國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	徐佩瑜 Pei-Yu Monica Hsu
論文名稱：	中文「老」字之第一語言習得研究 L1 Acquisition of ‘Lao’ in Mandarin Chinese
指導教授：	陳純音 Chen, Chun-Yin
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2013
畢業學年度：	101
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	119
中文關鍵詞：	中文、第一語言習得、隱喻用語、生命效應
英文關鍵詞：	Mandarin Chinese, First language acquisition, Figurative expressions, Animacy
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：324 下載：197
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討以中文為母語之兒童對中文「老」字的隱喻辭意理解，主要探討的議題包括標誌理論、語意透明度、生命效應、題型效應以及年齡因素。本研究包含兩個理解能力測驗：口頭詮釋測驗與選擇題測驗。研究對象包含實驗組的一百位兒童，依平均年齡七歲至十一歲分成五組，每組二十人，以及對照組的二十位成人。
研究結果顯示，字面意義比隱喻意義容易習得。其中，兒童對語意較模糊的隱喻用語有較多錯誤，兒童的理解能力隨著年齡增長而增加。「老」的生命效應除了與修飾的名詞搭配有關之外，亦與隱喻意義之辨識有關。在題型效應方面，兒童在選擇題測驗的表現比口頭詮釋測驗好，顯示兒童在辨識隱喻用語語意之能力優先於口頭詮釋。最後，年齡是習得隱喻用語的關鍵因素，七歲兒童仍在理解字面語意階段，八歲及九歲兒童雖能理解隱喻用語，但仍未達到成人能力的階段，十歲及十一歲兒童已能理解隱喻用語搭配無生命名詞；總言之，兒童對於「老」隱喻用語之習得能力隨著年齡增長而提升。

The present study focuses on the specific figurative expression lao which can be interpreted both literally and non-literally in Chinese. It aims to investigate Chinese-speaking children’s understanding of lao by examining five factors: the difficulty of metaphoricality, the degree of transparency, animacy effect, task effect, and age effect. Two comprehension tasks (i.e., interpretation and multiple-choice) were conducted and both of them were presented in a designed story scenario. The subjects were one hundred children in the elementary school in Taiwan, and they were further divided into five groups according to their ages (i.e., 7 year-olds to 11-year-olds). Also, twenty adults were recruited as the control group.
The results showed that the literal meaning of lao was found easier to comprehend than the non-literal meaning of lao. With regard to the degree of transparency in the non-literal meanings of lao, the opaque non-literal meaning was found to be challenging for all the children. Concerning the task effects, no matter which type of meanings of lao, the subjects performed significantly better on the Multiple-choice task than on the Interpretation task. Finally, the results indicates that children at age 7 could only comprehend the literal meaning of lao, but those 8 to 9-year-olds could comprehend the non-literal meanings of lao and lao with inanimate NPs in particular, although their performances were still not adult-like. Our 10 to 11-year-old subjects were found to be able to comprehend the non-literal meanings of lao with both animate and inanimate NPs.

CHINESE ABSTRACT........................................i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT........................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................v
LIST OF TABLES..........................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................viii

Chapter One  Introduction..................................1
    1.1 Motivation.....................................1
    1.2 Theoretical Framework..........................4
    1.3 Research Questions.............................6
    1.4 Significance of the Study......................6
    1.5 Organization of the Thesis.....................7

Chapter Two  Literature Review.............................9
    2.1 Theoretical Studies of Lao.....................9
        2.1.1 Ma (2002)............................9
        2.1.2 Liu (2007)..........................13
        2.1.3 Zuo (2009)..........................16
        2.1.4 Summary.............................18
    2.2 Empirical Studies of First Language Acquisition
              of Metaphorical Expression..................19
        2.2.1 Levorato and Cacciari (2002)........19
        2.2.2 Hsieh (2004)........................23
        2.2.3 Hsieh (2008)........................27
        2.2.4 Hsieh and Hsu (2010)................29
        2.2.5 Summary.............................32
    2.3 A New Classification of Lao...................34
        2.3.1 Lao with a Literal Meaning..........35
        2.3.2 Lao with a Non-literal Meaning......36
      2.3.2.1 Transparent Non-literal Meaning of Lao..37
      2.3.2.2 Opaque Non-literal Meaning of Lao.......39
    2.4 Summary of Chapter Two........................42


Chapter Three  Research Design............................43
    3.1 Subjects......................................43
    3.2 Materials and Methods.........................45
    3.3 Procedures....................................52
        3.3.1 Pilot Study.........................52
        3.3.2 Formal Study........................53
        3.3.3 Scoring.............................55
    3.4 Summary of Chapter Three......................55

Chapter Four  Results and Discussion......................57
    4.1 Acquisition of Literal and Non-literal Types..57
        4.1.1 A Comparison between Literal and
                        Non-literal Types.................57
        4.1.2 General Discussion..................59
    4.2 Acquisition of Transparent and Opaque Types...63
        4.2.1 A Comparison between Transparent
                        and Opaque Non-literal Meanings...64
        4.2.2 General Discussion..................66
    4.3 Acquisition of the Animacy Effect of Lao......70
        4.3.1 A Comparison between Animate and
                           Inanimate NPs Modified by Lao..70
        4.3.2 General Discussion..................73
    4.4 Task Effect...................................75
        4.4.1 Overall Findings....................76
        4.4.2 General Discussion..................81
    4.5 Age Effect....................................83
    4.6 Summary of Chapter Four.......................87

Chapter Five  Conclusion..................................89
    5.1 Summary of the Major Findings.................89
    5.2 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions
              for Further Research........................90

Bibliography..............................................93
Appendix A: Test Items Used in the Interpretation Task....99
Appendix B: Test Items Used in the Multiple-choice Task..107
Appendix C: Two Tasks Used in the Pilot Study............111
Appendix D: Results of the Pilot Study...................117
Appendix E: Consent Form.................................119

                                

Ackerman, Brian P. 1982. On comprehending idioms: Do children get the picture? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 33: 439-54.
Berman, Ruth A. (ed.) 2004. Language Development across Childhood and Adolescence. 3; (Trends in Language Acquisition Research). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Bloom, Paul. 1963. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. London: The MIT Press.
Cacciari, Cristina, and Maria Chiara Levorato. 1989. How children understand idioms in discourse. Journal of Child Language 16: 387-405.
Cain, Kate, Jane Oakhill, and Kate Lemmon. 2005. The relation between children’s reading comprehension level and their comprehension of idioms. Journal Experimental Child Psychology 90: 65-87.
Cain, Kate, Andrea S. Towse, and Rachael S. Knight. 2009. The development of idiom comprehension: An investigation of semantic and contextual processing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102: 280-98.
Cruse, Alan. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantic and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford.
Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). 1982. Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: University Press.
Dockrell, Julie E., and David Messer. 2004. Lexical acquisition in the early school years. In Berman, 35-52.
Durkin, Kevin, Robert Crowther, Beatrice Shire, Roland Riem, and Penelope R. G. Nash. 1985. Polysemy in mathematical and musical education. Applied Linguistics 6: 147-61.
Feng, Jin-E. 2008. Xiandai hanyu biao ren de “lao X” jiegou de duo jiaodu kaocha. China: Central China Normal University MA thesis.
Gardner, Howard, and Ellen Winner. 1978. The development of metaphoric competence: Implications for humanistic disciplines. Critical Inquiry 5: 123-41.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1987. Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Child Language 14: 569-86.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1991. Semantic analyzability in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34: 613-20.
Gelman, Susan A., and Melissa A. Koenig. 2001. The role of animacy in children’s understanding of ‘move.’ Journal of Child Language 28: 683-701.
Gelman, Susan A., and John E. Opfer. 2002. Development of the animate-inanimate distinction. Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development, ed. by Usha Goswami, 152-66.
Goodluck, Helen. 1991. Language Acquisition: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: a Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hsieh, Meng-Hsuan. 2008. L1 Acquisition of Metaphorical Expression: A Case Study of ‘si’ in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University
MA thesis.
Hsieh, I-hua. 2004. A Developmental Study of Metaphor and Metonymy in Taiwan Mandarin Speakers. Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University MA thesis.
Hsieh, Ching-Yu, and Chun-Chieh Hsu. 2010. Idiom comprehension in Mandarin-speaking children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39: 505-22.
Kempler, Daniel, Diana Van Lancker, Virginia Marchman, and Elizabeth Bates. 1999. Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology 15: 327-49.
Liu, Yi-Fei. 2007. “Lao” de yufahua wenti yanjiu. China: Northeast Normal University MA thesis.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Michael H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levorato, M. Chiara, and Cristina Cacciari. 1992. Children’s comprehension and production of idioms: the role of context and familiarity. Journal of Child Language 19: 415-33.
Levorato, M. Chiara, and Cristina Cacciari. 1995. The effects of different tasks on the comprehension and production of idioms in children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology 60: 261-83.
Levorato, M. Chiara, and Cristina Cacciari. 1999. Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analyzability and context separable? European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology 11: 51-66.
Levorato, M. Chiara, and Cristina Cacciari. 2002. The creation of new figurative expressions: psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language 29: 127-50.
Levorato, M. Chiara, Barbara Nesi, and Cristina Cacciari. 2004. Reading comprehension and understanding idiomatic expressions: A developmental study. Brain and Language 91: 303-14.
Ma, Hui-Ling. 2002. “Lao” yuyi tan wei. Yindu Journal, 2002: 96-8.
Nippold, Marilyn A., Laurence B. Leonard, and Robert Kail. 1984. Syntactic and conceptual factors in children’s understanding of metaphors. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 27: 197-205.
Nippold, M. A., and Martin, S. T. (1989). Idiom interpretation in isolation versus context: A developmental study with adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32: 59-66.
Nippold, Marilyn A., and Michelle Rudzinski. 1993. Familiarity and transparency in idiom explanation: a developmental study of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36: 728-37.
Nippold, Marilyn A., and Catherine L. Taylor. 1995. Idiom understanding in youth: further examination of familiarity and transparency. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38: 426-43.
Nippold, Marilyn A., and Catherine L. Taylor. 2002. Judgements of idiom familiarity and transparency: A comparison of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech
Language and Hearing Research 45: 384-91.
Nippold, Marilyn A. 2004. Research on later language development. In Berman, 1-8.
Prinz, Philip M. 1983. The development of idiomatic meaning in children. Language and Speech 26: 263-72.
Reynolds, Ralph E., and Andrew Ortony. 1980. Some issues in the measurement of children’s comprehension of metaphorical language. Child Development 51: 1110-19.
Schwartz, Richard G. 1980. Presuppositions and children’s metalinguistic judgments: concepts of life and the awareness of animacy restrictions. Child Development 51: 364-71.
Temple, Jon G., and Richard P. Honeck. 1999. Proverb comprehension: The primacy of literal meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 41-70.
Vosniadou, Stella. 1987. Children and metaphor. Child Development 58: 870-85.
Vosniadou, Stella, Andrew Ortony, Ralph E. Reynolds, and Paul T. Wilson. 1984.
Sources of difficulty in the young child’s understanding of metaphorical language. Child Development 55: 1588-606.
Vosniadou, Stella, and Andrew Ortony. 1983. The emergence of the literal-metaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development 54: 154-61.
Vulchanova, Mila, Valentin Vulchanov, and Margarita Stankova. 2011. Idiom comprehension in the first language: a developmental study. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 207-34.
Winner, Ellen, Anne K. Rosenstiel, and Howard Gardner. 1976. The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental Psychology 12: 289-97.
Winner, Ellen.1988. The Point of Words: Children’s Understanding of Metaphor and Irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zuo, Shuang-Ju. 2009. Lun xing ming zu pei de yuyi hudongxing- yi “lao + N” jiego wei li. Journal of Changsha Social Work College 16: 120-23.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文