本研究藉由實驗材料進行語境位置、相對頻率以及語意關聯程度三個變項的操弄，並以中文閱讀廣度測驗做為工作記憶廣度的指標，以兩個實驗探討不同記憶廣度讀者閱讀不同類型歧義句時眼動型態的差異。實驗透過語境位置的操弄，探討支持非均勢多義詞某一意義的偏向性語境位置，其在多義詞之前或之後對讀者理解的影響。若偏向性語境在前可能加快意義被激發的速度，若偏向性語境在後，多義詞的多重意義則會因相對頻率、語意關聯程度而有不同的激發水準。因此，本研究亦藉由多義詞的主、次意義，以及主、次意義間語意關聯程度，了解多義詞的相對頻率及語意關聯程度對歧義詞詞彙辨識的影響。此外，工作記憶容量亦是影響歧義句閱讀的重要因素，當多義詞多重意義皆被激發時，讀者需要將訊息保留在工作記憶中，以進行語意的整合。工作記憶容量大者有較多的認知資源來同時處理及儲存訊息，將多個意義保留於工作記憶中而易於順利整合；工作記憶容量小者，當訊息量超過所能負荷的工作記憶容量時，則需要較多的認知資源以進行訊息整合。
本研究發現語境位置、相對頻率以及語意關聯程度會影響中文讀者多義詞詞義的擷取。此三個因素對讀者閱讀歧義句的影響情形，會因讀者本身工作記憶容量大小的不同，呈現出不同的閱讀型態。本研究主要發現，語境位置在歧義句閱讀中扮演重要角色，當偏向性語境在前時，所有的讀者皆不受相對頻率及語意關聯程度的影響，但是，當偏向性語境在後時，兩類型的讀者相比，工作記憶容量大的讀者依然不受影響，但工作記憶容量小的讀者受相對頻率及語意關聯程度的影響程度較大。根據研究所得結果建議，可藉由前語境的效果編寫閱讀材料，降低讀者工作記憶上的負荷，使讀者有較好的閱讀效率。

This study examined the effects of using context to solve the lexical ambiguity in reading sentences by recording participants’ eye movement. Variables such as the frequency (dominate and subordinate), the degree of meaning relatedness (high and low) of the ambiguous word, the location of disambiguating context (preceding and following context) and the participants’ memory span were included in the study. Chinese Reading Span Test developed by Hue (1996) was administered to distinguish the memory span of participants. The purpose is to investigate how memory span influences reader’s reading while they process the ambiguous word in a context supported sentence.
This study focused on the influence of the location of disambiguating context in ambiguous sentences reading. If an ambiguous word is at the second part of the sentence (context-before condition), the preceding context serves as a prime to activate the meaning of the word. If an ambiguous word is at the first part of a sentence (context-after condition), multiple meanings of the word will be activated at different levels depending on the frequency and the degree of meaning relatedness of the ambiguous word. It was hypothesized that readers with low working memory span would suffer in the context-after condition.
The results of the study provided experimental support for the location of disambiguating context, the frequency and degree of meaning relatedness of ambiguous words affected the reading processing of ambiguous sentences, and also revealed the different process depending on the individual’s working memory capacity.
The location of disambiguating context plays an important role in ambiguous sentences reading. In the context-before condition, all participants were not affected by the frequency and degree of meaning relatedness of ambiguous words. However, in the context-after condition, low working memory span readers were more affected by the frequency and degree of meaning relatedness when compared to high span readers, they fixated longer on disambiguating region. Based on these results, researcher suggested text writing to take advantage of the contextual location clues to help reading, especially for low memory span readers.

參考文獻
胡志偉、陳貽照、張世華、宋永麒(民85)。中文多字多義詞自由聯想常模。中華心理學刊，38(2)，67-168。
陳明蕾、王學誠、柯華葳(民98)。中文語意空間建置及心理效度驗證：以潛在語意分析技術為基礎。中華心理學刊，51(4)，415-435。
陳貽照(民 87)。影響中文多義詞在句中辨識歷程的因素：工作記憶容量或多義詞在語言中的比率。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
蔡介立、顏妙璇、汪勁安(民94)。眼球移動測量及在中文閱讀研究之應用。應用心理研究，28，91-104。
Apresjan, J. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 142, 5–32.
Ahrens, K. (2006). The effect of visual target presentation times on lexical ambiguity resolution. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 677-696.
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access:an MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research ,24, 57– 65.
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12,15–67.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology：Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17(2), 245-262.
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A.(1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review. 99, 122–149.
Kaakinen , J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2007). Strategy use in the reading span test: An analysis of eye movements and reported encoding strategies. Memory, 15 (6), 634-646.
Kintsch, W.(1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review , 95 (2) , 163-182.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259–282.
Klepousniotou, E.(2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 205–223.
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S.R. (2005). Processing homonymy and polysemy: Effects of sentential context and time-course following unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language, 95, 365–382.
Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1534-1543
Lucas, M.(1999). Context effects in lexical access: A meta-analysis. Memory and Cognition, 27(3), 385-398.
Mason, R.A., & Just, M.A.(2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brian Research,11, 115-127.
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.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency, meaning, and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225–236.
Osaka, M., Osaka, N., Kondo, H., Morishita, M., Fukuyama, H., Aso,T., & Shibasaki, H.(2003). The neural basis of individual differences in working memory capacity: An fMRI study. NeuroImage,18, 789–797.
Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1993). The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 251-271.
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
Rayner, K., Pacht , J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 527-544.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
Rayner, K., Cook, A. E., Juhasz, B. J., & Frazier, L. (2006). Immediate disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: Evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467-482.
Rayner, K.(2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266.
Sereno, S. C., O''Donnell, P. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinate-bias effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 335-350.
Swaab, T. Y., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (2003). Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 86, 326–343.
van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsley, T. M., Reijntjes, A., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 21-36.
Wiley, J., & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically
ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 28(6), 1011-1021.
Zempleni, M., Renken, R., Hoeks, J. C. J., Hoogduin, J. M., & Stowe, L. A. (2007).Semantic ambiguity processing in sentence context: Evidence from event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 34(3), 1270-1279.
Zipke, M., Ehri, L.C., & Cairns, H.S.(2009).Using semantic ambiguity instruction to improve third graders’ metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension: An experimental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300-321.