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：	謝孟璇 Meng-Hsuan Claire Hsieh
論文名稱：	中文隱喻用語之第一語言習得研究--以「死」字為例 L1 Acquisition of Metaphorical Expressions- A Case Study of 'Si' 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：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	117
中文關鍵詞：	第一語言習得、中文、隱喻用語、生命效應
英文關鍵詞：	language acquisition, Chinese, metaphorical expressions, animacy
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：363 下載：183
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

摘要

本研究旨在探討與中文「死」字及其相關隱喻用法的母語習得情形,並針對五個議題—標誌理論、語言情境、生命效應、詞類效應、與年齡因素加以討論。本實驗包含兩個理解能力測驗:字詞單獨測驗(Words in Isolation),與字詞情境測驗(Words in Context)。受試者共有 144 位國小學生,依照年級分成 6 組,另有 24 位的以中文為母語之成人作為控制組。

研究結果顯示,非隱喻性用法、也就是無標誌用法,比隱喻性用法或有標誌用法來得容易習得。受試者在字詞情境測驗中表現比字詞單獨測驗好,顯示語境有助於受試者判別隱喻性意義。主詞的生命效應不只與動詞搭配有關,與隱喻意義的辨認亦有關連。此外,「死」字的詞類變化對意義辨認的難易有顯著影響,難易度可歸納出「動詞 > 形容詞 > 副詞」,與「死+動詞 > 死 > 動詞+死」,亦即詮釋「死」當動詞較「死」當形容詞或副詞來得容易,「死+動詞」的組合比單獨使用「死」和「動詞+死」來得簡單。同時,年齡仍是習得隱喻性用法、或者具備
後設語言能力的重要因素;四年級學童(也就是超過十歲的受試者)表現特別優異,顯示十歲極有可能是習得後設語言能力的重要里程碑。

The purpose of the present study is to examine the Chinese word si and first
language acquisition of its metaphorical expressions. Five issues were discussed, i.e., Markedness Theory (Goodluck, 1991), context effects, animacy effects, categorical effects, and age effects. A total of 144 subjects from an elementary school were asked to participate in the study. They were further divided into six age groups (6;4, 7;7, 8;7, 9;7, 10;7, 11;6). Two comprehension tasks were employed: the Words in Isolation (WII) Task, and the Words in Context (WIC) Task.

The results showed that literal expressions of si phrases, which were unmarked (Goodluck, 1991), were easier for the children to comprehend than metaphorical and marked expressions. The children performed better on the WIC Task than that on the WII Task, and contextual clues were beneficial for the children especially in identifying the metaphorical phrases. It was found that the interpretation of si phrases was constrained by the animate feature of the subject NP. The difficulty of literal and metaphorical meanings of si, Verb > Adjective > Adverb, and si + V > V > V + si, was subject to its syntactic type, implying that considering si as a verb is easier than treating it as an adjective or adverb in interpreting its metaphorical use, and that interpreting the metaphorical meaning of the compound, si + V, is easier than interpreting that of si as a verb or the compound V + si.
Last, age was found to play a dominant role in the development of metaphorical ability. The older children indeed performed better on both types of meanings, both tasks, and syntactic complicated phrases than younger children. Grade 4 (i.e., over 10 years old) seemed to be a milestone of children’s possessing comprehension ability of the figurative
language.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT     I
ENGLISH ABSTRACT     II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  III
TABLE OF CONTENTS   V
LIST OF TABLES         VII
LIST OF FIGURES        VIII

CHAPTERE ONE INTRODUCTION  1
  1.1   Motivation  1
  1.2   Theoretical Background  2
  1.3   Research Questions  5
  1.4   Significance of the Study  6
  1.5   Organization of the Thesis   7

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW  9
  2.1   Previous Studies of Si  9
    2.1.1 Ho (2005)  9
    2.1.2 Dai & Gao (2006)  11
    2.1.3 Zhu (2006)  14
  2.2   Linguistic Properties of Si  16
    2.2.1 Si as a Verb 17
    2.2.2 Si as an Adjective  27
    2.2.3 Si as an Adverb 30
  2.3   Empirical Studies of First Language Acquisition of Metaphorical
        Expressions 34
    2.3.1 Nippold & Taylor (1995)  34
    2.3.2 Hamblin & Gibbs (1999)  37
    2.3.3 Levorato & Cacciari (2002)  41
    2.3.4 Hsieh (2004)  45
  2.4   Summary of Chapter Two 50

CHAPTER THREE EXPERIMENTAL METHODS  51
  3.1   Subjects  51
  3.2   Materials and Methods  52
  3.3   Procedure  61
    3.3.1 Pilot Study  62
    3.3.2 Formal Study  63
    3.3.3 Scoring and Coding 65
  3.4   Summary of Chapter Three  66

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  67
  4.1   Acquisition of Metaphoricality 67
  4.2   Contextual Effects 72
  4.3   Animacy Effects 78
  4.4   Categorical Effects 82
  4.5   Summary of Chapter Four  90

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION  91
  5.1   Summary of the Present Findings 91
  5.2   Theoretical Implications 93
  5.3   Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Further
        Research 94

BIBLIOGRAPHY 95
APPENDIX 1 Test Items Used in the WII Task  99
APPENDIX 2 Test Items Used in the WIC Task  100
APPENDIX 3 Slides for the WII Task  102
APPENDIX 4 Slides for the WIC Task  106
APPENDIX 5 Test Phrases and Sentences Used in the Pilot Study  111
APPENDIX 6 Answer Sheet for the WII and the WIC Tasks 114
APPENDIX 7 Results of the Formal Study 115
                                

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berk, L. M. 1999. English Syntax: From Word to Discourse. NY: Oxford University Press.
Berman, R.A. 2004. Language Development across Childhood and Adolescence: Trends in Language Acquisition Research. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
Bloom, P. 2000. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. The MIT Press.
Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. London: Longman.
Cacciari, C. & M. C. Levorato. 1989. How children understand idioms in discourse. Journal of Child Language, 16: 387-405.
Chao, G-X. 2001. Han yu “W+si le” yu Han yu “W+xi” biyiao. Han yu Xue xi, 3: 47-49.
Cheng J. & X-H. Xu. 2004. HSK dan-shuang-yin tongyi dongci yanjiu. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue, 4: 43-57.
Clark, E. V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cometa, M. S. & M. E. Eson. 1978. Logical operations and metaphor interpretation: A Piagetian model. Child Development, 49: 649-659.
Comrie, B. 1983. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Corrigan, R & C. Odya-Weis. 1985. The comprehension of semantic relations by two-year-olds: an exploratory study. Journal of Child Language, 12: 47-59.
Croft, W. 1995. Modern Syntactic Typology. Ed. in Shibatani, M & Bynoon, T. Approaches to Language Typology.
Cruse, A. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford.
Dai W-P. & Y-H. Gao. 2006. Ying-han-yu zhong si de yingyu yanjui. Yuyan Wenzi Xiuci Jichu Jiaoyu Ban (6): 147-149.
Fletcher P. & B. MacWhinney. 1995. The Handbook of Child Language. UK, US: Blackwell.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & N. Hyams. 2002. An Introduction to Language. US: Heinle, Thomson.
Gardner. H & E. Winner. 1978. The development of metaphoric competence: Implications for humanistic disciplines. Critical Inquiry, 5: 123-141.
Gelman, S. A. & M. A. Koenig. 2001. The role of animacy in children’s understanding of ‘move.’ Journal of Child Language, 28: 683-701.
Gibbs, JR. R. W. 1987. Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of idioms. Journal of Child Language, 14: 569-586.
Gleason, J. B. 2000. The Development of Language. US: Allyn & Bacon.
Goodluck, H. 1991. Language Acquisition: A Linguistic Introduction. UK, US: Blackwell.
Hamblin, J. L. & Jr. R. W. Gibbs. 1999. Why you can’t kick the bucket as you slowly die: verbs in idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28: 25-41.
Ho. R-F. 2005. “Dong (Xing) + si…” de jiegou yuyi fenxi. Beijing-Jiaoyu-Xue-Yuan Xuebao, 19 (2): 16-21.
Hoff, E. 2005. Language Development. Australia: Belmont; CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning.
Hsieh, I-H. 2004. A Developmental Study of Metaphor and Metonymy in Taiwan Mandarin Speakers. M.A. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Ji, Y-R. 2000. “Xiang-xi wo le” han “Xiang-xi ni le.” Tianjin-Shi-Da Xue Bao, 2: 78-80.
Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. 1981. Semantics: The Study of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lempert, H. 1990. Acquisition of passives: the role of patient animacy, salience, and lexical accessibility. Journal of Child Language, 17: 677-696.
Lempert, H. 1989. Animacy constraints on preschool children’s acquisition of syntax. Child Development, 60: 421-447.
Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley.
Levin, S. R. 1977. The Semantics of Metaphor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Levorato, M. C & C. Cacciari. 2002. The creation of new figurative expressions: psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language, 29: 127-150.
Levorato, M. C & C. Cacciari. 1992. Children’s comprehension and production of idioms: the role of context and familiarity. Journal of Child Language, 19: 415-433.
Li, C. & S. Thompson. 1983. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 1997. How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, J. 1981. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nippold, M. A. & C. L. Taylor. 1996. Idiom understanding in Australian youth: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 39: 442-454.
Nippold, M. A. & C. L. Taylor. 1995. Idiom understanding in youth: further examination of familiarity and transparency. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 38: 426-43.
Nippold, M. A. & F. S. Haq. 1995. Proverb comprehension in youth: the role of concreteness and familiarity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39: 166-176.
Nippold, M. A. & M. Rudzinski. 1993. Familiarity and transparency in idiom explanation: a developmental study of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 36: 728-737.
Nippold, M. A. & S. T. Martin. 1989. Idiom interpretation in isolation versus context: A developmental study with adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32: 59-66.
Pearson, B. Z. 1990. The comprehension of metaphor by preschool children. The Journal of Child Language, 17: 185-203.
Pollio, M. R. & H. R. Pollio. 1974. The development of figurative language in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3: 185-201.
Prinz, P. M. 1983. The development of idiomatic meaning in children. Language and Speech, 26: 263-271.
Saeed, J. I. 2003. Semantics. Pp: 53-77. UK, US: Blackwell.
Schwartz, R. G. 1980. Presuppositions and children’s meta-linguistic judgments: concepts of life and the awareness of animacy restriction. Child Development, 51: 217-225.
Singleton, D. 2000. Language and the Lexicon: An Introduction. London: Arnold.
Spector, C. C. 1996. Children's comprehension of idioms in the context of humor. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27: 307-313.
Vosniadou, S., Ortony, A. & R. E. Reynolds. 1984. Sources of difficulty in the young child’s understanding of metaphorical language. Child Development, 55: 1588-1606.
Vosniadou, S. & A. Ortony. 1983. The emergence of the Literal-metaphorical anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development, 54: 154-161.
Waggoner, J. E., Messe, M. J. & D. S. Palermo. 1985. Grasping the meaning of metaphor: Story recall and comprehension. Child Development, 56: 1156-1166.
Winner, E. 1979. New names for old things: the emergence of metaphorical language. The Journal of Child Language, 6: 469-491.
Winner, E. 1988. The Point of Words: Children’s Understanding of Metaphor and Irony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zhu, S-P. 2006. Chengdu buyu jixing yiyi de huode—yi ‘si’ lei ci wei li. Wenzhou Shi-Fan-Xue-Yuan Xuebao. Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban, 27(6): 26-30.
Zhang, Weishan. 1997. The Acquisition of the English Lexicon from Context: An Empirical Study of Chinese Adult ESL Learners. A Dissertation for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy. US: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文