請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/47496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 | Te-Hsin Wu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 吳得心 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T06:02:51Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2010-08-19 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-19 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2010-08-16 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | References
Behrend, D. A. (1990). The development of verb concepts: Children's use of verbs to label familiar and novel events. Child Development, 61, 681-696. Behrend, D. A. (1995). Processes involved in the initial mapping of verb meanings. In M. Tomasello & W. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Children’s acquisition of verbs (pp. 251–273). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Benedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: Comprehension and production. Journal of Child Language, 6, 183-200. Bornstein, M., Cote, L., Maital, S., Painter, K., Park, S. Y., Pascual, L., et al. (2004). Cross-linguistic analysis of vocabulary in young children: Spanish, Dutch, French, Hebrew, Italian, Korean and American English. Child Development, 75, 1115-1140. Caselli, M. C., Bates, E., Casadio, P., & Fenson, J. (1995). A cross-linguistic study of early lexical development. Cognitive Development, 10, 159-199. Chen, S. (2009). Lexical specificity and lexical acquisition. Master Thesis. National Taiwan University, Taipei. Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognition and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press. Edwards, D. (1973). Sensory-motor intelligence and semantic relations in early child grammar. Cognition, 2(4), 395-434 Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Fisher, C. (1994). Structure and Meaning in the Verb Lexicon: Input for a Syntax-aided Verb Learning Procedure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 473-517. Forbes, J. N., & Farrar, M. J. (1993). Children’s initial assumptions about the meaning of novel motion verbs: Biased and conservative? Cognitive Development, 8, 273-290. Forbes, J. N., & Farrar, M. J. (1995). Learning to represent word meaning: What initial training events reveal about children's developing action verb concepts. Cognitive Development, 10(1), 1-20. Forbes, J., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (1997). Representational change in young children’s understanding of familiar verb meaning. Journal of Child Language, 24, 389-406. Gentner, D. (1981). Some interesting differences between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4, 161-178. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S.A. Kuczaj, II (ed.), Language development Vol. 2: Language, thought, and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In S. C. Levinson (Series Ed.) & M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Vol. Eds.), Language, culture, & cognition: Vol. 3. Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215-256). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gleitman, L. (1990). Structural Sources of Verb Learning. Language Acquisition, 1, 1-63. Golinkoff, R. M., Chung, H. L., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Liu, J., Bertenthal, B. I., Brand, R., Maguire, M. J., & Hennon, E. (2002). Young children can extend motion verbs to point-light displays. Developmental Psychology, 38, 604-614. Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Mervis, C. (1995). Lexical principles can be extended to the acquisition of verbs. In M. Tomasello & W. Mcrriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs (pp. 185-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Golinkoff, R., Jacquet, R. C., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Nandakumar, R. (1996). Lexical principles may underlie the learning of verbs. Child Development, 67, 3101- 3119. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language, 18, 115-151. Gruendel, J. M. (1977). Referential Extension in Early Language Development. Child Development, 48(4), 1567-1576. Imai, M., Haryu, E., & Okada, H. (2005). Mapping novel nouns and verbs onto dynamic action events: Are verb meanings easier to learn than noun meanings for Japanese children? Child Development, 76, 340 – 355. Imai, M., Haryu, E., Okada, H., Lianjing, L. & Shigematsu, J. (2006). Revisiting the noun- verb debate: a crosslinguistic comparison of novel noun and verb learning in English-, Japanese- and Chinese-speaking children. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.) Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp.?-?). New York: Oxford University Press. Imai, M., Li, L., Haryu, E., Okada, H., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., & Shigematsu, J. (2008). Novel noun and verb learning in Chinese, English, and Japanese. Child Development, 79, 979–1000. Kersten, A. (1998). A division of labor between nouns and verbs in the representation of motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 34-54. Kersten, A. and Smith, B. (2002). Attention to novel objects during verb learning. Child Development, 73(1), 93-109. Lidz, J. (2006). Verb learning as a probe into children's grammars. In K. Hirsh-Pasek and R. Golinkoff (Eds.) Action Meets Word: How children learn verbs (pp. 429-449). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Liu, H., M., Tsao, F. M. (2010). Mandarin-Chinese Communicative Development Inventory (Taiwan). Taipei: Psychological Publishing. Ma, W., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., McDonough, C., & Tardif, T. (2009). Imageability predicts age of acquisition of verbs in Chinese children. Journal of Child Language, 36, 405-423. Ma, W. (2010). How does meaning specificity affect verb learning and extension?. Language Acquisition, 17, 124–126. Maguire, M. J., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). It’s not about nouns and verbs. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.) Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp.?-? ). New York: Oxford University Press. Maguire, M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Brandone, A. (2008). Focusing on the relation: Fewer exemplars facilitate children’s initial verb learning and extension. Developmental Science, 11, 628 – 634. Maouene, J., Hidaka, S. & Smith, L. (2006). Body parts and the first 100 verbs. In Proceedings of The Twenty Eighth Annual Conference of Cognitive Society, pp. 555-560. Naigles, L. Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. (1993). 'Syntactic Bootstrapping and Verb Acquisition,' In E. Dromi (ed), Language and Cognition: A Developmental Perspective (pp. ?-?). Ablex: NJ. Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357–374. Nelson, K. A. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review, 81, 267-285. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A.. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1-25. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. London: MIT Press. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439. Seston, R., Golinkoff, R.M., Ma, W., Tomlinson, N., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2009). Vacuuming withmy mouth? Children’s ability to comprehend novel extensions of familiar verbs. Cognitive Development, 24, 113–124. Snedeker, J., & Gleitman, L. R. (2004). Why is it hard to label our concepts? In D. G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.) Weaving a lexicon (pp. 293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Talmy, L. (1985). A typology of event integration. In L. Talmy, Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. 2. Typology and process in concept structuring (pp. 21-146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs: Evidence from Mandarin speakers’ early vocabulary. Developmental Psychology, 32, 492 – 504. Tardif, T. (2006) But are they really verbs? Chinese words for action. In K. Hirsh-Pasek and R. Golinkoff (Eds.) Action Meets Word: How children learn verbs (pp. 477-498). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. The National Language Committee, Ministry of Education. (2000). Frequency Table of Most-used Words by Primary School Students, In Statistics on the frequency of characters most used by primary school students. Taipei: Ministry of Education. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/47496 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探討工具的特指性是否影響動詞延伸。Seston et al. (2009)曾指出,對使用英語的孩童而言,工具特指性較高的動詞較工具特指性較低的動詞易於延伸。其解釋為工具特指性較高的動詞具象化程度(imageability)也較高,根據具象化假說(imageability hypothesis; Ma et al., 2009),具象化程度較高的詞較易被習得。具象化程度是否增進動詞學習或阻礙動詞延伸尚無定論,Golinkoff et al. (1995) 的研究認為當孩童無法確認何者為一動詞之必要語意元素時,孩童依賴動詞事件的整體外型(shape)作動詞延伸的依據。本研究要檢驗的是,工具的特指性是否影響中文孩童的動詞延伸,且當孩童面對創新工具延伸作業時,是否也依賴動詞事件的整體外型(shape)作延伸依據;另外,本研究也探討對於新工具額外的熟悉度是否促進動詞延伸
本研究操弄的自變項為工具特指性及對工具的熟悉程度。工具特指性在此定義為母語者允許一個動詞可使用的平均工具數量。在本研究中,六個動詞被選為實驗用詞,且依照其工具特指性高低程度分為特指(Specified)與開放(Open)兩組。實驗組別分為熟悉組與不熟悉組兩組。實驗分為三階段,第一階段所有受試者會聽到關於實驗故事的背景以及故事中會出現的玩偶的介紹,但只有熟悉組的受試者會聽到對於延伸新工具的額外介紹;第二階段所有受試者會接受兩題的基本訓練,做為正式實驗的熱身練習;第三階段為正式實驗階段,所有受試者會聽到十二則故事,聽完每一個故事後,受試者會被要求先以口頭改述剛剛故事裡所描述的動作,然後再實際以實驗者提供的道具做出該動作。本研究受試者為四十八位以中文為母語的兒童,包含二十四位年齡約五歲的兒童,及另外二十四位年齡約七歲的兒童。 本實驗結果顯示: (1) 對使用中文的兒童而言,尤其是五歲以下的兒童,工具特指性較高的動詞比工具特指性較低的動詞更難延伸: (2) 工具在動詞中的延伸性不受預先聽到該工具的名稱及功能的熟悉化作業影響。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study aims to investigate the role of instrument specificity played in Mandarin-speaking children’s verb extension process. Seston et al. (2009) suggested that verbs with a more “specified” instrument were easier to be extended by English-speaking children than verbs with more open instruments. Seston’s explanation of their result is that specified instrument verbs are higher in imageability than open instrument verbs, and according to imageability hypothesis (Ma et al., 2009), verbs with higher imageability tends to be acquired earlier. It remains unclear whether imageability accounts for easier of word learning or word extension. Golinkoff et al.’s (1995) study stated that children use the overall shape of an event to extend a verb when they fail to recognize which semantic elements conflated in the verb. This study aims to explore whether the specificity of instrument affect Mandarin-speaking children’s extension of verbs and to see if children do rely on shape when facing novel instrument extension. In addition, it was also examined whether an additional familiarization of the novel instrument facilitates verb extension.
This study manipulated instrument specificity and familiarity of instrument as independent variables. Instrument specificity is defined as the number of instrument that adult native speakers can identify within an experimental task setting. Six target verbs were chosen and grouped into two groups of verbs (Specified and Open) by their instrument specificity rated by native adult speakers. The experimental conditions include Familiar Condition and Unfamiliar Condition. The main experiment for testing instrument specificity can be divided into three phases: (1) the introductory, (2) the baseline training, and (3) the test phase. In the first phase, all participants received introduction to the background knowledge of the upcoming stories and to the puppets appeared in the stories. Only the participants in Familiar Condition received an additional familiarization to the novel instruments. In the second phase, two trails of baseline training were conducted as warm-ups to the test trials. Then came the third phase in which children heard twelve stories and were asked to first paraphrase and then act out the action described in the story. Children’s production and comprehension were examined. Twenty-four 5-year-old and twenty-four 7-year-old Mandarin-speaking children participated in this study. Results indicate that: (1) For Mandarin-speaking children, verbs with more specified instrument are harder to extend than verbs with various possible instruments, especially for children under age five. (2) The extensibility of novel instruments is not affected by a prior familiarization to their names and functions. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T06:02:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R96142007-1.pdf: 1459082 bytes, checksum: 275f2a88c448b1da7986e1747f988ea9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
List of Tables iv List of Figures v Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.1.1 Instrument: from semantic roles to argument structure 1 1.1.2 Argument structures among acquisition issues 3 1.1.3 Probe into the role of instrument to verb acquisition issues 3 1.2 Purpose, design, and research questions 5 1.2.1 Factor examined: instrument specificity 5 1.2.2 Instrument vs. familiarity of objects 7 1.2.3 Related issues: Specificity in verb meaning 8 1.2.4 Other factors involved: body-part involvement 8 1.2.5 Research questions 9 1.3 Significance 10 1.4 Organization 11 Chapter 2. Literature Review 12 2.1 What makes verb learning so difficult? 12 2.2 What does it take to learn a verb? 13 2.3 Extensibility and lexical acquisition 14 2.3.1 Criteria for early lexical extensions 14 2.3.2 Method of studying young children's verb extensions 17 2.3.3 Children’s extension of verbs 18 2.3.4 Previous studies on instrument extension 20 Chapter 3. Experimental Designs and Experimental Tasks 24 3.1 Experimental Design 26 3.1.1 Variables 26 3.1.2 Counterbalancing 27 3.1.3 Controlled factor: input frequency 28 3.1.4 Aspects of analysis 29 3.2 Participants 30 3.3 Materials 30 3.3.1 Specified, Open, Control, and Filler Verbs 30 3.3.2 Sentence stimuli 33 3.3.3 Instrument 34 3.4 Procedure 36 3.4.1 Introductory phase 36 3.4.2 Baseline training phase 38 3.4.3 Test Phase 39 3.5 Coding scheme 41 Chapter 4. Results on Instrument Extensibility 43 4.1 Production task 43 4.1.1 Oral response types: frequency and percentage counts 43 4.2 Act-out task 46 4.2.1 Overall cross-tabulation for Instrument, Action, and Outcome 46 4.2.2 Three-way repeated measure ANOVA on each variable 49 4.2.2.1 Independency of rating criteria 49 4.2.2.2 Overall performances in act-out task 50 4.2.2.3 What variables influence the extensibility of Instrument? 51 4.2.2.4 Action and Outcome in act-out task 52 4.2.3 Subject-based analysis 53 4.2.4 Verb-based analysis 56 4.3 Comparison between production and act-out task 58 4.4 Summary of results 62 Chapter 5. General Discussion and Conclusion 64 5.1 General discussion 64 5.2 Concluding remark 69 5.3 Further study 70 References 71 Appendices 76 Appendix 1: 19 verbs for adult validation 76 Appendix 2: 12 Sentence Stimuli 77 Appendix 3: Unconventional instruments for act-out task 78 Appendix 4: Protocol for Introduction phase 79 Appendix 5: Protocol for Baseline training phase 80 List of Tables Table 3.1: Experimental design: Flow of experiment 25 Table 3.2: Counterbalancing stimuli presentation order 27 Table 3.3: The selected verb stimuli 32 Table 3.4: Two different input sentence frame 34 Table 3.5: Coding criteria and examples for production task 41 Table 3.6: Coding criteria for act-out task 42 Table 4.1: Oral response types: frequency and percentage 44 Table 4.2: Correct use of Instrument in comprehension task 47 Table 4.3: Correct use of Action and Outcome in comprehension task 48 Table 4.4: Subject-based analysis: participants’ use of Instrument 55 Table 4.5: Subject-based analysis: participants’ use of Action and Outcome… 57 Table 4.6: Verb-based analysis: Correct Instrument applying in act-out task 58 Table 4.7: 5y Cross-tabulation of oral and act-out Instrument use responses 60 Table 4.8: 7y Cross-tabulation of oral and act-out Instrument use responses 61 List of Figures Figure 3.1: The lego-made instrument for act-out task 35 Figure 3.2: Comb 37 Figure 3.3: Telephone 37 Figure 3.4: The puppets in the experiments 37 Figure 3.5: The objects (patients) provided for act-out tasks 40 Figure 3.6: The specially-designed box for puppets (left) and instrument (right) 40 Figure 4.1: Correct oral response + Instrument in Specified and Open trials 45 Figure 4.2: Correct oral response - Instrument in Specified and Open trials 46 Figure 4.3: Developmental trend of instrument applying 55 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 工具延伸性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 詞彙發展 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 動詞延伸 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | instrument extensibility | en |
| dc.subject | lexical development | en |
| dc.subject | verb extension | en |
| dc.title | 兒童的動詞運用:工具的延伸性 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Verb Use in Chinese Children: Extensibility of Instrument | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 呂佳蓉(Chiarung Lu),謝舒凱(Shu-Kai Hsieh) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 工具延伸性,詞彙發展,動詞延伸, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | instrument extensibility,lexical development,verb extension, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 80 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-17 | |
| 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-99-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.42 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。
