請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9824
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 | Mei-Hsuan Lai | en |
dc.contributor.author | 賴美璇 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T20:43:34Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2008-07-23 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T20:43:34Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-07-23 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-07-18 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Ardery, G. (1980). On coordination in child language. Journal of Child Language, 7(2), 305-320.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: E. P. Dutton. Bloom, L., M. Lahey, L. Hood, K. Lifter, & K. Feiss. (1980). Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the meaning relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7, 235-261. Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art (pp. 319-346). New York: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, P., M. Tomasello, L. Lewis, & K. Dodson. (1999). Children’s overgeneralization of fixed transitivity verbs: The entrenchment hypothesis. Child Development, 70, 1325-1337. Bybee, J., & J. Scheibmann. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of “don’t” in English. Linguistics, 37, 575-596. Chang, G. B. 張桂賓 (1997)。〈相對程度副詞與絕對程度副詞〉。《華東師範大學學報》,2期,92-96頁。 Chang, Y. J. 張亞軍 (2003)。〈程度副詞與比較結構〉。《揚州大學學報》,7卷,2期, 60-64頁。 Chang, Y. S. 張誼生 (2000a)。〈現代漢語副詞的性質、範圍與分類〉。《語言研究》, 39期, 51-63頁。 Chao, C. P. (2005). On phrasal and clausal comparatives in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Xinzhu, Taiwan. Chao, Y. R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. California: University of California Press. Cheung, H. 張顯達 (1995)。《平均語句長度(MLU)在中文的應用》。國科會專題研究計劃報告。 Chou, G. G. 周國光 (1994)。〈程度副詞和程度陳述句的內部區別〉。邵敬敏編《語法研究與語法應用》,頁14-24,北京:北京語言出版社。 Chung, H. J. (2006). Syntax of the bi comparative construction in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi, Taiwan. Clark, E. V. (2003). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longmans. Fu, Y. C. (1978). Comparative structure in English and Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan. Hirsh-Pasek, K., R. Trieman, & M. Schneiderman. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: mother sensitivity to grammatical form. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81-88. Hong, W. (1991). Comparative structure in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Xinzhu, Taiwan. Hsie, C. Y. (2004). The acquisition of ‘bi’-utterances in Chinese-speaking children. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Xinzhu, Taiwan. Huang, S. F. 黃宣範 (1995)。《朝向漢語口語語料庫的建立》。國科會專題研究計劃報告。 Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Li, C. N., & S. A. Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, K. N. (1997). Mandarin degree adverbs. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Xinzhu, Taiwan. Lieven, E., H. Behrens, J. Speares, & M. Tomasello. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333-370. Liu, C. S. (1996). A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Science, 26(1), 217-235. MacWhinney, B. (1978). The Acquisition of Morphophonology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ----- 1987. The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The 20th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mazurkewich, I., & L. White. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261-283. Paris, M. C. (1979). Nominalization in Mandarin Chinese: The morpheme ‘de’ and the ‘shi…de’ constructions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Paris, Universite Paris VII. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Pinker, S., D. S. Lebeaux, & L. A. Frost. (1987). Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195-267. Slobin, D.I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C.A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10, 131-156. ----- 2000. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1/2), 61-82. ----- 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, M.A. Harvard University Press. ----- 2006. Acquiring linguistic constructions. In R. Siegler, & D. Kuhn (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, Perception, and Language (pp. 255-298). New York: Wiley Publishers. Wang, J. S. (1995). A study of focusing ‘shi’ construction in Mandarin: A functional perspective. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Wang, L. 王力 (1987)。《中國現代語法上冊》。台北﹕藍燈出版社。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9824 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討兒童早期中文「比」字比較句的副詞使用策略,是否建立在規則的使用上,或只是單純的類比過程。規則理論假設兒童先建立基本的「比」字比較句結構,再將副詞放入該結構『Y [比X] +___+述語』中;類比理論則假設兒童先建立「比」字比較句框架『Y 比 [X___]』,再填入簡單句『X+副詞 +述語』。本文從三方面收集證據:自然語料、實驗誘發、和文法判斷。自然語料的分析顯示,「比」字比較句的出現十分有限,兒童似乎尚未掌握「比」字比較句的結構,遑論副詞使用,以致於在文法判斷作業上,3歲和5歲的兒童對於「比」字比較句是否使用合文法的副詞,並未做出正確判斷。實驗誘發的作業中,兩組兒童接受不同的語言刺激,其中一組兒童所處的語言環境提供由副詞修飾的述語,但該副詞不為「比」字比較句所接受;另一組兒童的語言環境則提供名詞化的述語。3歲組兒童的文法錯誤顯示,兒童先建立一個比較句框架 『Y比[X____]』,再放入副詞修飾的述語或名詞化的述語,造成不合文法的比較句。實驗結果證明,兒童早期使用類比的策略來處理「比」字比較句中的副詞。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study investigates whether children’s early use of degree adverbs in Mandarin BI comparative structure is rule-based or analogy-based. Following the rule-based account, it is hypothesized that the basic BI comparative structure and a broad-range rule that allows for degree adverbs in BI comparative structure are constructed first. Children will follow the rule and place adverbs in the BI structure “Y [bǐ X] +___+predicate“. On the other hand, the analogy-based account hypothesizes that children rely on a formula “Y bǐ [X___]”, in which they analogically fill in the blank with a simple sentence “X+ adverb +predicate”. Evidence was collected from three aspects, including naturalistic data analyses, experimental elicitation of BI utterances, and grammatical judgment task. Analyses of early spontaneous language data revealed that the children before age 4 did not seem to have mastered the BI comparative structure due to few exemplars, let alone adverb use. It echoes the results of grammatical judgment task where the children did not distinguish between correct and incorrect uses of degree adverbs in the tested BI sentences. The elicitation task elicited BI utterances from the children of age 3 and 5 that received different conditioned input. One group was exposed to the input of a predicate modified by an adverb that was not allowed in BI comparative structure. The other group was exposed to the input of nominalized predicate for contrast. The incorrect BI utterances elicited from the three-year-old children revealed that the young children created a formula for BI comparative structure, “Y bǐ [X___]”, where they slotted in the frame with a predicate modified by an incompatible adverb, or an incompatible nominalized predicate. Namely, they underwent the same process of analogy making. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T20:43:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R94142002-1.pdf: 888065 bytes, checksum: 5ac1764750dde7a74965d233d878c1e6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter1 Introduction................................. 1
1.1 Background........................................ 1 1.2 Organization...................................... 6 Chapter2 Literature Review............................ 7 2.1 Comparison in Mandarin.............................7 2.2 Syntactic Structures of Mandarin BI Comparative Structure ..............................................10 2.3 BI Comparative Structure and Degree Adverb.........12 2.3.1 Types of Degree Adverbs......................... 13 2.3.2 Degree Adverbs in BI Comparatives............... 17 2.4 The Syntactic Status of ADJ+de.................... 18 2.5. Child Grammar—Rule-based or Analogy-based?...... 20 2.5.1 Rule-based Model................................ 20 2.5.2 Usage-based Model............................... 22 Chapter 3 Analyses of Spontaneous Language Data 25 3.1 Adult to Adult Uses of Comparatives in Natural Conversations......................................... 25 3.2 Child-Adult Uses of Comparative Utterances in Natural Contexts.............................................. 29 3.3 Summary........................................... 35 Chapter 4 Experimental Studies........................ 37 4.1 Task One: Elicitation............................. 37 4.1.1 Method.......................................... 38 4.1.2 Participants.................................... 39 4.1.3 Materials....................................... 39 4.1.4 Procedures...................................... 41 4.1.5 Coding.......................................... 43 4.1.6 Results of Comparative Structures out of Free Responses ..............................................45 4.1.7 Results of BI Utterance Elicitation............. 48 4.1.8 Summary of Task One............................. 52 4.2 Task Two: Grammatical Judgment Test............... 53 4.2.1 Participants .....................................53 4.2.2 Materials....................................... 53 4.2.3 Training........................................ 54 4.2.4 Testing......................................... 55 4.2.5 Results......................................... 55 4.2.6 Summary of Grammatical Judgment Task............ 58 4.3 Summary........................................... 59 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion................... 61 5.1 Rule-based Account Examined....................... 61 5.2 Analogy-based Account Examined.................... 63 5.3 General Discussion................................ 66 5.4 Concluding Remark................................. 68 References............................................ 69 Appendix.............................................. 72 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 兒童早期「比」字比較句之副詞使用 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Children's Early Use of Degree Adverbs in Mandarin BI Comparative Structure | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳淑惠(Shu-hui Eileen Chen),黃瓊之(Chiung-chih Huang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 中文「比」字比較句,程度副詞,規則建立,類比過程,語言習得, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Mandarin BI comparative structure,degree adverbs,rule-based,analogy-based,language acquisition, | en |
dc.relation.page | 72 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-07-18 | |
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-97-1.pdf | 867.25 kB | 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。