人類的內在知識結構的樣貌一直是心理學研究者亟欲探討的議題之一，其中，相較於未使用文字進行儲存與提取的概念，語意表徵指的是牽涉到文字的知識表徵，但直至目前為止，對於語意表徵的訊息來源與內容仍沒有共同的看法。在理論的比較上，刺激字詞類型之間的差異可能使得研究所支持的理論有所不同，在此部分中，已有研究針對具體詞和抽象詞進行詳盡的探討，並且試圖做出解釋，但截至目前為止尚未有研究針對情緒詞的語意表徵結構做出探討，因此，本研究欲探討情緒詞語意的特殊性，並且建構情緒詞語意表徵理論的模型，依此對不同取向的語意表徵理論進行比較。
為了解情緒詞概念的語意特性，本研究一先針對具體詞、抽象詞、以及情緒詞進行語意特徵內容之比較，結果發現情緒詞的語意特徵主要著重於情境特徵與內在感受特徵上，並在整合不同類型的資料後確認情緒感受訊息應與內在感受特徵有關。以此結果為基礎，研究二則以促發作業為例，探討以語料庫分析所取得的語意表徵訊息是否能對不同類型字詞刺激的反應時間做有效預測，以及其提供的語意訊息屬性為何。結果顯示在一般詞上此種語意表徵訊息有顯著之預測力，然而在情緒詞刺激材料上並不顯著，後續分析亦發現語料庫分析得出的語意表徵可能與情境訊息較有關。合併研究一與研究二之結果，發現單以研究二所使用之語意表徵資料可能缺少內在感受訊息，因此研究三納入情緒感受的相關訊息資料，並以自組織映射網路模擬整合性語意表徵理論所建構出的情緒詞語意表徵結構，並發現結果呈有效預測促發作業之效果。
本研究之貢獻在於實際建構中文情緒詞的語意表徵模型，並透過不同類型之資料將不同語意表徵訊息之屬性作一分離，研究支持整合性的語意表徵理論，使研究者對情緒詞在語意訊息上的特殊性、以及情緒詞語意表徵的可能結構有更深入之了解，也提供類神經網路模型在語意表徵模擬上的重要性。在研究三自組織映射圖模擬的結果中亦發現情緒詞語意表徵和先前研究提出的情緒結構之間的差異性。本研究最後針對結果、廣泛的語意表徵系統可能的架構、甚至在作業特殊性等相關議題上進行討論，亦提供未來研究方向與建議。

Up to now, there are still debates about the contents and the bases of human semantic processing. An important issue is concerned whether different kinds of stimuli have different properties in their semantic representations. However, although evidences have showed differences between emotion words, as one type of abstract words, and general abstracted words exist, still fewer researches ever tried to explore the distinct semantic representational components of emotion words. Hence, the goal of the present study is to further examine related accounts focusing on the semantic representations of emotion words. The study results illustrate the unique patterns of semantic properties of emotion words compared to other types of words. Moreover, while arranging the semantic properties of emotion words upon a neutrally inspired Self-Organizing Maps model, the semantic distances calculated in the, computational model could persuasively predict the result of priming task. According to the results of the present study, the author of the present thesis proposed an integrated two-system hypothesis speculating the semantic representations and processing of emotion words.

中文參考文獻：
李皇謀、李玉琇 （2011）。267個常見中文雙字詞的情緒評量與自由聯想常模。中華心理衛生學刊，24（4），頁 495-524。
卓淑玲、陳學志、鄭昭明 （2013）。台灣地區華人情緒與相關心理生理資料庫—中文情緒詞常模研究。中華心理學刊，55，頁 493-525。
洪裕宏 （1992）。符號落地或符號種植。認知科學研討會：自然與人工智慧系統。國立台灣大學。
陳學志、張瓅勻、邱郁秀、宋曜廷、張國恩 （2011）。中文部件組字與形構資料庫之建立及其在識字教學上之應用。教育心理學報，43卷，閱讀專刊，頁 269-290。
鄭昭明、陳英孜、卓淑玲、陳學志 （2013）。華人情緒類別的結構分析。中華心理學刊，55，頁 417-438。
英文參考文獻：
Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. M. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. The American journal of psychology, 389-410.
Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(4), 578-602.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. MA: Psychology Press.
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463.
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of experimental social psychology, 32(1), 104-128.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(04), 637-660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Situated conceptualization. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (Vol. 619, pp. 650): Elsevier.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual review of psychology, 59, 617-645.
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2007). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. D. Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245-283): Oxford University Press.
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 129-163). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407.
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 8(2), 240-247.
Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive science, 23(3), 371-414.
Dimberg, U. (1982). Facial reactions to facial expressions. Psychophysiology, 19(6), 643-647.
Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmehed, K. (2000). Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychological Science, 11(1), 86-89.
Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approches to emotion (pp. 319-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(4), 339.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9(3), 558-565.
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of memory and language, 43(3), 379-401.
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114(2), 211.
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1), 335-346.
Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., Gutowski, K. A., Lucarelli, M. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2010). Cosmetic use of botulinum toxin-A affects processing of emotional language. Psychological Science, 21(7), 895-900.
James, W. (1994). The physical basis of emotion. Psychological Review, 101(2), 205-210.
Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14-34.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211.
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2-3), 259-284.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159-174.
Li, P., Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (2000). The Acquisition of Word Meaning through Global Lexical Co-occurences. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirtieth stanford child language research forum. Stanford: CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Li, P., Farkas, I., & MacWhinney, B. (2004). Early lexical development in a self-organizing neural network. Neural Networks, 17(8-9), 1345-1362.
Li, P., & Zhao, X. (2013). Self-organizing map models of language acquisition. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 828.
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203-208.
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior research methods, 37(4), 547-559.
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99.
Miller, G. A., & Fellbaum, C. (1991). Semantic networks of English. Cognition, 41(1), 197-229.
Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002-1005.
Niedenthal, P. M. (2008). Emotion Concepts. In M. Lweis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (Third ed.). London: The Guilford Press.
Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Ric, F., & Krauth-Gruber, S. (2005). Embodiment in the acquisition and use of emotion knowledge. In L. F. Barrett, P. M. Niedenthal, & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Emotion and consciousness (pp. 21-50). New York: The Guilford Press.
Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and social psychology review, 9(3), 184-211.
Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Halberstadt, J. B., & Innes-Ker, Å. H. (2001). When did her smile drop? Facial mimicry and the influences of emotional state on the detection of change in emotional expression. Cognition & Emotion, 15(6), 853-864.
Niedenthal, P. M., Winkielman, P., Mondillon, L., & Vermeulen, N. (2009). Embodiment of emotion concepts. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(6), 1120.
Oberman, L. M., Winkielman, P., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2007). Face to face: Blocking facial mimicry can selectively impair recognition of emotional expressions. Social neuroscience, 2(3-4), 167-178.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pitcher, D., Garrido, L., Walsh, V., & Duchaine, B. C. (2008). Transcranial magnetic stimulation disrupts the perception and embodiment of facial expressions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(36), 8929-8933.
Quillian, M. R. (1969). The teachable language comprehender: A simulation program and theory of language. Communications of the ACM, 12(8), 459-476.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), 1161.
Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition, 3(1), 83-119.
Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The Psychology of Word Meaning (pp. 223-250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Semin, G. R., Görts, C. A., Nandram, S., & Semin-Goossens, A. (2002). Cultural perspectives on the linguistic representation of emotion and emotion events. Cognition & Emotion, 16(1), 11-28.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1061.
Simmons, W. K., Hamann, S. B., Harenski, C. L., Hu, X. P., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 106-119.
Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32(2), 244-259.
Spruyt, A., Hermans, D., Houwer, J. D., & Eelen, P. (2002). On the nature of the affective priming effect: Affective priming of naming responses. Social Cognition, 20(3), 227-256.
van Peer, J. M., Roelofs, K., Rotteveel, M., van Dijk, J. G., Spinhoven, P., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2007). The effects of cortisol administration on approach–avoidance behavior: an event-related potential study. Biological psychology, 76(3), 135-146.
Vesanto, J., Himberg, J., Alhoniemi, E., & Parhankangas, J. (1999). Self-organizing map in Matlab: the SOM Toolbox. Paper presented at the Matlab DSP Conference, Espoo, Finland.
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 219-247.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive psychology, 48(4), 422-488.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 219.
Wiemer‐Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive science, 29(5), 719-736.
Winkielman, P., Niedenthal, P. M., & Oberman, L. (2008). The embodied emotional mind. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Simith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 263-288). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, L.-l., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta psychologica, 132(2), 173-189.
Zhao, X., Li, P., & Kohonen, T. (2011). Contextual self-organizing map: software for constructing semantic representations. Behavior research methods, 43(1), 77-88.