淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1109200721414700
中文論文名稱 應用多義詞網絡教授英語空間介係詞:以In和On為例
英文論文名稱 Implications of the polysemous network in teaching English spaitial particles: In and On
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 95
學期 2
出版年 96
研究生中文姓名 何宜蓁
研究生英文姓名 Yi-Chen Ho
學號 692010548
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2007-07-10
論文頁數 199頁
口試委員 指導教授-胡映雪
委員-范瑞玲
委員-張榮興
中文關鍵字 英語空間介係詞  意像概念圖  多義詞  多義詞網絡  原型詞義 
英文關鍵字 spatial particle  spatial preposition  image schema  polysemy  polysemous network  prototype 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 英語空間介係詞被視為多義詞,與生俱來有著多種且互相有關聯性的詞義。英語多義詞的多種詞義,是藉由人類身體與空間的互動經驗而產生的。利用有系統的網絡圖,可以清楚的表現出這些多種的詞義的互相關聯性。也就是說,在網絡圖中,中心點代表原型的詞義,由中心往各方伸展的點,又代表著延伸意義 (Brugman & Lakoff, 1988; Langacker, 1987; Lindstromberg, 1996 & 1998; Johnson, 1987; Sweetser, 1998; Tyler & Evans, 2003; Evans, 2006)。先前的研究發現,網絡圖在第二外語空間介係詞的教學之應用,有其教育上的意義 (Boer & Demecheeler, 1998; Lam, 2003)。
本研究即是利用多義詞網絡和意像概念圖〈image schema〉,教授英語空間介係詞IN和ON的原型詞義與其延伸意義之實驗探討。研究時間為兩個月,總計有九十三位學生參予本次研究:實驗組〈PN組〉的學生接受IN和ON的多義詞網絡與意像概念圖之教授方式; 控制組〈NN組〉的學生,只接受利用實物圖片介紹IN和ON的多種詞義,網絡圖與詞義間的關係並沒有在教學中介紹。
研究結果指出,與控制組〈NN組〉比較之下,實驗組〈PN組〉在教學後的表現並沒有顯著差異。但是在四個月後的verbal protocol中顯示,實驗組〈PN組〉的表現有顯著性的差異,學生的長期記憶表現也比控制組〈NN組〉的學生來的好,而且實驗組學生亦能加以運用所學,並幫助理解延伸的詞義;此外,控制組〈NN組〉的學生雖沒有接受多義詞網絡教學,研究也發現,學生亦會利用基本的身體概念去解釋延伸詞意。
英文摘要 Spatial particles (SP) are inherently polysemous items, which have multiple and related senses. Those various senses, which can be represented by the systematic network, are generated from the physical and spatial interaction with the world. That is, multiple senses are radiated from the central node which is regarded as the prototypical meaning (i.e. prototype) (Brugman & Lakoff, 1988; Langacker, 1987; Lindstromberg, 1996 & 1998; Johnson, 1987; Sweetser, 1998; Tyler & Evans, 2003; Evans, 2006). The pedagogical implication of the polysemous network in teaching and learning L2 spatial particles has found to be meaningful (Boer & Demecheeler, 1998; Lam, 2003).
The present study is inspired by those previous implications and try to investigate the utility of the polysemous network of in and on from their prototypical meanings to extended meanings with the image schemas in enhancing learners’ spatial-particle comprehension. Two groups of subjects (N=93) were taught the multiple senses of in and on. One group received the polysemy-network approach (PN group) in which each sense was introduced by image schema, while the other group received the none-network approach (NN group) in which each sense was introduced by the image without teaching the interrelatedness among senses. The experiment lasted for two months.
The statistical results show that although the PN group did not perform significantly better than NN group in the post-test and the delayed post-test after the instruction. However, the verbal think-aloud protocol administered in four months later demonstrated that subjects in the PN group retained the network knowledge significantly longer than subjects in NN group. Also, subjects in the NN group showed that they could resort to some inherently basic image-schema knowledge but did not know how to use the certain knowledge systematically in the extended meanings. Therefore, L2 learners found it was harder to acquire those culturally specific schemas when learners made not aware of the interrelated schemas denoting by the polysemous words in and on.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …….i
CHINESE ABSTRACT …….iii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT …….v
TABLE OF CONTENTS …….vii
LIST OF TABLES …….x
LIST OF FIGURES ….xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Definitional Problems with Spatial Particles .2
1.2 Spatial Particles in the Cognitive Paradigm .4
1.3 Image Schemas and Pedagogical Treatments in Spatial Particles .6
1.4 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .8
1.5 Organization of the Thesis .10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Embodiment and Image Schemas .13
2.1.1 Image schemas and mental images .. .14
2.1.2 Image schemas in cognitive linguistics ….. .16
2.2 Approaches to Lexical Semantics .17
2.2.1 Lexical semantics in the homonymy approach .. .18
2.2.2 Lexical semantics in the classical approach ….. .19
2.2.2.1 Polysemy in classical approach ….. .20
2.2.3 The cognitive approach .. .22
2.2.3.1 Polysemy in cognitive approach ….. .26
2.3 Lexical network of polysemy .29
2.3.1 Types of semantic representation in lexical network….. .30
2.4 Spatial particles and their related senses .34
2.5 The geometric and functional element of in and on .34
2.6 Semantics for in .36
2.6.1 The prototypical meaning of in .. .37
2.6.2 Partially inclusion ….. .38
2.6.3 Non-canonical bounded LM .. .39
2.7 Beyond the proto-scene for in .41
2.7.1 The Location Cluster .. .41
2.7.1.1 The In Situ Sense .. .42
2.7.1.2 The State Sense .. .43
2.7.1.3 The Activity Sense .. .44
2.7.1.4 The Means Sense .. .45
2.7.2 The Vantage Point is Interior Cluster ….. .46
2.7.2.1 The Perceptual Accessibility Sense .. .47
2.7.2.2 The In Favor Sense .. .48
2.7.2.3 The Arrival Sense .. .48
2.7.3 The Vantage Point is Exterior Cluster.. .49
2.7.3.1 The Disappearance Sense .. .50
2.7.4 The Segmentation Cluster .. .51
2.7.4.1 The Shape as Boundary Sense .. .51
2.7.4.2 The Blockage Sense .. .52
2.7.5 Reflexivity Cluster .. .53
2.7.5.1 The Reflexivity Sense .. .54
2.7.6 The lexical network of in .. .55
2.8 The semantics for on .56
2.8.1 The prototypical meaning of on .. .56
2.8.2 Rotation of the prototype .57
2.8.3 The TR is in contact at an edge of the LM .58
2.9 Beyond the proto-scene for on .59
2.9.1 The Support Cluster .60
2.9.1.1 The Physical Support Sense .60
2.9.1.2 The Means of Conveyance Sense .61
2.9.1.3 The Basis Sense .62
2.9.2 The State Cluster .63
2.9.2.1 The Temporal State Sense .64
2.9.2.2 The Constrained Sense .65
2.9.2.3 The Availability and Visibility Sense .66
2.9.3 The Continuation Cluster .67
2.9.3.1 The Continuation Sense .68
2.9.4 The lexical network of on .69
2.10 Learning and teaching spatial particles .70
2.10.1 The acquisition of spatial particles in L1 .70
2.10.2 The acquisition of spatial particles in the second language .72
2.10.3 Cognitive linguistics (CL) in pedagogical implication in teaching English spatial particles .74

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants .79
3.2 Procedure .80
3.3 Treatments .83
3.3.1 The experimental lesson (Polysemous-network Group) .84
3.3.2 The control lesson (The Non-network Group) .87
3.3.3 The pretest, immediate post-test and delayed post-test .88
3.3.4 Interview .89
3.3.5 Verbal protocol analysis .91
3.4 Analysis of the data .92

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 1 .96
4.2 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 2 .98
4.3 Results and Discussion of the Research Question 3 .102
4.3.1 Results of IN in each sense (Category) .103
4.3.2 Results of ON in each sense (Category) .106
4.4 Results and Discussion for Research Question 5:
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the verbal protocol .113
4.4.1 Results of the protocol in the PN group .114
4.4.2 Results of the protocol in the NN group .121
4.5 Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview .125
4.6 Summary .131

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
5.1 Is interrelatedness better .133
5.2 Limitation and implication of the study .136
5.2.1 Time constraint and the design of the tests .137
5.2.2 Competence of instructor .138
5.2.3 Are all schemas teachable .139
5.2.4 Suggestions for future studies .140
5.3 Final remarks .141

REFERENCES .142

APPENDIX .153

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Chronological activities...............................................82
4.1 Independent samples t-test of the mean scores between the PN group and the
NN group before the treatment.................................................95
4.2. Independent samples t-test of the mean scores between two kinds of tests..............96
4.3 Independent samples t-test of the mean scores between the PN group and the NN group immediately after the treatment...............................................................97
4.4 Paired-sample t test of the mean scores of the PN group before and after the treatment...................................................................................................................97
4.5 Paired-sample t test of the mean scores of the NN group before and after the treatment...................................................................................................................98
4.6 Independent samples t-test of the mean scores between the PN group and the NN group after the treatment in two weeks..............................................................98
4.7 Paired-sample t test of the mean scores of the PN group after the treatment in two weeks.............................................................................................................….100
4.8 Paired-sample t test of the mean scores of the NN group after the treatment in two weeks..................................................................................................................100
4.9 Independent samples t-test in each category between the PN group and the NN group after the treatments: IN..................................................................................104
4.10 Independent samples t-test in each category between the PN group and the NN group after the treatments: ON.................................................................................107
4.11 Independent samples t-test of the pre-test of 40 participants in the PN and the NN groups.................................................................................................................114
4.12 Independent samples t-test of the PN group and the NN group in the protocol.......114
4.13 The percentage of each category interpreted by the PN group in the protocol: IN..............................................................................................................................116
4.14 The percentage of each category interpreted by the PN group in the protocol: ON.............................................................................................................................118
4.15 The percentage of each category interpreted by the NN group in the protocol: IN..............................................................................................................................122
4.16 The percentage of each category interpreted by the NN group in the protocol: ON.............................................................................................................................124

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Representation of the image schema -OVER-..........................................................17
2.2 a) A hierarchical network..........................................................................................32
b) Idealized radial category of over ......................................................................33
c) Growth of a network .........................................................................................33
2.3 Proto-scene for In ....................................................................................................37
2.4 Proto-scene for In (partially inclusion) ...................................................................38
2.5 Proto-scene for In (a non-canonical bounded LM) .................................................39
2.6 Proto-scene for In (the atmospheric condition) ......................................................40
2.7 Proto-scene for In (multiplex-mass transformation) ...............................................40
2.8 The In Situ Sense......................................................................................................42
2.9 The State Sense .......................................................................................................44
2.10 The Activity Sense ................................................................................................45
2.11 The Means Sense ..................................................................................................46
2.12 The Perceptual Accessibility Sense ......................................................................47
2.13 The In Favor Sense.................................................................................................48
2.14 The Arrival Sense...................................................................................................49
2.15 The Disappearance Sense .....................................................................................50
2.16 The Shape as Boundary Sense................................................................................52
2.17 The Blockage Sense................................................................................................53
2.18 The Reflexivity Sense.............................................................................................54
2.19 The lexical network of in........................................................................................55
2.20 Proto-scene for On..................................................................................................57
2.21 Rotation of the Prototypical Meaning of On...........................................................58
2.22 Proto-scene for On (contact at the edge) ...............................................................59
2.23 The Physical Support Sense....................................................................................61
2.24 The Means of Conveyance Sense...........................................................................62
2.25 The Basis Sense......................................................................................................63
2.26 The Temporal State Sense ....................................................................................65
2.27 The Constrained Sense............................................................................................66
2.28 The Availability and the Visibility Sense...............................................................67
2.29 The Continuation ..................................................................................................68
2.30 The lexical network of on.......................................................................................69
參考文獻 References
Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 142, 5-32.
Bacz, B. (2002). On the image-schema proposals for the preposition po in Polish. The
Slavic and East European Language Resource Center.3, 1-18.
Bailey, D., Feldman, J., Narayanan, S. & Lakoff, G. (1997). Modeling embodied
lexical development. Neural Theory of Language Publications. URL:
http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/NTL/papers/cogsci97.pdf.
Beitel, D.A.; Gibbs, R.W. Jr. & Sanders, P. (1997). The embodied approach to the
polysemy of the spatial preposition on. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.),
Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: selected papers from fifth international
cognitive linguistics conference. (pp. 241-260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bennet, D. (1975). Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions. London:
Longman
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Boers, F. & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching
prepositions. ELT Journal. 52, 197-204.
Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York:
Longman.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: Allen & Unwin.
Brugman, C. & Lakoff, G.. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In
S.Small; G. Cottrell & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical Ambiguity Resolution
(pp. 477-507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Caramazza, A. & Grober, E. (1976), Polysemy and the structure of the subjective
lexicon. In C. Rameh (Ed.), Semantics: Theory and applications, (pp. 181-206).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1998). The grammar book. 2nd Ed. Boston,
MA: Heinle & Heinle
Chalker, S (1994). Pedagogical grammar: Principles and problems. In M. Bygate, A.
Tonkyn & E. William (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 31-44).
New York: Prentice Hall.
Chomsky, N. (1995). Categories and transformations. In The minimal program
(pp.219-394). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, E.V. (1973). Non-linguistic strategies and the acquisition of word meaning.
Cognition 2: 161-182.
Colombo, L. & d’Arcais, B. F. (1984). The meaning of Dutch prepositions: a
psycholinguistics study of polysemy. Linguistics, 22, 51-98.
Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Third Edition.
London: Arnold.
Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: an introduction to semantic and pragmatics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deignan, A., Gabry, D., & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using
cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal. 51, 352-360.
Diren, R. (2001). English phrasal verbs: theory and didactic application. In M. Pütz;
S. Niemeier & R. Diren (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: language
pedagogy (pp.3-27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, V. (2006). A lexical concepts and cognitive models approach to spatial
semantics: the “state” sense of English prepositions. In V. Evans & P. Chilton
(Eds.), Language, cognition and space. Unpublished manuscript. London:
Equinox Publishing.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Fillmore, J. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R.J.
Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and Action. (pp.31-59).New York:
Wiley.
Fillmore, C.J. & Atkins, B.T.S. (2000). Describing polysemy: the case of “crawl”. In
Y. Ravin & C. Leacocks (Eds.), Polysemy: theoretical and computational
approaches. (pp. 91-109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fong, Y. Y. (2006). An experimental investigation to determine the utility of
conceptual metaphors and metonymies in enhancing idioms comprehension for
EFL undergraduate learners of English. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tamkang
University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Freeman, N., Lloyd, S. & Sinha, C. (1980). Infant search tasks reveal early concepts
of containment and canonical usage of objects. Cognition, 8, 243-262.
Frisson, S., Dominiek, S., Brisard, F. & Cuyckens, H. (1996). From one meaning to
the next: the effects of polysemous relationships in lexical learning. In M. Pütz
& R. Diren (Eds.). The construal of space in language and thought (pp.
613-647). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R.W Jr. & Matlock, T. (1997). Psychological perspective on polysemy. In H.
Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: selected
papers from fifth international cognitive linguistics conference. (pp. 213-239).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.; Beitel, D. A.; Harrington, M. & Sanders, P. (1994). Taking a stand on
the meanings of stand: bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal
of Semanitcs, 11, 231-251.
Gibb, R. W. Jr. (1997). Taking metaphor our of our heads and putting it into cultural
world. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.). Metaphors in cognitive
linguistics: selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics
conference: Vol 175 (pp.145-165). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
Hendrikse, A. P. (1997). Systemic polysemy in the Southern Bantu noun class system.
In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: selected
papers from fifth international cognitive linguistics conference. (pp. 185-212).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hersokovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hu, Y. S. (2007). An exploration of incorporating conceptual metaphors in the
teaching of idiomatic expression in EFL classrooms. Tamkang Studies of
Foreign Language and Literatures, 8, 39-54.
Ijaz, I.H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a
second language. Language Learning, 36(4), 401-451.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1985). Multiple subcategorization and the theta-criterion: the case
of climb, Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 3, 271-295.
Jabbour-Lagocki, J. (1990). Prepositions of position: an analysis for practical
application in the classroom. In G. Havranek & F. Stefan (Eds).
Fremdsprachendidaktik und innovations in der lehrerbildung (pp. 162-167).
Vienna: Bohlav Verlag.
Kant, I. (1965). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). New York: St. Martin’s.
(Original work published, 1781)
Katz, J.J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Kelly, B. (2002). “Well you can’t put your swimsuit on on top of your pants!”
Child-mother uses of in an don in spontaneous conversation. In E. V. Clark (ed).
Child Language Research Forum. CSLI. pp10-21.
Kurtyka, A. (2001). Teaching English phrasal verbs: a cognitive approach. In M. Pütz;
S. Niemeier & R. Diren (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: language
pedagogy (pp.29-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G.. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about
the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lam, Y. Y. (2003). Challenging prepositions: the effectiveness of interrelating rules
for teaching POR and PARA in Spanish as a second language (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Toronto, 2003).
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I. Standford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Concepts, image, and symbols: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publication.
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50,
225-236.
Linstromberg, S. (1998). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
MacLennan, C. H. G.. (1994). Metaphors and prototypes in the teaching and learning
of grammar and vocabulary. IRAL, 32(2), 97-110
Oakley, T. (2004). Image schema. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive linguistics (pp.1-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, G. B. (1999). Concepts. In Toward a theory of cultural linguistics (pp.36-46).
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Variety in Quality Inquiry (p.385). Qualitative Research &
Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Pustejosky, J. (1993). Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Radden, G. (1985). Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality. In W.
Paprotte & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp. 177–205).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radden, G. & Panther, K. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G.
Radden & K. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation
(pp. 1-45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, S. (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Diren (Eds.). The construal
of space in language and thought (pp. 135-165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, S (1999). Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: The case of to
and for in English. Brain and Language, 68, 268-276.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Advanced in
cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 7). London: Academic Press.
Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publisher.
Sandra, D. & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring
whose mind- the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1),
89-130.
Santibanez, F. (2002). The object image-schema and other dependent schemas.
Atlantis, 2, 183-201.
Sinha, C. & Lopez, K.J. (2000). Language , culture and the embodiment of spatial
cognition. Cognitive linguistics, 11, 17-41.
Sweetser, E. E. (1991). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantics structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J.R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B.
Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 299-326). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Tamasello, M. (1987). Learning to use prepositions: A case study. Journal of Child
Language, 14, 79-98.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of
subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31-55
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: spatial senses,
embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2004). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: the
case of in. In G. Radden & K. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation
(pp. 157-192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London:
Longman.
Vriend, D. L. (1998). Chinese speakers and English prepositions: problems and
solutions. In Papers presented at the annual meeting of the California teachers
of English to speakers of other languages (pp.1-29).
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. (A. R. K.
Bosch. Trans.). Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive
Linguistics, 2, 157-184.
Wilcox, S. & Palermo, D. S. (1974). “In”, “on” and “under revisited.” Cognition 3:
245-254.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2007-09-28公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2008-09-28起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信