常久以來，序列回憶與再認被視為兩個不同的心理歷程，被分別的研究與探討。然而這兩個作業不僅有相似的實驗程序，受試者在作業的表現上也相當類似，因此本研究假設這兩個作業使用了相同的登入歷程與記憶表徵，只有在進行提取時的歷程有所不同。為了驗證本研究假設，原先用來模擬序列回憶作業的類神經網路模型Serial--Order in a Box (SOB)(Farrell & Lewandowsky, 2002)與其後繼C-SOB(Farrell, 2006; Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008)被加以延伸，使其能夠進行再認。延伸的模型保留了SOB中的網路結構與登入歷程，僅使用了不同的提取歷程，便得以模擬再認作。此研究發現序列回憶與再認並不如先前認為的不相同歷程，而是有相同的登入歷程與記憶表徵。 / Serial recall and recognition are usually studied separately. However, it is reasonable to assume that those two processes have the same encoding process and representation in memory trace, due to the fact that the two tasks share a similar experimental regime and similar behavioral findings. In this study, the difference between those tasks is thought to be the retrieval process. In order to verify this hypothesis, a successful serial order recall model, Serial--Order in a Box (SOB) (Farrell & Lewandowsky, 2002), and its successor, C-SOB (Farrell, 2006; Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2008), are extended to account for recognition. By keeping the encoding process and structure in SOB unchanged, the performance of recognition task can be modeled by modifying only retrieval process. This finding supports the assumption that serial recall and recognition share the same encoding process and representation.

當我們在處理語句的訊息時，即使接收到的訊息是處於一種模糊不清的狀態之下，我們仍然可以藉由語境或者是儲存在長期記憶中的知識表徵來幫助我們理解語句。然而，在可以被視為一般語句處理的篇章中以及去除儲存在長期記憶的知識表徵的非篇章段落中的基本的言語的處理單位，甚少被提及。在本文中，我們將探討在兩種韻律結構的篇章語句以及非篇章為主的言語基本處理單位為何。 接著，我們將用具有心理實證的語句基本單位檢視詞彙學派以及範疇學派在句法分析上所使用的初始單位，探討哪一個學派的句法分析同時具有理論性以及實證性的證據支持。此外，經由探究韻律結構、詞語分斷之間的互動，來檢驗語言以及句法的獨立性假說。更進一步的，我們比較男女之間，對於語句提取的效率是否存有差異。分別有六男、六女，共十二名的大學生參與這次的實驗。實驗的材料是由實驗者將兩種韻律結構的篇章以及非篇章的段落分別錄音之後，讓受試者對所聽到的語句，做斷詞的工作。我們使用分斷派典以及統計考驗，來驗證本文中提出的各個假說。結果發現，在相似於我們一般說話語句的篇章中，基本處理的言語單位是詞，而在去除韻律結構以及分篇章為主的段落中，處理的基本言語單位是音節。這樣的結果符合工作記憶模式的預測。另外，詞彙學派的句法分析得到了理論上及實證上的支持。構詞、音韻、句法、以及長期記憶中的知識表徵，應該被視為是一個整體，而非句法、語言是獨立於整個認知系統之外的。至少，在本文中，利用語句產生證據來看，是反駁這個觀點的。大體上，男女之間對於語句處理的基本單位是沒有差別的，但似乎女孩子在語句產出時，更依賴韻律結構存在的與否。作者在文中提出了社會語言學的解釋。由本文可以得知，在語句產出的證據看來，詞彙句法學派得到了理論上及實證上的支持。語言是和整個認知系統互動的一種機制。而男女在提取言語單位上的效率並無不同。 / It is widely accepted that the routine of the perceptual processing of ongoing speech can be comprehended even in a degraded quality through the aid of the context or real-world knowledge stored in LTM. However, the basic units processed in the discourse-based text that can be recognized as the normal sentential input and those processed in the non-discourse-based text which removes the contribution of the knowledge representation stored in LTM are not yet investigated. In this study the basic units processed in these two textual patterns were discovered. The basic unit processed in normal prosodic, discourse-based text was employed to resolve the controversy between lexicalists’ and categorical syntacticians’ primitives of syntactic analyses. In addition, purposes of the interaction between prosodic patterns, namely the prosodic pattern, prosody-free pattern and the syntactic segmentation were examined to testify the autonomy hypotheses whether they gain the support from the speech production. Furthermore, the retrieval efficiency between genders were analyzed as well to investigate whether different genders employed different retrieval efficiency in different textual and prosodic patterns. 12 undergraduate students, six male and six female students participated in the two experiments. Discourse-based texts with two prosodic patterns and non-discourse-based pattern were recorded in the auditory form to conduct the experiments. Segmentation paradigm and statistical analysis were used to make the production analyses. Results indicated that a word is the basic unit processed in the prosodic, discourse-based text while a syllable is the basic unit processed in the prosody-free discourse-based text and non-discourse-based text which confirms to the prediction of WM model. The evidence favors lexicalists’ primitive of syntactic analysis psychologically. The cooperation between morphology, syntax, phonology and knowledge representations in general cognitive system argues against the autonomy hypotheses. Language should be recognized as a submechanism embedded in the cognitive system. The results suggested that, in general, there was no difference between genders but it seemed that female subjects tended more to rely on phonological cues. A plausible sociolinguistic reason was proposed. The results suggest that lexicalists’ primitive for syntactic analysis has theoretical as well as psychological support. In speech production, language seems to interact with other cognitive mechanisms rather than isolate to form an independent, self-contained domain. No retrieval difference exists between genders.

本研究旨在探討「以常用詞根輔以圖像構詞式詞彙教學法」、「常用詞根無圖像構詞式詞彙教學法」及傳統的「詞義說明式詞彙教學法」在學生的詞彙記憶上的差異；本研究亦探討學生的英文詞彙量、構詞察覺度、短期記憶、長期記憶及拼詞能力之間的相關。 本研究的主要發現如下：接受「以常用詞根輔以圖像構詞式詞彙教學法」的學生比接受「常用詞根無圖像構詞式詞彙教學法」及傳統的「詞義說明式詞彙教學法」的學生表現出更好的構詞察覺度、短期記憶、長期記憶及拼詞能力。在這三組中，構詞察覺度較高的學生對生詞有較佳的短期記憶與長期記憶能力，反之亦然；在詞彙記憶方面，短期記憶力較佳則長期記憶力也是較佳，反之亦然；並且，一星期後的後測分數比較高的學生在一個月後的後後測分數也會比較高；再者，詞彙的短期記憶與學生英文詞彙量的差異無關，因為學生所記住的生詞都可以持續短暫的時間，但不一定能長久記憶。 / This study aims to investigate the discrepancy in the use of the iconic-morphological approach via commonly-used roots, the non-iconic morphological approach via commonly-used roots, and the traditional definition-based teaching method in vocabulary memorization. It also explores the correlation between English vocabulary size, awareness of morphology, short-term memory for words, long-term memory for words, and vocabulary spelling abilities. The subjects of this study are 91 third-year students studying at the National Overseas Chinese Experimental Senior High School in Taipei County. They received instruction in the iconic-morphological approach via commonly-used roots, the non-iconic morphological approach via commonly-used roots, and the traditional definition-based teaching method, respectively. In the beginning, the three groups took the same pre-test to examine their vocabulary size. Then, subjects were immediately asked to take post-test 1 to examine their awareness of morphology after receiving different instructions. Later, subjects were asked to memorize forty unknown words within twenty minutes and then to take post-test 2 to investigate their short-term memory for words. A week later, post-test 3 was held to check their long-term memory for words. A month later, they sat for post-test 4, used to explore their longer-term memory for the forty words. In conclusion, the study summarizes the main findings pertinent to the proposed research questions. The students who receive instruction in the iconic-morphological approach via commonly-used roots finally develop higher awareness of morphology, better short-term memory for words, better long-term memory for words, and better spelling ability than those who learn in the traditional definition-based approach or in the non-iconic morphological approach via commonly-used roots. Among the three groups, the students who display higher awareness of morphology have better short-term memory and long-term memory for words, and vice versa. Moreover, those who have better short-term memory have better long-term memory, and vice versa; those who have better one-week long-term memory for words definitely have better one-month long-term memory for words. Interestingly, students can learn words by rote for a short period of time regardless of their vocabulary size. That is, one person’s short-term memory for words is not correlated with his vocabulary size.