請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9205
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張顯達(Hintat Cheung) | |
dc.contributor.author | SU-MEI CHEN | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳素玫 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T20:12:55Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-08-05 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T20:12:55Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-07-29 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-07-23 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Adams, A.-M., Willis, C., Eaglen, R., & Lamont, E. (2005). Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals at school entry. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 417-426.
Barde, L. H. F., Schwartz, M. F., & Boronat, C. B. (2006). Semantic weight and verb retrieval in aphasia. Brain and Language, 97(3), 266-278. Berlin, B. (1969). Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instrument, & Computers, 33(1), 73-79. Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bowerman, M. (2005). Why Can't You 'Open' a Nut or 'Break' a Cooked Noodle? Learning Covert Object Categories in Action Word Meanings. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 209-243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1998). Semantic Factors in Verb Retrieval: An Effect of Complexity. Brain and Language, 63(1), 1-31. Brown, P. (2001). Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: Is there a language specific bias for verb learning In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 512-543). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. (2007). Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability (pp. 167-189). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Casasola, M. (2005). When Less Is More: How Infants Learn to Form an Abstract Categorical Representation of Support. Child Development, 76(1), 279-290. Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500-508. Chen, L. (2005). The acquisition and use of motion event expressions in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA. Chen, S.-M. (2008). Nature or nurture? Imageability, frequency, and age of acquisition of early Mandarin vocabulary. Paper presented at the Second Conference on Language, Discourse and Cognition. Chen, S.-M., & Cheung, H. (2007). Early vocabulary development of Mandarin speaking children in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Conference of the International Linguistic Association: The Emergence of Language in the Child and in the Species. Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41(1-3), 83-121. Choi, S., & Gopnik, A. (1995). Early acquisition of verbs in Korean: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 497-529. Choi, S., McDonough, L., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. M. (1999). Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development, 14(2), 241-268. Chu, C. Z. (2008). Five formulations of the conceptual structure of motion and their cross-linguistic applicability: With special reference to Chinese. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 34(1), 1-26. Clark, E. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65-110). New York: Academic Press. Clark, E. (1990). On the pragmatics of contract. Journal of Child Language, 17, 417-431. Clark, E. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fellbaum, C. (1990). English verbs as a semantic net. International Journal of lexicography, 3(4), 279-301. Fernald, A., & Morikawa, H. (1993). Common themes and cultural variations in Japanese and American mothers' speech to infants. Child Development, 64(3), 637-656. Gao, H., & Cheng, C.-C. (2003). Verbs of contact by impact in English and their equivalents in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4(3), 24. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology(81), 439-454. Gentner, D. (1981). Verb Semantic Structures in Memory for Sentences: Evidence for Componential Representation. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 56-83. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395-427. Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2003). Learning to divide the labor: An account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Cognitive Science, 27, 1-40. Haviland, J. B. (1992). Seated and Settled: Tzotzil Verbs of the Body. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, Berlin, 543-561. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory: Halsted Press. Landau, B., & Shipley, E. (2001). Labeling patterns and object naming. Developmental Science, 4(1), 109-118. Li, N. (2007). Nonword Repetition and Phonological Development. Master thesis. National Taiwan University, Taipei. Lu, L., & Liu, H. (1994). XiūDìng BìBǎoDé TúHuà CíHuì CèYàn [Revised Peabody picture vocabulary test: Mandarin Chinese version]. Taipei, Taiwan: Xin Li. Ma, W., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., McDonough, C., & Tardif, T. (2009). Imageability predicts the age of acquisition of verbs in Chinese children. Journal of Child Language, 36(2), 405-423. Ma, W., & Wong, W. (2008). Does meaning specificity affect verb learning and extension? Paper presented at the 33rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., van Staden, M., & Boster, J. S. (2007). The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 133-152. Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., & Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 230-262. Mobayyen, F., & de Almeida, R. G. (2005). The influence of semantic and morphological complexity of verbs on sentence recall: Implications for the nature of conceptual representation and category-specific deficits. Brain and Cognition, 57(2), 168-171. Naigles, L. R., & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children's early verb use. Journal of Child Language, 25(1), 95-120. Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619-653. Ogura, T., Dale, P. S., Yamashita, Y., Murase, T., & Mahieu, A. (2006). The use of nouns and verbs by Japanese children and their caregivers in book-reading and toy-playing contexts. Journal of Child Language, 33(1), 1-29. Pavio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imageary and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1), 1-25. Sandhofer, C. M., Smith, L. B., & Luo, J. (2000). Counting nouns and verbs in the input: Differential frequencies, different kinds of learning? Journal of Child Language, 27(3), 561-585. Schaefer, R. P. (1985). Toward universal semantic categories for human body space. Linguistics, 23, 391-410. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: vol.3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs: Evidence from Mandarin speakers' early vocabularies. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 492-504. Tardif, T. (2006a). But are they really verbs? Chinese words for action. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 477-498). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tardif, T. (2006b). The importance of verbs in Chinese. In P. Li, L. H. Tan, E. Bates & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics Volume 1: Chinese. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tardif, T., Fletcher, P., Zhang, Z. X., & Liang, W. L. (2002). Nouns and verbs in children's early vocabularies: A cross-linguistic study of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese. Paper presented at the Joint conference of International Association for the Study of Child Language and Society for Research in Communication Disorders. Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 1-29. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9205 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探索詞彙語意上的特指性是否影響動詞習得。Tardif (2006)曾指出中文動詞比起英文動詞,因其語意特指性較高而較易習得。中文的動詞是否較特指尚無定論,本研究要檢驗的則是,以一般新詞學習歷程而言,特指性較高的動詞是否較易習得;主要關注當語言對於不同動作給予命名上的對比(即給予特指性高的詞彙),是否因此促進詞彙學習;另外,本研究也檢視學習不同語意特質詞彙的幼兒,是否發展出不同延伸新詞到其他情境上(extension)的策略。
本研究藉由對於相同視覺刺激的給予不同命名方式,來操控新詞的語意特指性。本研究採用快速對應作業(fast-mapping task),受試者需要將聽到的新詞與看到的動作作對應。在訓練階段,受試者會看到實驗者現場示範數次新動作,並從指導語中聽到新詞,實驗組別分為特指組與泛指組。不同組別之間,語言刺激的次數及動作示範次數皆相同;兩組主要的分別在於對動作之命名的差異性。在特指組中,兩個不同的動作,會被對應到兩個新詞;而在泛指組中,這兩個動作會被對應到同一個新詞。訓練與測試分為四個階段,第一階段兩組幼兒都聽到同一詞彙對應到同一動作;第二階段進行兩組幼兒的前測,作為比較的控制組;第三階段兩組幼兒都看到另一個類似的動作,泛指組幼兒會聽到與第一階段相同的新詞去指稱,而特指組幼兒則聽到另一個不同的新詞去指稱該動作;第四階段為後測,檢驗第三階段兩組別中不同的命名方式是否對幼兒表現造成影響。測驗包含理解測驗與說話測驗,以影片方式進行;理解測驗要求受試者選出與命名相配合的影片,說話測驗則要求受試者回答該段影片的主角做了什麼。 本研究受試者包含六十個平均年齡約四歲半的幼兒。結果顯示,即使特指組幼兒在訓練階段聽到比泛指組幼兒聽到較多新詞,但不見得能夠因此在適當情境說出較多的詞彙;說話測驗的結果顯示,特指組幼兒對原詞彙的表現,在後測階段的表現比前測階段顯著退步,而泛指組幼兒則表現穩定。雖然特指組幼兒對語意已有初步認識,但大多無法區辨兩個新詞的語意範圍。另一方面,本研究也發現泛指組的訓練促進了新詞延伸,而特指組則不然,同時,施測順序以及幼兒詞彙量對於新詞延伸策略亦有影響,若幼兒先受過特指性高動詞的訓練或擁有較大詞彙量,延伸新詞的比例較低。另外,我們也探討了詞彙量、音韻工作記憶的個別差異及施測順序,如何影響幼兒在本實驗的理解作業的表現,我們發現在泛指組中詞彙量較高的幼兒表現顯著優於詞彙量較低的幼兒,音韻工作記憶的個別差異並未造成表現上顯著的差別。總結來說,本研究支持幼兒對詞彙語意的習得是一個動態的過程,幼兒對語意的假設,不斷受到語言經驗的影響及型塑。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This present study aims to explore the impact of specificity on Mandarin-speaking children’s verb learning process. Tardif (2006) proposed that the typologically higher specificity of Mandarin verbs contributes to the ease of learning and thus leads to higher proportion of Mandarin verbs in early vocabulary. It remains unclear whether Mandarin verbs are more typologically specific, while this study examined the role of specificity in the general mechanism of lexical acquisition. This study aims to explore whether providing children with an additional label to mark a semantic distinction facilitates word learning. In addition, it was also examined whether different labeling patterns would contribute to different strategies for extending novel words.
This study manipulated specificity of novel words by providing different labeling patterns for the same visual stimuli. Specificity was thus defined as the presence of labels marking the distinction between two different actions in contrast with a single label for both actions. The experimental conditions included the General Condition and the Specific Condition. In the General Condition, two actions were mapped onto one word whereas in the Specific Condition these actions were mapped onto two words. The main experiment for testing specificity effect can be divided into four phases: (1) the baseline training, (2) the pre-conditioning-training test, (3) the reinforcing conditioning training, and (4) the post-conditioning-training test. In the first phase, all the participants were shown an action labeled by a novel word. In the second phase, they were tested with the aid of video clips. Then came the third phase in which the children were shown with a different but similar action that was labeled by either the same label (in the General Condition) or a different label (in the Specific Condition). Finally, in the fourth phase, the participants were tested for their production and comprehension of the novel words. Children’s production, understanding about semantic distinctions, and the pattern of extending uses of novel words were examined. Sixty 4.5-year-old Mandarin-speaking children participated in this study. Results indicated that children under the Specific Condition were not significantly more likely to produce an additional target word although they heard more words in the training session. They performed poorer on the baseline verb in the post-test than in the pre-test whereas this retrogress was not found in the General Condition. Although children had a robust understanding about specific words, most of them failed to make correct distinction between these specific words. As for extending uses of novel words, results revealed that the training of a general word facilitated extension, yet the training of specific words did not. Additionally, an influence of vocabulary size and order effects were found in the extension task: Children with larger vocabulary and children exposed with a prior training of specific verbs were much less likely to extend novel words to other novel actions. Also, we examined how individual differences affected children’s performance in this particular novel word learning task. Results showed that children with larger vocabulary performed significantly better in the comprehension task than children with smaller vocabulary when learning a general word whereas the difference did not exist when children were presented with specific words. Taken all together, our results supported the view that word learning is a dynamic process in which the semantic boundaries are shaped by children’s language experience. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T20:12:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R95142004-1.pdf: 1621898 bytes, checksum: 4b52847bf2f20f77255ce45a672cbc0b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | List of Tables iv
List of Figures v Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.1.1 Lexical specificity in meaning 1 1.1.2 Challenges to applying specificity hypotheses to acquisition issues 4 1.1.2.1 Specificity in terms of cross-linguistic evidence 5 1.1.2.2 Specificity within a certain language 7 1.1.3 Probe into the effect of specificity: Vocabulary size, time or understanding about word meaning? 8 1.2 Purpose, design and research questions 10 1.2.1 Factor examined: Specificity 10 1.2.2 Specificity vs. frequency 12 1.2.3 Related issues: Extending uses of novel words 12 1.2.4 Other factors involving linguistic experience 13 1.2.5 Research questions 13 1.3 Significance 14 1.4 Organization 15 Chapter 2. Literature Review 16 2.1 Is Chinese a verb-friendly language? 16 2.2 Why do verbs in languages like Chinese not show a delay? 17 2.2.1 Syntactic properties that make verbs more salient in input 18 2.2.2 Frequency 18 2.2.3 Social learning, cultural factor, or pragmatic context 19 2.2.4 Perceptual Salience 20 2.3 Specific hypothesis and lexical acquisition 20 2.3.1 Previous studies on specificity and processing 21 2.3.2 Typological pattern in specificity and lexical development 26 2.4 The interaction between specificity and frequency 38 Chapter 3. Experimental Designs and Experimental Tasks 40 3.1 Experimental Design 42 3.1.1 Variables 42 3.1.2 Counterbalancing 43 3.1.3 Confounding factor: Input frequency 44 3.1.4 Production task 46 3.1.5 Comprehension task 47 3.1.6 Levels of analyses 49 3.2 Participants 50 3.3 Materials 51 3.4 Procedure 53 3.4.1 Vocabulary size: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised 53 3.4.2 Phonological working memory: Non-word repetition task 53 3.4.3 Training phase 55 3.4.3.1 The breaking action 57 3.4.3.2 The carrying action 57 3.4.4 Test Phase 58 3.4.4.1 Production test 58 3.4.4.2 Comprehension test 59 Chapter 4. Results on Specificity Effect 61 4.1 Production task 62 4.1.1 Performance in each trial testing novel word 62 4.1.2 Number of target words produced 66 4.1.3 The pattern of extension of the novel word 70 4.1.3.1 Results from McNemar tests for each condition 70 4.1.3.2 Order effect in the extension task 71 4.1.3.3 Performance of children with different vocabulary sizes 75 4.2 Comprehension task 77 4.2.1 Comparison against chance level 77 4.2.2 Performance on the baseline verb: From pre-tests to post-tests 78 4.2.3 The role of individual differences in the comprehension task 79 4.2.3.1 Vocabulary size 79 4.2.3.2 Phonological working memory 82 4.2.3.3 Correlation between age, PPVT, non-word repetition, and comprehension 84 4.2.3.4 Regression analyses 85 4.2.4 Order effect in the comprehension tasks 86 4.3 Summary of results 90 Chapter 5. General Discussion and Conclusion 91 5.1 Does providing labels for contrasts between actions facilitate word learning in production and comprehension? 91 5.2 Are children learning specific words less likely to extend the use of novel words? 94 5.3 Word learning as a dynamic process 97 5.4 Future study 98 5.4.1 Syntactic factors 98 5.4.2 The role of individual difference 99 5.4.3 Specificity on a continuum 99 5.4.4 The role of frequency 100 References 101 Appendices 106 Appendix 1: Counterbalancing of the two actions shown in the training sessions 106 Appendix 2. Actions adopted in the training sessions 107 Appendix 3. Video clips in test trials in the comprehension task 108 Appendix 4. Video clips in test trials in the production task 112 Appendix 5. Instructions in the training sessions 114 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 詞彙特指性與詞彙習得之探討 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Lexical Specificity and Lexical Acquisition | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 胡潔芳,曹峰銘 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 語意特指性,語意分類,詞彙習得,詞彙發展,動詞習得,快速對應, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | semantic specificity,semantic category,lexical acquisition,lexical development,verb learning,fast mapping, | en |
dc.relation.page | 113 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-07-24 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf | 1.58 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。