识别中发生作用的阶段。结果发现：（1）词素频率在首次注视时间上具有促进作用，这表明词素表征出现的较早；（2）词频与语义透明度在第二次注视时间上存在交互作用，这表明词频、语义透明度在复合词识别的中期发生作用；（3）在最后一次注视时间上透明词比不透明的注视时间短，这表明词素语义在复合词识别晚期具有重要的作用。实验4的结果表明词频在复合词识别的中期发生作用，语义透明度发生作用的阶段则在词识别的中后期。按照实验2a的推论，语义透明度的作用应出现的较早，而实验4发现词素频率的作用出现的较早，这可能与被试的反应策略有关。尽管如此，实验4与实验2a所体现的加工过程是大体上还是一致的，部分支持了实验2a提出的词素频率效应的发生机制。
实验5实验5将实验4的实验材料编成句子，使用眼动追踪技术考察了自然阅读情形下的频率效应及频率因素发生作用的阶段。结果显示，语义透明度影响首次注视时间，在第二次注视时间上词素频率、词频和语义透明度三者间的交互作用与实验2a的情形基本一致。因此，实验5支持了实验2a提出的词素频率效应的发生机制。
通过以上实验，本研究得出以下结论：（1）词频的作用发生在复合词识别的早期和中期阶段，词频效应是促进性的，词频高的复合词识别速度比词频低的复合词快；（2）词素家族大小效应发生复合词识别的早期，呈现较弱的促进性作用，具体表现为词素家族大的复合词识别速度快于词素家族小的复合词；（3）词素频率的作用也发生在复合词识别的早期、中期阶段，词素频率效应的性质是由词素语义与整词语义的关联度（语义透明度）、词素表征和整词表征激活得相对快慢两个方面来决定的；（4）语义透明度的作用贯穿于复合词识别的整个过程，影响着词素表征和整词表征的相互作用。
根据以上实验结果，本研究认为汉语双音节复合词的识别过程分为三个阶段：第一阶段，识别系统首先评估已经激活的词素表征和整词表征的语义关系；第二阶段，识别系统根据词素表征的有用性和整词表征激活水平的高低来决定是否允许词素表征进一步激活扩散。在词素表征和整词表征的相互作用中整词表征激活水平逐渐升高，并成为优势表征，从而完成词汇通达；最后阶段，识别系统在词素语义的帮助下对整词进行核证、确认，以完成词汇判断。汉语双音节复合词识别还有两个重要的特点：一是，词素表征、整词表征之间的相互作用呈现出动态性特点；二是，不论词频高低，复合词整词语义表征都激活的较早，并在复合词识别过程中居于中心地位。
Most models of the compound words recognition are based on the effect of frequency.The word frequency effect reflects the representation of the whole compound word and thefrequency effect of morphemes reflects the representation of morpheme. According to thetime-course of frequency effect, some researchers have different understanding for therecognition of the compound words, and constructed different theoretical models. Manyresearchers believe that the effect of word frequency facilitates to the identification of thecompound words, but there are divarications regarding the interaction among the wordfrequency, the frequency of morphemes and the family size of morphemes. We also found thatthere are some differences on methodology in existing research. On the one hand, someresearches neglected the interaction among word frequency, frequency of morphemes and thefamily size of morphemes. On the other hand, some researches neglected the influence of theduration of stimulates presented in experiments studying compound words. This study willexamine the interaction among word frequency, frequency of morphemes and the family sizeof morphemes, and discuss the recognition mechanism of Chinese compound words andfrequency effect.
Experiment1, the purpose of which is to compare itself with the results of some previousresearches (Peng, et al,1999; Tian, et al,2009）, simulated previous experiments’ conditions,using the same experiment task but different presenting duration of stimulants(2000ms,1500ms，1000ms，500ms and300ms). The results show a small facilitating effect of familysize and inhibitory effects of the morpheme frequency. The word frequency induces the effectof morphemes family size and the effect of words frequency regulates the processing of themorpheme representation. The relationship between the three factors is complex and dynamic.We also found that the family size of morphemes occurred at the earlier stage of theprocessing of compound words. The presenting duration of stimulants is an important factorinfluencing the effect of frequency and a cause for the difference in the results of the previousresearch.
Experiment2probes into the relationship of the frequency among the frequency ofmorphemes, the word frequency and the semantic transparency. Like the former experiments，experiment2is also carried out using the lexical decision task. The results indicate that thereis an interaction effect among the frequency of morphemes, the word frequency and thesemantic transparency. The results suggest that semantic transparency and word frequencydefermine the direction of the morphemes frequency effect. In experiment2a-2c, the resultsalso validate the influence of the presenting duration of stimulants on the effect of frequencyfactors. The results of experiment2d indicate that the priming effect of word semanticrelevancy appears for43ms in both high word frequency compounds and low word frequencycompounds. It is indicated that the representation of whole word can also appear in the earlystages of the compound word recognition. The results of experiment2d support the view thatthe semantic transparency and the word frequency determine the direction of the morphemesfrequency effect in the early stage of compound words recognition.
In experiment3, we used tracking technique with high time precision of eye movementto investigate the relationships among factors for the same experiment materials asexperiment1. The interaction between the frequency and the family size of morphemes ismarginal significant for the first fixation duretion. One of the important results is that theeffect of the family size of morphemes appears very early. Throughout the experiment, we canmake clear the relationship among word frequency, morphemes frequency and the size ofmorpheme family.
Using the tracking technology of eye movement, the experiment4checked therelationship among the frequency of morphemes, the word frequency and semantictransparency. Like the former experiments, experiment4is also executed using the lexicaldecision task. The results indicated that (1) the frequency of morphemes reflecting morphemerepresentation influences the duration of first fixation,(2) semantic transparency and wordfrequency influence the duration of second fixation.
Experiment5uses the tracking technology of eye movement to check the relationship among semantic transparency, word frequency and the frequency of morphemes of theChinese compound words in sentences. The results indicate that (1) semantic transparencyinfluences the duration of first fixation in the first run,(2) the frequency of morphemes,semantic transparency and the word frequency influence the duration of the second fixation.
The results in this paper show that the effect of the family size of morpheme and theeffect of the word frequency appear earlier. Though the earlier process is very short, theinformation of the compound word is perceived very quickly and effectively. This paper alsofound that the representation of the whole compound word is in a dominant position duringthe lexical access. The important factors for compound word recognition are founded justduring the first scan of our eyes. Before precise processing of compound words, therecognition system must make a rough processing. The readers cast their first look at thecentral area of the compound word, basing on a lot of reading practice and vocabularylearning knowledge. In the first scan, the recognition system would assess the information andidentify the most important information. The recognition system will follow the clues andregulate the lexical information representation activation level, and collect the availableinformation to promote the representation activation level of whole word to assist theconfirmation of the compound words and complete the recognition of the words.
实验1实验1选用与以往研究相类似的词汇材料，探讨在不同目标刺激呈现时间条件下的汉语透明复合词识别过程中词素家族大小、词频和词素频率的关系，一方面是为了弄清造成复合词识别研究分歧的主要原因，另一方面也是为进一步准确地观察词素频率、词频和语义透明度之间的关系奠定基础。实验1发现：（1）词素家族效应是促进性的，且词素家族大小与词频之间、词素家族大小与词素频率之间均存在着交互作用。（2）词素频率是抑制性的，具体表现为高词素频率阻碍了低频透明复合词的识别。（3）实验1a-1e的结果显示，目标刺激呈现时间长短影响频率效应的表现。通过对比实验1a-1e与其它研究的实验结果，发现目标刺激呈现时间不同、忽略作为自变量的频率因素和作为无关变量的频率因素之间的交互作用对实验结果的影响，是造成复合词识别研究存在分歧的主要原因。
实验2在排除了词素家族大小对复合词识别影响的前提下，探讨了目标刺激呈现时间为2000ms、500ms、300ms条件下的词素频率、词频与语义透明度之间的关系，并将目标刺激呈现500ms和300ms条件下的实验结果与已有研究进行了对比。结果表明：（1）在目标刺激呈现2000ms条件下，词素频率效应在低频透明复合词识别中是抑制性的，而在不透明复合词识别中是促进性的；（2）再一次表明目标刺激呈现时间不同、忽略作为自变量的频率因素和作为无关变量的频率因素之间的交互作用是复合词识别研究存在分歧的主要原因。根据实验2a的结果，本研究推论词素频率效应的性质是由词素表征激活扩散的程度来决定的，而词素表征激活扩散的程度受到两个因素的影响：一是词素和整词语义的关联度（语义透明度）大小，识别系统依此来决定是否允许词素表征进一步激活扩散，二是词素频率和词频的高低，这决定着识别系统对词素表征激活扩散的抑制早晚。识别系统根据对词素语义和整词语义关联性大小的评估，来决定是否允许词素表征进一步激活扩散，这就意味着无论高频复合词还是低频复合词的整词语义表征都应出现得较早。已有研究表明不透明词的通达是经由整词形式进行的（王春茂，彭聃龄，2000；Sandra，1990；Marslen-Wilson et al.，1994），高频透明词是经由整词通达的，低频透明词的通达则是经由词素表征通达的（Caramazza，Laudanna&Romani，1988；田宏杰，2005），不支持低频透明词的整词语义表征出现较早的观点。因此，需要为“低频透明复合词整词语义表征出现得较早”的推论寻找有效的实验证据。（3）实验2d以语义透明逆序词为材料，采用前掩蔽启动范式，在平衡了笔画数、词素频率、词素家族大小等因素，并控制了词素启动的基础上，以高频复合词整词语义表征的激活时间为标准，验证低频复合词整词语义表征也激活较早的推论，结果发现在启动时间为43ms的条件下，高频复合词和低频复合词的整词语义表征均已经激活，只是低频词的整词语义表征激活的程度较小，仅对低频词识别的错误率产生影响。实验2d的结果支持了低频复合词整词语义表征也激活较早的推论，为词素频率效应发生机制的推论提供了实验依据。
实验3采用与实验1相同的实验材料，使用时间精密度较高的眼动追踪技术考察词素家族大小在透明复合词识别中发生作用的阶段。结果发现词频和词素家族大小在透明复合词首次注视时间上的交互作用边缘显著，表明词素家族大小在复合词识别的早期发生作用。
实验4采用与实验2相同的实验材料，使用眼动追踪技术探讨词频在复合词识别中发生作用的阶段。结果发现：（1）词素频率在首次注视时间上具有促进作用，这表明词素表征出现的较早；（2）词频与语义透明度在第二次注视时间上存在交互作用，这表明词频、语义透明度在复合词识别的中期发生作用；（3）在最后一次注视时间上透明词比不透明的注视时间短，这表明词素语义在复合词识别晚期具有重要的作用。实验4的结果表明词频在复合词识别的中期发生作用，语义透明度发生作用的阶段则在词识别的中后期。按照实验2a的推论，语义透明度的作用应出现的较早，而实验4发现词素频率的作用出现的较早，这可能与被试的反应策略有关。尽管如此，实验4与实验2a所体现的加工过程是大体上还是一致的，部分支持了实验2a提出的词素频率效应的发生机制。
实验5实验5将实验4的实验材料编成句子，使用眼动追踪技术考察了自然阅读情形下的频率效应及频率因素发生作用的阶段。结果显示，语义透明度影响首次注视时间，在第二次注视时间上词素频率、词频和语义透明度三者间的交互作用与实验2a的情形基本一致。因此，实验5支持了实验2a提出的词素频率效应的发生机制。
通过以上实验，本研究得出以下结论：（1）词频的作用发生在复合词识别的早期和中期阶段，词频效应是促进性的，词频高的复合词识别速度比词频低的复合词快；（2）词素家族大小效应发生复合词识别的早期，呈现较弱的促进性作用，具体表现为词素家族大的复合词识别速度快于词素家族小的复合词；（3）词素频率的作用也发生在复合词识别的早期、中期阶段，词素频率效应的性质是由词素语义与整词语义的关联度（语义透明度）、词素表征和整词表征激活得相对快慢两个方面来决定的；（4）语义透明度的作用贯穿于复合词识别的整个过程，影响着词素表征和整词表征的相互作用。
根据以上实验结果，本研究认为汉语双音节复合词的识别过程分为三个阶段：第一阶段，识别系统首先评估已经激活的词素表征和整词表征的语义关系；第二阶段，识别系统根据词素表征的有用性和整词表征激活水平的高低来决定是否允许词素表征进一步激活扩散。在词素表征和整词表征的相互作用中整词表征激活水平逐渐升高，并成为优势表征，从而完成词汇通达；最后阶段，识别系统在词素语义的帮助下对整词进行核证、确认，以完成词汇判断。汉语双音节复合词识别还有两个重要的特点：一是，词素表征、整词表征之间的相互作用呈现出动态性特点；二是，不论词频高低，复合词整词语义表征都激活的较早，并在复合词识别过程中居于中心地位。
Most models of the compound words recognition are based on the effect of frequency.The word frequency effect reflects the representation of the whole compound word and thefrequency effect of morphemes reflects the representation of morpheme. According to thetime-course of frequency effect, some researchers have different understanding for therecognition of the compound words, and constructed different theoretical models. Manyresearchers believe that the effect of word frequency facilitates to the identification of thecompound words, but there are divarications regarding the interaction among the wordfrequency, the frequency of morphemes and the family size of morphemes. We also found thatthere are some differences on methodology in existing research. On the one hand, someresearches neglected the interaction among word frequency, frequency of morphemes and thefamily size of morphemes. On the other hand, some researches neglected the influence of theduration of stimulates presented in experiments studying compound words. This study willexamine the interaction among word frequency, frequency of morphemes and the family sizeof morphemes, and discuss the recognition mechanism of Chinese compound words andfrequency effect.
Experiment1, the purpose of which is to compare itself with the results of some previousresearches (Peng, et al,1999; Tian, et al,2009）, simulated previous experiments’ conditions,using the same experiment task but different presenting duration of stimulants(2000ms,1500ms，1000ms，500ms and300ms). The results show a small facilitating effect of familysize and inhibitory effects of the morpheme frequency. The word frequency induces the effectof morphemes family size and the effect of words frequency regulates the processing of themorpheme representation. The relationship between the three factors is complex and dynamic.We also found that the family size of morphemes occurred at the earlier stage of theprocessing of compound words. The presenting duration of stimulants is an important factorinfluencing the effect of frequency and a cause for the difference in the results of the previousresearch.
Experiment2probes into the relationship of the frequency among the frequency ofmorphemes, the word frequency and the semantic transparency. Like the former experiments，experiment2is also carried out using the lexical decision task. The results indicate that thereis an interaction effect among the frequency of morphemes, the word frequency and thesemantic transparency. The results suggest that semantic transparency and word frequencydefermine the direction of the morphemes frequency effect. In experiment2a-2c, the resultsalso validate the influence of the presenting duration of stimulants on the effect of frequencyfactors. The results of experiment2d indicate that the priming effect of word semanticrelevancy appears for43ms in both high word frequency compounds and low word frequencycompounds. It is indicated that the representation of whole word can also appear in the earlystages of the compound word recognition. The results of experiment2d support the view thatthe semantic transparency and the word frequency determine the direction of the morphemesfrequency effect in the early stage of compound words recognition.
In experiment3, we used tracking technique with high time precision of eye movementto investigate the relationships among factors for the same experiment materials asexperiment1. The interaction between the frequency and the family size of morphemes ismarginal significant for the first fixation duretion. One of the important results is that theeffect of the family size of morphemes appears very early. Throughout the experiment, we canmake clear the relationship among word frequency, morphemes frequency and the size ofmorpheme family.
Using the tracking technology of eye movement, the experiment4checked therelationship among the frequency of morphemes, the word frequency and semantictransparency. Like the former experiments, experiment4is also executed using the lexicaldecision task. The results indicated that (1) the frequency of morphemes reflecting morphemerepresentation influences the duration of first fixation,(2) semantic transparency and wordfrequency influence the duration of second fixation.
Experiment5uses the tracking technology of eye movement to check the relationship among semantic transparency, word frequency and the frequency of morphemes of theChinese compound words in sentences. The results indicate that (1) semantic transparencyinfluences the duration of first fixation in the first run,(2) the frequency of morphemes,semantic transparency and the word frequency influence the duration of the second fixation.
The results in this paper show that the effect of the family size of morpheme and theeffect of the word frequency appear earlier. Though the earlier process is very short, theinformation of the compound word is perceived very quickly and effectively. This paper alsofound that the representation of the whole compound word is in a dominant position duringthe lexical access. The important factors for compound word recognition are founded justduring the first scan of our eyes. Before precise processing of compound words, therecognition system must make a rough processing. The readers cast their first look at thecentral area of the compound word, basing on a lot of reading practice and vocabularylearning knowledge. In the first scan, the recognition system would assess the information andidentify the most important information. The recognition system will follow the clues andregulate the lexical information representation activation level, and collect the availableinformation to promote the representation activation level of whole word to assist theconfirmation of the compound words and complete the recognition of the words.
引文
[1]北京大学中文系现代汉语调研室编.现代汉语(重排本)[M].商务印书馆出版,2009.
[2]卞迁,崔磊,阎国利.成分位置颠倒对汉语句子阅读影响的眼动研究[J].心理研究.2010,3(1):29-35.
[3]陈宝国,彭聃龄.词的具体性对词汇识别的影响[J].心理学报,1998,30(4):387-393.
[4]陈宝国,彭聃龄.汉语双字多义词识别的优势效应[J].心理学报,2001,33(1):1-6.
[5]陈曦,张积家.汉语多词素词的心理表征和加工机制的心理学研究[D].广州:华南师范大学.2004.
[6]陈曦,张积家,舒华.颜色成分在词义不透明双字词中的语义激活[J]．心理科学,2006,29(6):1359-1363.
[7]陈煦海,黄希庭.汉语双字合成词口语产生的词素信息编码[J].心理学报,2010,42(3):377-386.
[8]崔磊.中文复合词预视加工的眼动研究[D].天津:天津师范大学,2011.
[9]丁国盛,彭聃龄.汉语逆序词识别中整词与成分的关系[J].当代语言学,2006,8(1):36-45.
[10]方杰,李小健.复合词在言语产生的词汇通达中的表征[J].心理科学进展,2009,17(6):1116-1123.
[11]高兵,高峰强．汉语字词识别中词频和语义透明度的交互作用[J]．心理科学,2005,28(6):1358-1360.
[12]顾介鑫,杨亦鸣.复合构词法能产性及其神经电生理学研究[J].语言文字应用,2010,3:98-107.
[13]郭桃梅,彭聃龄.功能词与内容词加工的神经机制的研究综述[J].心理与行为研究,2005,3(1):65-69
[14]李馨.汉语双字词语义透明度的发展研究[D].天津：天津师范大学，2008.
[15]李兴珊,刘萍萍,马国杰.中文阅读中词切分的认知机理述评[J].心理科学进展,2011,19(4):459-470.
[16]刘旭刚,彭聃龄.词汇判断中汉语多义词识别的优势效应[J].心理与行为研究,2005,3(2):116-120.
[17]刘颖.中文词汇加工中的成分的作用及混合模型[D].北京:北京师范大学,1997.
[18]卢张龙,自学军,闫国利.汉语词汇识别中词频和可预测性交互作用的眼动研究[J].心理研究,2008,1(4):29-33.
[19]毛莉婷.关于汉语双字词N400真假词效应的理论和实验研究[D].重庆:西南大学，2010.
[20]彭聃龄.汉语信息加工及其认知神经机制的研究——20年研究工作的回顾[J].当代语言学,2004,(4):302-320,379.
[21]彭聃龄.汉语认知研究：从认知科学到认知神经科学[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2006,9.
[22]彭聃龄,丁国盛.中文双字词的表征与加工(上)[J],心理科学,1997.20(4):294-298.
[23]彭聃龄,丁国盛,王春茂, Marcus Taft,朱晓平.汉语逆序词的加工——成分在词加工中的作用[J].心理学报,1999,31(1):36-46.
[24]彭聃龄,李燕平,刘志忠.重复启动条件下中文双字词的识别[J].心理学报,1994,26(4)：393-400.
[25]任桂琴.句子语境中汉语词汇识别的即时加工研究[D].大连:辽宁师范大学,2006.
[26]田宏杰,阎国利,白学军.中文双字词在心理词典中的通达表征[J].心理科学,2009,32(6):1302-1305.
[27]王春茂,彭聃龄.双音节词的通达表征:分解还是整体[J].心理科学,2000a,23(4):395-398,508.
[28]王春茂.彭聃龄.重复启动作业中词的语义透明度的作用[J].心理学报,2000b,32(2)：127-132.
[29]王文斌.汉语并列式合成式双音节词的词汇通达[J].心理学报,2001,33(2):117-122.
[30]王文静.中文阅读过程中信息提取时间及词频效应的眼动研究[D].天津:天津师范大学,2007.
[31]吴捷,刘志方,刘妮娜.词频、可预测性及合理性对目标词首次注视位置的影响[J].心理与行为研究,2011,4(2):140-146.
[32]闫国利,田宏杰.眼动记录技术与方法综述[J].应用心理学,2004,10(2):55-58
[33]杨晓娜,王荫华,周晓林.轻度认知功能损害患者汉语双词素词的语音编码研究[J].中国康复理论与实践,2004,3:17-19.
[34]俞林鑫.汉语双字词词素与整词语义表征相互作用的研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2006.
[35]张必隐.阅读心理学（第三版）[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2004.
[36]张积家,贾春娟．感觉成分加速多成分汉语人格特质词的识别[J].应用心理学,2008,14(1):42-47.
[37]张金桥.重复启动条件下汉语联合式合成式双音节词的词汇通达机制[J]．语言文字应用,2009,3:72-80.
[38]张金桥.汉语双字复合词识别中语义、词类和构词法信息的激活[J].心理科学,2011,34(1):63-66
[39]张钦.词汇决定任务评析[J].心理学动态,1998,6(4):16-20.
[40]张钦,张必隐.中文双字词的具体性效应研究[J].心理学报,1997,29(2):216-224.
[41]张钦,张必隐.词汇决定任务中的策略因素[J].心理科学,1999,22(1):75-76,87.
[42]张仙峰.词的获得年龄、熟悉度、具体性和词频效应的发展研究[D].天津:天津师范大学,2006.
[43]周荐.双字组合与词典收条[J].中国语文,1999,4:304-309.
[44]周晓林,庄捷,于淼.言语产生中双词素词的语音编码[J].心理学报,2002,34(3):242-247.
[45]朱滢.实验心理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001:406.
[46]Alegre M&Gordon P. Frequency effects and the representational status of regularinflections [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,1999:40,41–61.
[47]Andrews S. Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or non-lexical effects [J].Journal of Memory and Language,1986,25:726-740.
[48]Andrews S, Miller B&Rayner K. Eye movements and morphological segmentation ofcompounds: There is a mouse in mousetrap [J]. European Journal of CognitivePsychology,2004,16:285-311.
[49]Baayen R H. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity [C], in G. E. Booij and J.van Marle(eds), Yearbook of Morphology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,1991:109–149.
[50]Baayen R H. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learningperspective [J]. The Mental Lexicon,2010,5:436-461.
[51]Baayen R H. Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning [J]. Brazilian Journal ofApplied Linguistics,2011,11:295--328.
[52]Baayen R H, Dijkstra T,&Schreuder R. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for aparallel dual-route model [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,1997,37:94-117.
[53]Baayen R H, Feldman L B,&Schreuder R R. Morphological influences on therecognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words [J]. Journal of Memory andLanguage,2006,55(2),290-313.
[54]Baayen R H&Hendrix P. Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: Towards aprocessing model based on discriminative learning [J]. LSA workshop Empiricallyexamining parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models, January2011.
[55]Baayen R H., Lieber R&Schreuder R. The morphological complexity of simplex nouns[J]. Linguistics,1997,35:861–877.
[56]Baayen R. H., Kuperman V.&Bertram R. Frequency effects in compound processing. InScalise S.&Vogel I.(Eds.). Compounding. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,2010,257-270.
[57]Baayen R H, Milin P, Filipovic Durdevic D, Hendrix P&Marelli M. An amorphousmodel for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naivediscriminative learning [J]. Psychological Review,2011,118:438-482.
[58]Baayen R H, Schreuder R, De Jong N H, and Krott A. Dutch inflection: the rules thatprove the exception [C]. In Nooteboom S, Weerman F&Wijnen F (Eds.). Storage andComputation in the Language Faculty, Dordrecht: Kluwer,2002,61-92.
[59]Baayen R H., Tweedie F J&Schreuder R. The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy:Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental lexicon [J], Brain andLanguage,2002,81:55–65.
[60]Balota D A&Chumbly J I. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? In theneglected decision stage [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception andPerformance.1984,10:340-357.
[61]Balota D A&Chumbly J I. The locus of word frequency effects in the pronunciation task:lexical access and or production?[J] Journal of Memory and Language.1985,24:89-106.
[62]Balota D A, Cortese M J, Sergent-Marshall S D, Spieler D H,&Yap M J. Visual WordRecognition of Single-Syllable Words [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,2004,133(2):283-316.
[63]Becker M H. Sociometric Location and Innovativeness: Reformulation and Extension ofthe Diffusion Model [J]. American Sociological Review.1970,35:267-282
[64]Bertram R&Hy n J. The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphologicalstructure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnishcompounds [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,2003,48:615-634.
[65]Bertram R, Baayen R H&Schreuder R. Effects of family size for complex words [J],Journal of Memory and Language,2000,42,390-405.
[66]Bloomfield L. Language [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1933
[67]Bock K&Levelt W. Language production: Grammatical encoding[C]. In M. A.Gernbascher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.1994:945-984.
[68]Bybee J. Regular morphology and the lexicon [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,1995,10:425-455.
[69]Calvo M C. Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations duringreading [J]. Memory,2001,9:365-381.
[70]Caramazza A, Laudanna A&Romani C. Lexical access and inflectional morphology [J].Cognition,1988,28:297-332.
[71]Chen, S. T. The Influence of Semantic Activation Effects on Chinese Morphology DuringReading [D]. Unpublished master's thesis,“National Chung Cheng” University, Taiwan.1993.
[72]Chen K J, Huang C R, Chang L P&Hsu H L. SINICA CORPUS: Design methodologyfor balanced corpora [J]. Language, Information and Computation,1996,11,167-176.
[73]Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R&Ziegler J C. DRC: A dual route cascadedmodel of visual word recognition and reading aloud [J]. Psychological Review,2001,108:204–256.
[74]Colé P, Beauvillain C&Segui J. On the representation and processing of prefixed andsuffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect [J]. Journal of Memory andLanguage,1989,28:1-13.
[75]de Jong N H. Schreuder R&Baayen R H. The morphological family size effect andmorphology [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2000,15:329–365.
[76]de Jong N H.,Feldman L B, Schreuder R., Pastizzo M&Baayen R H. The processing andrepresentation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and centralorthographic effects [J]. Brain and Language,2002,81:555–567.
[77]Dijkstra T, Moscoso del Prado Martín F, Schulpen B, Schreuder R&Baayen R. Aroommate in cream: Morphological family size effects on interlingua homographrecognition [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2005,20(1):7–41.
[78]Engbert R, Longtin A, Kliegl R. A dynamical model of saccade generation in readingbased on spatially distributed lexical processing [J]. Vision Research,2002,42:621-636.
[79]Engbert R, Nuthmann A, Richter E M, Kliegl R. SWIFT: A dynamical model ofsaccade generation during reading [J]. Psychological Review,2005,112(4):777-813.
[80]Feldman L B. Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of sharedmeaning and shared form?[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition,2000,26(6):1431-44.
[81]Feldman L, Frost R&Pnini T. Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes:Evidence from English and Hebrew [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition,1995,21:947-960.
[82]Ford M A, Davis M H&Marslen-Wilson, W. Derivational morphology and basemorpheme frequency [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,2010,63:117–130.
[83]Forster K I. Accessing the mental lexicon [M]. In F. Wales&E. Walker (Eds). Newapproaches to language mechanisms. Amsterdam: North Holland.1976:257-287.
[84]Forster K I. The micro-genesis of priming effects in lexical access [J]. Brain andLanguage,1999,58:5-15.
[85]Forster K I&Davis C. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access [J].Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning Memory And Cognition.1984,10(4):680-698
[86]Frauenfelder U H&Schreuder R. Constraining psycholinguistic models ofmorphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In G. E. Booij&J.van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[87]Fromkin V&Rodman R. An introduction to language (6th ed.)[M]. New York: HarcourtBrace College Publishers.1998.
[88]Frisson S, Niswander-Klement E&Pollatsek A. The role of semantic transparency in theprocessing of English Compound Words [J]. British Journal of Psychology,2008,99(1):87-107.
[89]Giraudo H&Grainger J. Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequencyin masked morphological priming [J]. Language&Cognitive Processes,2000.15:421-444.
[90]Gough P B. Word recognition [Z]. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of ReadingResearch. NewYork: Longman.1984.
[91]Gonnerman L M. Morphology and the lexicon: Exploring the semantics phonologyinterface [D]. Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.1999.
[92]Grainger J. Word Frequency and Neighborhood Frequency Effects in Lexical Decisionand Naming [J]. Journal of memory and language,1990,29,225-244.
[93]Harm M W&Seidenberg M S. Computing the meanings of words in rReading:cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes [J].Psychological Review,2004,111:662-720.
[94]Hasher L&Zacks R T. Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case offrequency of occurrence [J]. American Psychologist,1984,39:1372-1388.
[95]Hare M L, Ford M&Wilson W D M. Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verbinflection [C]. In Bybee J&P Hopper(ed.). Frequency and the Emergence of linguisticstructure. John Benjamins Publishing Company：Amsterdam Philadelphia,2001:181-200
[96]Ho K C. A study of the relative frequency distribution of syllabic components inMandarin Chinese [J]. Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies,1976,8:275-352.
[97]Hsiao H C S. The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Mandarincompounds [Z]. Poster presented at the Fourth International Conference on the MentalLexicon, Windsor, Canada.2004, June-July.
[98]Huang, H W, Lee C Y, Tsai J L, Lee C L, Hung D L&Tzeng O J L. Orthographicneighborhood effects in reading Chinese two-character words [J]. NeuroReport,2006,17(10):1061-1065.
[99]Hung D L, Tzeng O J L&Ho C Y.(). Word superiority effect in the visual processing ofChinese [C]. In Tzeng O J L.(Ed.) Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series No.13: The biological bases of language,1999,61-95.
[100] Hy n J&Pollatsek A. Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affectedby component morphemes [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionand Performance,1998,24:1612-1627.
[101] Inhoff A W&Radach R. Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in thestudy of cognition processes [M]. In Underwood G (Eds), Eye guidance in reading andscene perception. UK:Elsevier,1998,29-53.
[102] Inhoff A W, Starr. M S, Solomon M&Placke L. Eye movements during the readingof compound words and the influence of lexeme meaning [J].Memory&Cognition,2008,36(3),675-687.
[103] Jarema G, Busson C, Nikolova R, Tsapkini K&Libben G. Processing compounds:A cross-linguistic study [J]. Brain and Language,1999,68:362-369.
[104] Juhasz B J, Starr M S, Inhoff AW&Placke L. The effects of morphology on theprocessing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eyefixations [J]. British Journal of Psychology,2003,94:223-244.
[105] Juhasz B J. The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements duringEnglish compound word recognition[C]. In van Gompel R P G, Fischer M H, Murray WS&Hill R L (Eds.). Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain,2007:373–389.Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[106] Keuleers E, Diependaele K&Brysbaert M. Practice effects in large-scale visualword recognition studies: A lexical decision study on14,000Dutch mono-and disyllabicwords and nonwords [J]. Frontiers in Psychology,2010:1-15.
[107] Kliegl R, Grabner E, Rolfs M, Engbert, R. Length, frequency, and predictabilityeffects of words on eye movements in reading [J]. European Journal of CognitivePsychology2004,16:262–284.
[108] Kuperman V, Bertram R&Baayen R H. Morphological dynamics in compoundprocessing [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2008,23(7/8):1089-1132
[109] Kuperman V, Schreuder R, Bertram R&Baayen R H. Reading PolymorphemicDutch Compounds: Toward a Multiple Route Model of Lexical Processing [J]. Journal ofExpcrimcntal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,2009,35(3):876-895.
[110] Kuperman V&Van Dyke J A. Individual differences in visual comprehension ofmorphological complexity [C]. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, and T. Shipley (Eds.),Proceedings of the33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,2011:1643-1648.
[111] Laudanna A.&Burani C. Distributional properties of derivational affixes:Implications for processing [C]. In Morphological Aspect of Language Processing, ed.Feldman, L.B (Eds.). Erlbaum.1995:345-364.
[112] Lee C Y. The representation of compounds and idioms in the Chinese mental lexicon
[D]. Unpublished master's thesis,“National Chung Cheng” University, Taiwan.1995.
[113] Levelt W J M, Roelofs A&Meyer A S. A theory of lexical access in speechproduction [J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1999,22:1-75.
[114] Liang M Y. Recognition processing in reading compositional and idiomatic words
[D]. Unpublished master's thesis,“National Tsinghua University”, Taiwan.1992.
[115] Libben G, Gibson M, Yoon, Y B&Sandra D. Compound fracture: The role ofsemantic transparency and morphological headedness [J]. Brain and Language,2003,84:50-64.
[116] Liu I M, Wu J T&Chou T L. Encoding Operation and Transcoding as the major lociof the frequency effect [J]. Cogniton,1996,59,149-168.
[117] Longtin C M, Segui J&Hallé P A. Morphological priming without morphologicalrelationship [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2003,18:313-334.
[118] Lü C C. Chinese word recognition [D].“National Tsinghua University”, Taiwan.1996.
[119] Lüdeling A.&De Jong N. H. German particle verbs and word-formation[C]. InVerb-particle explorations. Dehé N., Jackendoff R., McIntyre, A.&Urban S.(Eds.),Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.2002:315–333.
[120] McClelland J L&Rumelhart D E. An interactive activation model of context effectsin letter perception [J]. Part1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review,1981,88:375–407.
[121] McCormick S F, Rastle K, Davis M H. Is There a "fete" in "fetish"? effects oforthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition [J].Journal of Memory and Language,2008,58(2):307-326.
[122] Miellet S, Sparrow L, Sereno S C. word frequency and predictability effects inreading French: an evaluation of the E-Z Reader model[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2007,14(4):762-769.
[123] Moscoso del Prado Martín F., Bertram R, H iki T., Schreuder R.&Baayen R. H.Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of finnishcompared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition,2004,30(6),1271-1278.
[124] Moscoso del Prado Martín F, Deutsch A, Frost R, Schreuder R, De Jong N H, andBaayen R H. Changing places: A cross-language perspective on frequency and familysize in Dutch and Hebrew [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,2005,53:496-512.
[125] Moscoso del Prado Martín F, Kostic A&Baayen R H. Putting the bits together: Aninformation theoretical perspective on morphological processing [J]. Cognition,2004,94,1-18.
[126] Murray W S&Forster K I. Serial mechanisms in lexical access: The rank hypothesis[J]. Psychological Review,2004,111:721-756.
[127] Morton J. A functional model for memory [C]. In D.A. Norman (Ed.), Models ofhuman memory. New York: Academic Press.1970.
[128] Myers J. Processing Chinese compounds: A survey of the literature[C]. In Libben G&Jarema G(Eds.). The representation and processing of compound words,2006:169-196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[129] Myers J, Libben G&Derwing B. The nature of transparency effects in Chinesecompound processing. Poster presented at Poster presented at the Fourth InternationalConference on the Mental Lexicon, Windsor, Canada.2004, June-July.
[130] Myers J&Lai Y D. The auditory lexical access of mono-morphemic compounds [Z].Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Cognitive Processing ofChinese and Other Related Asian Languages, Taipei.2002, December.
[131] Myers J.&Gong S. Cross-morphemic predictability and the lexical access ofcompounds in Mandarin Chinese [J]. Folia lingüística: Acta Societatis LinguisticaeEuropaeae,2002,36(1-2):65-96.
[132] Nicoladis E.&Krott A. Word family size and French-speaking children’ssegmentation of existing compounds. Language Learning,2007,57(2),201–228.
[133] Norris D. The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesiandecision process [J]. Psychological Review,2006,113(2),327-357.
[134] Norris D&Kinoshita S. Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesianinference: Insights from masked priming [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2008,137(3):434-455.
[135] Paap K R, Newsome S L, McDonald J E&Schvaneveldt R W. Anactivation-verification model for letter and word recognition [J]. Psychological Review,1982,89:573-594.
[136] Paglica, W. PRE-fixing[M]. Ms: State University of New York, Buffalo,1976.
[137] Packard J. L. The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2000.
[138] Peng D L, Liu Y&Wang C M. How is the access representation organized? Therelation of polymorphemic word and their morphemes: a Chinese study (abstract)[Z]. In:Wang J, Inhoff A, Chen H C.(Eds). Cognitive Analysis of Chinese Script. NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates,1999.
[139] Peng D, Zhang B&Liu Z. Lexical decomposition and whole word storage ofChinese coordinative two character word [C]. Proceeding of the Second Afro-AsianPsychological Congress. Peking University Press.1992.
[140] Pollatsek A&Rayner K. Eye movement control in reading: the role of wordboundaries [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,1982,8:817–833.
[141] Pollatsek A, Hy n J&Bertram R. The role of morphological constituents in readingFinnish compound words [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionand Performancem,2000,26:820-833.
[142] Pollatsek A and Hy n J. The role of semantic transparency in the processing ofFinnish compound words [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2005,20:261-290.
[143] Pylkk.nen L, Feintuch S, Hopkins E M&Marantz A. Neural correlates of the effectsof morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study [J]. Cognition,2004,91:35-45.
[144] Radach R&McConkie G W. Determinants of fixation positions in reading [C]. In G.Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scence perception, Oxford: Elsevier.1998:77–100.
[145] Rastle K, Davis M H&New B. The broth in my brother's brothel:Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2004,11:1090-1098.
[146] Rayner K. Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words [J]. Perception,1979,8:21-30.
[147] Rayner K, Ashby J, Pollatsek A, Reichle E D. The effects of frequency andpredictability on eye fixations in reading: implications for the E-Z Reader model [J].Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance,2004,30(4):720-732.
[148] Rayner K, Li X S, Barbara J J, Yan G L. The effect of word predictability on theeye movements of Chinese readers [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review.2005,12(6):1089-1093.
[149] Reichle E D, Richter E M, Engbert R, Kliegl R. Current advances in SWIFT [J].Cognitive Systems Research,2006,7:23-33.
[150] Rumelhart D E&McClelland J L. the PDP Research Group (Eds). ParallelDistribute Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1986, Vol.1.
[151] Sandra D. On the representation and processing of compound words: Automaticaccess to constituent morphemes does not occur [J]. The Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology,1990,42:529-567.
[152] Sandra D. The morphology of the mental lexicon: Internal word struvture viewedfrom a psycholinguistics perspective [J].Language and Cognitive Processes,1994,9(3):227-269.
[153] Schreuder R&Baayen H. How complex simplex words can be [J]. Journal ofMemory and Language,1997,37:118-139.
[154] Seidenberg, M.S.,&Gonnerman, L. Explaining derivational morphology as theconvergence of codes [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2000,4:353-361.
[155] Seidenberg M S&McClelland J L. A distributed developmental model of wordrecognition and naming [J]. Psychological Review,1989,96,523-568.
[156] Sproat R.,&Shih C. A corpus-based analysis of Mandarin root compounds [J].Journal of East Asian Linguistics,1996,5,49-71.
[157] Stemberger J P&MacWhinney B. Frequency and the storage of regularly inflectedforms [J]. Memory and Cognition,1986:14,17–26.
[158] Stemberger J P&MacWhinney B. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?[C]. InTheoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael Hammond andMichael Noonan (eds.). San Diego: Academic Press.,1988.
[159] Sternberg, S. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-timeexperiments [J]. American Scientist,1969,57:421-457.
[160] Stockall L, Marantz A. A Single Route, Full Decomposition Model ofMorphological Complexity: MEG Evidence [J]. The Mental Lexicon.2006,1:85–123.
[161] Su, Y.-C. The representation of compounds and phrases in the mental lexicon:evidence from Chinese. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics,1998,6,179-199.
[162] Taft M. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect [J]. Memory&Cognition,1979,7:263-272.
[163] Taft M&Forster K I. Lexical storage and the retrieval of prefixed words [J]. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1975,14:17-26.
[164] Taft M&Forster K I. Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic andpolysyllabic words [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1976,15:607-620.
[165] Taft M, Huang J T&Zhu X. The influence of character frequency on wordrecognition responses in Chinese [C]. In Chang H W, Huang J T, Hue C W&Tzeng O JL (Eds.). Advances in the study of Chinese language processing. Taipei: Department ofPsychology,“National” Taiwan University,1994,1:59-73.
[166] Taft M&Zhu X. The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinesestudy [C]. In L. Feldman.(Ed.) Morphological aspects of language processing. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.1995.
[167] Taft M. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect [J].Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,2004,57:745-765.
[168] Tsai C H. Effects of semantic transparency on the recognition of Chinesetwo-character words: Evidence for a dual-process model [D].“National Chung Cheng”University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.1994.
[169] Tsai C. H. Effects of semantic transparency and morphological structure on therepresentation and recognition of Chinese disyllabic words. In Cheng T. F., Li Y.&ZhangH.(Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of the fourth international conference onChinese linguistics and the seventh north American conference on Chinese linguistics:University of Southern California.1996,2:326-343.
[170] Tsai J L, Lee C Y, Lin Y C. Tzeng Ovid J L&Hung D L. Neighborhood size effectsof Chinese decision and reading words in lexical [J]. Language and Linguistics2006,7(3):659-675.
[171] Tsai J L&McConkie G W. Where do Chinese readers send their eyes?[C]. In J.Hyona, R. Radach&H. Deubel (Eds) The Mind's Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspectsof Eye Movements. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland/Elsevier SciencePublishers.2003:159-176.
[172] Tsai W.. Strategic linking capability in intraorganizational networks [J]. In Academyof Management Proceedings, Havlovic S (ed.). San Diego, CA.1998
[173] White S J. Eye movement control during reading: effects of word frequency andorthographic familiarity [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance,2008.34(1),205-223.
[174] Van Heuven W J B, Dijkstra T&Grainger J. Orthographic neighborhood effectsin bilingual word recognition [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,1998,39:458-483.
[175] Yan M., Kliegl R, Richter E, Nuthmann A&Shu H. Flexible saccade-targetselection in Chinese reading [J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,2010,63,705-725.
[176] Yang H&McConkie G W. Reading Chinese: some basic eye-movementcharacteristics [C]. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff&H. Chen, Reading Chinese script: acognitive analysis. Mahwah.NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.1999:207-222.
[177] Yap M J&Balota D A. Visual word recognition of multi-syllabic words [J]. Journalof Memory and Language,2009,60(4),502-529.
[178] Zhang B Y&Peng D L. Decomposed storage in the Chinese lexicon [J]. Advance inpsychology,1992,90(1):131-149.
[179] Zhou X&Marslen-Wilson W. Words, morphemes and syllables in the Chinesemental lexicon [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,1994,9(3):393-422.
[180] Zhou X&Marslen-Wilson W. Morphological structure in the Chinese mentallexicon [J]. Language and Cognitive processes,1995,10(6):545-600.
[181] Zwitserlood P. The role of semantic transparency in the processing and
representation of Dutch compounds [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,1994,9:
341-368.
[2]卞迁,崔磊,阎国利.成分位置颠倒对汉语句子阅读影响的眼动研究[J].心理研究.2010,3(1):29-35.
[3]陈宝国,彭聃龄.词的具体性对词汇识别的影响[J].心理学报,1998,30(4):387-393.
[4]陈宝国,彭聃龄.汉语双字多义词识别的优势效应[J].心理学报,2001,33(1):1-6.
[5]陈曦,张积家.汉语多词素词的心理表征和加工机制的心理学研究[D].广州:华南师范大学.2004.
[6]陈曦,张积家,舒华.颜色成分在词义不透明双字词中的语义激活[J]．心理科学,2006,29(6):1359-1363.
[7]陈煦海,黄希庭.汉语双字合成词口语产生的词素信息编码[J].心理学报,2010,42(3):377-386.
[8]崔磊.中文复合词预视加工的眼动研究[D].天津:天津师范大学,2011.
[9]丁国盛,彭聃龄.汉语逆序词识别中整词与成分的关系[J].当代语言学,2006,8(1):36-45.
[10]方杰,李小健.复合词在言语产生的词汇通达中的表征[J].心理科学进展,2009,17(6):1116-1123.
[11]高兵,高峰强．汉语字词识别中词频和语义透明度的交互作用[J]．心理科学,2005,28(6):1358-1360.
[12]顾介鑫,杨亦鸣.复合构词法能产性及其神经电生理学研究[J].语言文字应用,2010,3:98-107.
[13]郭桃梅,彭聃龄.功能词与内容词加工的神经机制的研究综述[J].心理与行为研究,2005,3(1):65-69
[14]李馨.汉语双字词语义透明度的发展研究[D].天津：天津师范大学，2008.
[15]李兴珊,刘萍萍,马国杰.中文阅读中词切分的认知机理述评[J].心理科学进展,2011,19(4):459-470.
[16]刘旭刚,彭聃龄.词汇判断中汉语多义词识别的优势效应[J].心理与行为研究,2005,3(2):116-120.
[17]刘颖.中文词汇加工中的成分的作用及混合模型[D].北京:北京师范大学,1997.
[18]卢张龙,自学军,闫国利.汉语词汇识别中词频和可预测性交互作用的眼动研究[J].心理研究,2008,1(4):29-33.
[19]毛莉婷.关于汉语双字词N400真假词效应的理论和实验研究[D].重庆:西南大学，2010.
[20]彭聃龄.汉语信息加工及其认知神经机制的研究——20年研究工作的回顾[J].当代语言学,2004,(4):302-320,379.
[21]彭聃龄.汉语认知研究：从认知科学到认知神经科学[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2006,9.
[22]彭聃龄,丁国盛.中文双字词的表征与加工(上)[J],心理科学,1997.20(4):294-298.
[23]彭聃龄,丁国盛,王春茂, Marcus Taft,朱晓平.汉语逆序词的加工——成分在词加工中的作用[J].心理学报,1999,31(1):36-46.
[24]彭聃龄,李燕平,刘志忠.重复启动条件下中文双字词的识别[J].心理学报,1994,26(4)：393-400.
[25]任桂琴.句子语境中汉语词汇识别的即时加工研究[D].大连:辽宁师范大学,2006.
[26]田宏杰,阎国利,白学军.中文双字词在心理词典中的通达表征[J].心理科学,2009,32(6):1302-1305.
[27]王春茂,彭聃龄.双音节词的通达表征:分解还是整体[J].心理科学,2000a,23(4):395-398,508.
[28]王春茂.彭聃龄.重复启动作业中词的语义透明度的作用[J].心理学报,2000b,32(2)：127-132.
[29]王文斌.汉语并列式合成式双音节词的词汇通达[J].心理学报,2001,33(2):117-122.
[30]王文静.中文阅读过程中信息提取时间及词频效应的眼动研究[D].天津:天津师范大学,2007.
[31]吴捷,刘志方,刘妮娜.词频、可预测性及合理性对目标词首次注视位置的影响[J].心理与行为研究,2011,4(2):140-146.
[32]闫国利,田宏杰.眼动记录技术与方法综述[J].应用心理学,2004,10(2):55-58
[33]杨晓娜,王荫华,周晓林.轻度认知功能损害患者汉语双词素词的语音编码研究[J].中国康复理论与实践,2004,3:17-19.
[34]俞林鑫.汉语双字词词素与整词语义表征相互作用的研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2006.
[35]张必隐.阅读心理学（第三版）[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2004.
[36]张积家,贾春娟．感觉成分加速多成分汉语人格特质词的识别[J].应用心理学,2008,14(1):42-47.
[37]张金桥.重复启动条件下汉语联合式合成式双音节词的词汇通达机制[J]．语言文字应用,2009,3:72-80.
[38]张金桥.汉语双字复合词识别中语义、词类和构词法信息的激活[J].心理科学,2011,34(1):63-66
[39]张钦.词汇决定任务评析[J].心理学动态,1998,6(4):16-20.
[40]张钦,张必隐.中文双字词的具体性效应研究[J].心理学报,1997,29(2):216-224.
[41]张钦,张必隐.词汇决定任务中的策略因素[J].心理科学,1999,22(1):75-76,87.
[42]张仙峰.词的获得年龄、熟悉度、具体性和词频效应的发展研究[D].天津:天津师范大学,2006.
[43]周荐.双字组合与词典收条[J].中国语文,1999,4:304-309.
[44]周晓林,庄捷,于淼.言语产生中双词素词的语音编码[J].心理学报,2002,34(3):242-247.
[45]朱滢.实验心理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001:406.
[46]Alegre M&Gordon P. Frequency effects and the representational status of regularinflections [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,1999:40,41–61.
[47]Andrews S. Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or non-lexical effects [J].Journal of Memory and Language,1986,25:726-740.
[48]Andrews S, Miller B&Rayner K. Eye movements and morphological segmentation ofcompounds: There is a mouse in mousetrap [J]. European Journal of CognitivePsychology,2004,16:285-311.
[49]Baayen R H. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity [C], in G. E. Booij and J.van Marle(eds), Yearbook of Morphology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,1991:109–149.
[50]Baayen R H. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learningperspective [J]. The Mental Lexicon,2010,5:436-461.
[51]Baayen R H. Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning [J]. Brazilian Journal ofApplied Linguistics,2011,11:295--328.
[52]Baayen R H, Dijkstra T,&Schreuder R. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for aparallel dual-route model [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,1997,37:94-117.
[53]Baayen R H, Feldman L B,&Schreuder R R. Morphological influences on therecognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words [J]. Journal of Memory andLanguage,2006,55(2),290-313.
[54]Baayen R H&Hendrix P. Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: Towards aprocessing model based on discriminative learning [J]. LSA workshop Empiricallyexamining parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models, January2011.
[55]Baayen R H., Lieber R&Schreuder R. The morphological complexity of simplex nouns[J]. Linguistics,1997,35:861–877.
[56]Baayen R. H., Kuperman V.&Bertram R. Frequency effects in compound processing. InScalise S.&Vogel I.(Eds.). Compounding. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,2010,257-270.
[57]Baayen R H, Milin P, Filipovic Durdevic D, Hendrix P&Marelli M. An amorphousmodel for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naivediscriminative learning [J]. Psychological Review,2011,118:438-482.
[58]Baayen R H, Schreuder R, De Jong N H, and Krott A. Dutch inflection: the rules thatprove the exception [C]. In Nooteboom S, Weerman F&Wijnen F (Eds.). Storage andComputation in the Language Faculty, Dordrecht: Kluwer,2002,61-92.
[59]Baayen R H., Tweedie F J&Schreuder R. The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy:Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental lexicon [J], Brain andLanguage,2002,81:55–65.
[60]Balota D A&Chumbly J I. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? In theneglected decision stage [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception andPerformance.1984,10:340-357.
[61]Balota D A&Chumbly J I. The locus of word frequency effects in the pronunciation task:lexical access and or production?[J] Journal of Memory and Language.1985,24:89-106.
[62]Balota D A, Cortese M J, Sergent-Marshall S D, Spieler D H,&Yap M J. Visual WordRecognition of Single-Syllable Words [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,2004,133(2):283-316.
[63]Becker M H. Sociometric Location and Innovativeness: Reformulation and Extension ofthe Diffusion Model [J]. American Sociological Review.1970,35:267-282
[64]Bertram R&Hy n J. The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphologicalstructure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnishcompounds [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,2003,48:615-634.
[65]Bertram R, Baayen R H&Schreuder R. Effects of family size for complex words [J],Journal of Memory and Language,2000,42,390-405.
[66]Bloomfield L. Language [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1933
[67]Bock K&Levelt W. Language production: Grammatical encoding[C]. In M. A.Gernbascher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.1994:945-984.
[68]Bybee J. Regular morphology and the lexicon [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,1995,10:425-455.
[69]Calvo M C. Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations duringreading [J]. Memory,2001,9:365-381.
[70]Caramazza A, Laudanna A&Romani C. Lexical access and inflectional morphology [J].Cognition,1988,28:297-332.
[71]Chen, S. T. The Influence of Semantic Activation Effects on Chinese Morphology DuringReading [D]. Unpublished master's thesis,“National Chung Cheng” University, Taiwan.1993.
[72]Chen K J, Huang C R, Chang L P&Hsu H L. SINICA CORPUS: Design methodologyfor balanced corpora [J]. Language, Information and Computation,1996,11,167-176.
[73]Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R&Ziegler J C. DRC: A dual route cascadedmodel of visual word recognition and reading aloud [J]. Psychological Review,2001,108:204–256.
[74]Colé P, Beauvillain C&Segui J. On the representation and processing of prefixed andsuffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect [J]. Journal of Memory andLanguage,1989,28:1-13.
[75]de Jong N H. Schreuder R&Baayen R H. The morphological family size effect andmorphology [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2000,15:329–365.
[76]de Jong N H.,Feldman L B, Schreuder R., Pastizzo M&Baayen R H. The processing andrepresentation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and centralorthographic effects [J]. Brain and Language,2002,81:555–567.
[77]Dijkstra T, Moscoso del Prado Martín F, Schulpen B, Schreuder R&Baayen R. Aroommate in cream: Morphological family size effects on interlingua homographrecognition [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2005,20(1):7–41.
[78]Engbert R, Longtin A, Kliegl R. A dynamical model of saccade generation in readingbased on spatially distributed lexical processing [J]. Vision Research,2002,42:621-636.
[79]Engbert R, Nuthmann A, Richter E M, Kliegl R. SWIFT: A dynamical model ofsaccade generation during reading [J]. Psychological Review,2005,112(4):777-813.
[80]Feldman L B. Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of sharedmeaning and shared form?[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition,2000,26(6):1431-44.
[81]Feldman L, Frost R&Pnini T. Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes:Evidence from English and Hebrew [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition,1995,21:947-960.
[82]Ford M A, Davis M H&Marslen-Wilson, W. Derivational morphology and basemorpheme frequency [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,2010,63:117–130.
[83]Forster K I. Accessing the mental lexicon [M]. In F. Wales&E. Walker (Eds). Newapproaches to language mechanisms. Amsterdam: North Holland.1976:257-287.
[84]Forster K I. The micro-genesis of priming effects in lexical access [J]. Brain andLanguage,1999,58:5-15.
[85]Forster K I&Davis C. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access [J].Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning Memory And Cognition.1984,10(4):680-698
[86]Frauenfelder U H&Schreuder R. Constraining psycholinguistic models ofmorphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In G. E. Booij&J.van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[87]Fromkin V&Rodman R. An introduction to language (6th ed.)[M]. New York: HarcourtBrace College Publishers.1998.
[88]Frisson S, Niswander-Klement E&Pollatsek A. The role of semantic transparency in theprocessing of English Compound Words [J]. British Journal of Psychology,2008,99(1):87-107.
[89]Giraudo H&Grainger J. Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequencyin masked morphological priming [J]. Language&Cognitive Processes,2000.15:421-444.
[90]Gough P B. Word recognition [Z]. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of ReadingResearch. NewYork: Longman.1984.
[91]Gonnerman L M. Morphology and the lexicon: Exploring the semantics phonologyinterface [D]. Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.1999.
[92]Grainger J. Word Frequency and Neighborhood Frequency Effects in Lexical Decisionand Naming [J]. Journal of memory and language,1990,29,225-244.
[93]Harm M W&Seidenberg M S. Computing the meanings of words in rReading:cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes [J].Psychological Review,2004,111:662-720.
[94]Hasher L&Zacks R T. Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case offrequency of occurrence [J]. American Psychologist,1984,39:1372-1388.
[95]Hare M L, Ford M&Wilson W D M. Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verbinflection [C]. In Bybee J&P Hopper(ed.). Frequency and the Emergence of linguisticstructure. John Benjamins Publishing Company：Amsterdam Philadelphia,2001:181-200
[96]Ho K C. A study of the relative frequency distribution of syllabic components inMandarin Chinese [J]. Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies,1976,8:275-352.
[97]Hsiao H C S. The role of semantic transparency in the processing of Mandarincompounds [Z]. Poster presented at the Fourth International Conference on the MentalLexicon, Windsor, Canada.2004, June-July.
[98]Huang, H W, Lee C Y, Tsai J L, Lee C L, Hung D L&Tzeng O J L. Orthographicneighborhood effects in reading Chinese two-character words [J]. NeuroReport,2006,17(10):1061-1065.
[99]Hung D L, Tzeng O J L&Ho C Y.(). Word superiority effect in the visual processing ofChinese [C]. In Tzeng O J L.(Ed.) Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series No.13: The biological bases of language,1999,61-95.
[100] Hy n J&Pollatsek A. Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affectedby component morphemes [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionand Performance,1998,24:1612-1627.
[101] Inhoff A W&Radach R. Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in thestudy of cognition processes [M]. In Underwood G (Eds), Eye guidance in reading andscene perception. UK:Elsevier,1998,29-53.
[102] Inhoff A W, Starr. M S, Solomon M&Placke L. Eye movements during the readingof compound words and the influence of lexeme meaning [J].Memory&Cognition,2008,36(3),675-687.
[103] Jarema G, Busson C, Nikolova R, Tsapkini K&Libben G. Processing compounds:A cross-linguistic study [J]. Brain and Language,1999,68:362-369.
[104] Juhasz B J, Starr M S, Inhoff AW&Placke L. The effects of morphology on theprocessing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eyefixations [J]. British Journal of Psychology,2003,94:223-244.
[105] Juhasz B J. The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements duringEnglish compound word recognition[C]. In van Gompel R P G, Fischer M H, Murray WS&Hill R L (Eds.). Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain,2007:373–389.Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[106] Keuleers E, Diependaele K&Brysbaert M. Practice effects in large-scale visualword recognition studies: A lexical decision study on14,000Dutch mono-and disyllabicwords and nonwords [J]. Frontiers in Psychology,2010:1-15.
[107] Kliegl R, Grabner E, Rolfs M, Engbert, R. Length, frequency, and predictabilityeffects of words on eye movements in reading [J]. European Journal of CognitivePsychology2004,16:262–284.
[108] Kuperman V, Bertram R&Baayen R H. Morphological dynamics in compoundprocessing [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2008,23(7/8):1089-1132
[109] Kuperman V, Schreuder R, Bertram R&Baayen R H. Reading PolymorphemicDutch Compounds: Toward a Multiple Route Model of Lexical Processing [J]. Journal ofExpcrimcntal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,2009,35(3):876-895.
[110] Kuperman V&Van Dyke J A. Individual differences in visual comprehension ofmorphological complexity [C]. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, and T. Shipley (Eds.),Proceedings of the33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,2011:1643-1648.
[111] Laudanna A.&Burani C. Distributional properties of derivational affixes:Implications for processing [C]. In Morphological Aspect of Language Processing, ed.Feldman, L.B (Eds.). Erlbaum.1995:345-364.
[112] Lee C Y. The representation of compounds and idioms in the Chinese mental lexicon
[D]. Unpublished master's thesis,“National Chung Cheng” University, Taiwan.1995.
[113] Levelt W J M, Roelofs A&Meyer A S. A theory of lexical access in speechproduction [J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1999,22:1-75.
[114] Liang M Y. Recognition processing in reading compositional and idiomatic words
[D]. Unpublished master's thesis,“National Tsinghua University”, Taiwan.1992.
[115] Libben G, Gibson M, Yoon, Y B&Sandra D. Compound fracture: The role ofsemantic transparency and morphological headedness [J]. Brain and Language,2003,84:50-64.
[116] Liu I M, Wu J T&Chou T L. Encoding Operation and Transcoding as the major lociof the frequency effect [J]. Cogniton,1996,59,149-168.
[117] Longtin C M, Segui J&Hallé P A. Morphological priming without morphologicalrelationship [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2003,18:313-334.
[118] Lü C C. Chinese word recognition [D].“National Tsinghua University”, Taiwan.1996.
[119] Lüdeling A.&De Jong N. H. German particle verbs and word-formation[C]. InVerb-particle explorations. Dehé N., Jackendoff R., McIntyre, A.&Urban S.(Eds.),Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.2002:315–333.
[120] McClelland J L&Rumelhart D E. An interactive activation model of context effectsin letter perception [J]. Part1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review,1981,88:375–407.
[121] McCormick S F, Rastle K, Davis M H. Is There a "fete" in "fetish"? effects oforthographic opacity on morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition [J].Journal of Memory and Language,2008,58(2):307-326.
[122] Miellet S, Sparrow L, Sereno S C. word frequency and predictability effects inreading French: an evaluation of the E-Z Reader model[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2007,14(4):762-769.
[123] Moscoso del Prado Martín F., Bertram R, H iki T., Schreuder R.&Baayen R. H.Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of finnishcompared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition,2004,30(6),1271-1278.
[124] Moscoso del Prado Martín F, Deutsch A, Frost R, Schreuder R, De Jong N H, andBaayen R H. Changing places: A cross-language perspective on frequency and familysize in Dutch and Hebrew [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,2005,53:496-512.
[125] Moscoso del Prado Martín F, Kostic A&Baayen R H. Putting the bits together: Aninformation theoretical perspective on morphological processing [J]. Cognition,2004,94,1-18.
[126] Murray W S&Forster K I. Serial mechanisms in lexical access: The rank hypothesis[J]. Psychological Review,2004,111:721-756.
[127] Morton J. A functional model for memory [C]. In D.A. Norman (Ed.), Models ofhuman memory. New York: Academic Press.1970.
[128] Myers J. Processing Chinese compounds: A survey of the literature[C]. In Libben G&Jarema G(Eds.). The representation and processing of compound words,2006:169-196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[129] Myers J, Libben G&Derwing B. The nature of transparency effects in Chinesecompound processing. Poster presented at Poster presented at the Fourth InternationalConference on the Mental Lexicon, Windsor, Canada.2004, June-July.
[130] Myers J&Lai Y D. The auditory lexical access of mono-morphemic compounds [Z].Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Cognitive Processing ofChinese and Other Related Asian Languages, Taipei.2002, December.
[131] Myers J.&Gong S. Cross-morphemic predictability and the lexical access ofcompounds in Mandarin Chinese [J]. Folia lingüística: Acta Societatis LinguisticaeEuropaeae,2002,36(1-2):65-96.
[132] Nicoladis E.&Krott A. Word family size and French-speaking children’ssegmentation of existing compounds. Language Learning,2007,57(2),201–228.
[133] Norris D. The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesiandecision process [J]. Psychological Review,2006,113(2),327-357.
[134] Norris D&Kinoshita S. Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesianinference: Insights from masked priming [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2008,137(3):434-455.
[135] Paap K R, Newsome S L, McDonald J E&Schvaneveldt R W. Anactivation-verification model for letter and word recognition [J]. Psychological Review,1982,89:573-594.
[136] Paglica, W. PRE-fixing[M]. Ms: State University of New York, Buffalo,1976.
[137] Packard J. L. The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2000.
[138] Peng D L, Liu Y&Wang C M. How is the access representation organized? Therelation of polymorphemic word and their morphemes: a Chinese study (abstract)[Z]. In:Wang J, Inhoff A, Chen H C.(Eds). Cognitive Analysis of Chinese Script. NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates,1999.
[139] Peng D, Zhang B&Liu Z. Lexical decomposition and whole word storage ofChinese coordinative two character word [C]. Proceeding of the Second Afro-AsianPsychological Congress. Peking University Press.1992.
[140] Pollatsek A&Rayner K. Eye movement control in reading: the role of wordboundaries [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,1982,8:817–833.
[141] Pollatsek A, Hy n J&Bertram R. The role of morphological constituents in readingFinnish compound words [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptionand Performancem,2000,26:820-833.
[142] Pollatsek A and Hy n J. The role of semantic transparency in the processing ofFinnish compound words [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,2005,20:261-290.
[143] Pylkk.nen L, Feintuch S, Hopkins E M&Marantz A. Neural correlates of the effectsof morphological family frequency and family size: an MEG study [J]. Cognition,2004,91:35-45.
[144] Radach R&McConkie G W. Determinants of fixation positions in reading [C]. In G.Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scence perception, Oxford: Elsevier.1998:77–100.
[145] Rastle K, Davis M H&New B. The broth in my brother's brothel:Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review,2004,11:1090-1098.
[146] Rayner K. Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words [J]. Perception,1979,8:21-30.
[147] Rayner K, Ashby J, Pollatsek A, Reichle E D. The effects of frequency andpredictability on eye fixations in reading: implications for the E-Z Reader model [J].Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance,2004,30(4):720-732.
[148] Rayner K, Li X S, Barbara J J, Yan G L. The effect of word predictability on theeye movements of Chinese readers [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review.2005,12(6):1089-1093.
[149] Reichle E D, Richter E M, Engbert R, Kliegl R. Current advances in SWIFT [J].Cognitive Systems Research,2006,7:23-33.
[150] Rumelhart D E&McClelland J L. the PDP Research Group (Eds). ParallelDistribute Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1986, Vol.1.
[151] Sandra D. On the representation and processing of compound words: Automaticaccess to constituent morphemes does not occur [J]. The Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology,1990,42:529-567.
[152] Sandra D. The morphology of the mental lexicon: Internal word struvture viewedfrom a psycholinguistics perspective [J].Language and Cognitive Processes,1994,9(3):227-269.
[153] Schreuder R&Baayen H. How complex simplex words can be [J]. Journal ofMemory and Language,1997,37:118-139.
[154] Seidenberg, M.S.,&Gonnerman, L. Explaining derivational morphology as theconvergence of codes [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2000,4:353-361.
[155] Seidenberg M S&McClelland J L. A distributed developmental model of wordrecognition and naming [J]. Psychological Review,1989,96,523-568.
[156] Sproat R.,&Shih C. A corpus-based analysis of Mandarin root compounds [J].Journal of East Asian Linguistics,1996,5,49-71.
[157] Stemberger J P&MacWhinney B. Frequency and the storage of regularly inflectedforms [J]. Memory and Cognition,1986:14,17–26.
[158] Stemberger J P&MacWhinney B. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?[C]. InTheoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael Hammond andMichael Noonan (eds.). San Diego: Academic Press.,1988.
[159] Sternberg, S. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-timeexperiments [J]. American Scientist,1969,57:421-457.
[160] Stockall L, Marantz A. A Single Route, Full Decomposition Model ofMorphological Complexity: MEG Evidence [J]. The Mental Lexicon.2006,1:85–123.
[161] Su, Y.-C. The representation of compounds and phrases in the mental lexicon:evidence from Chinese. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics,1998,6,179-199.
[162] Taft M. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect [J]. Memory&Cognition,1979,7:263-272.
[163] Taft M&Forster K I. Lexical storage and the retrieval of prefixed words [J]. Journalof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1975,14:17-26.
[164] Taft M&Forster K I. Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic andpolysyllabic words [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1976,15:607-620.
[165] Taft M, Huang J T&Zhu X. The influence of character frequency on wordrecognition responses in Chinese [C]. In Chang H W, Huang J T, Hue C W&Tzeng O JL (Eds.). Advances in the study of Chinese language processing. Taipei: Department ofPsychology,“National” Taiwan University,1994,1:59-73.
[166] Taft M&Zhu X. The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinesestudy [C]. In L. Feldman.(Ed.) Morphological aspects of language processing. Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.1995.
[167] Taft M. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect [J].Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,2004,57:745-765.
[168] Tsai C H. Effects of semantic transparency on the recognition of Chinesetwo-character words: Evidence for a dual-process model [D].“National Chung Cheng”University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.1994.
[169] Tsai C. H. Effects of semantic transparency and morphological structure on therepresentation and recognition of Chinese disyllabic words. In Cheng T. F., Li Y.&ZhangH.(Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of the fourth international conference onChinese linguistics and the seventh north American conference on Chinese linguistics:University of Southern California.1996,2:326-343.
[170] Tsai J L, Lee C Y, Lin Y C. Tzeng Ovid J L&Hung D L. Neighborhood size effectsof Chinese decision and reading words in lexical [J]. Language and Linguistics2006,7(3):659-675.
[171] Tsai J L&McConkie G W. Where do Chinese readers send their eyes?[C]. In J.Hyona, R. Radach&H. Deubel (Eds) The Mind's Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspectsof Eye Movements. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland/Elsevier SciencePublishers.2003:159-176.
[172] Tsai W.. Strategic linking capability in intraorganizational networks [J]. In Academyof Management Proceedings, Havlovic S (ed.). San Diego, CA.1998
[173] White S J. Eye movement control during reading: effects of word frequency andorthographic familiarity [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance,2008.34(1),205-223.
[174] Van Heuven W J B, Dijkstra T&Grainger J. Orthographic neighborhood effectsin bilingual word recognition [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,1998,39:458-483.
[175] Yan M., Kliegl R, Richter E, Nuthmann A&Shu H. Flexible saccade-targetselection in Chinese reading [J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,2010,63,705-725.
[176] Yang H&McConkie G W. Reading Chinese: some basic eye-movementcharacteristics [C]. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff&H. Chen, Reading Chinese script: acognitive analysis. Mahwah.NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.1999:207-222.
[177] Yap M J&Balota D A. Visual word recognition of multi-syllabic words [J]. Journalof Memory and Language,2009,60(4),502-529.
[178] Zhang B Y&Peng D L. Decomposed storage in the Chinese lexicon [J]. Advance inpsychology,1992,90(1):131-149.
[179] Zhou X&Marslen-Wilson W. Words, morphemes and syllables in the Chinesemental lexicon [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,1994,9(3):393-422.
[180] Zhou X&Marslen-Wilson W. Morphological structure in the Chinese mentallexicon [J]. Language and Cognitive processes,1995,10(6):545-600.
[181] Zwitserlood P. The role of semantic transparency in the processing and
representation of Dutch compounds [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,1994,9:
341-368.