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：	李鴻麟 Larry Hong-lin Li
論文名稱：	句法提示與分離性之語言機制：以中文名詞及形狀分類詞為例 Syntactic Cues and Linguistic Individuation: Evidence from Chinese Nouns and Shape Classifiers
指導教授：	林千哲 Lin, Chien-Jer 丁仁 Ting, Jen
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2010
畢業學年度：	98
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	175
中文關鍵詞：	句法提示、分離性之語言機制
英文關鍵詞：	syntactic cues, linguistic individuation
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：160 下載：16
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

本論文主要採用心理語言學途徑來探討中文名詞是否像英語名詞一樣具有標記分離性之語言機制。我們假設與形狀分類詞高度共現的名詞具有[+分離性]的標記，而與形狀分類詞共現率較低的名詞則有[-分離性]的標記。我們設計了二個問卷形式的調查和三個線上實驗來探究這個議題。在數量向度評量的調查裡，我們檢驗具有高形狀分類詞共現率的名詞相較於低共現率的名詞是否會引發較多以數目為判斷依據的效應。結果並不顯著。我們認為這是因為感官認知因素介入的結果。然而，在語句完成的調查裡，我們發現高形狀分類詞共現率的名詞比低共現率的名詞更會引發受試者製造具有非泛指的語句。在自我調度的閱讀實驗裡，我們發現當具低形狀分類詞共現率的名詞出現在量化的語境下，受試者需要更多的時間來閱讀理解。而具有高形狀分類詞共現率的名詞則需要較短的閱讀時間。我們認為低形狀分類詞共現率的名詞引發的時間效應是因為其具有[-分離性]的語意，所以會在量化的語境下歷經語意誘迫的歷程。另外，在眼動閱讀實驗裡，也發現到閱讀時間、回溯機率和回溯時間上的效應。在量化的語境下，低形狀分類詞共現率的名詞會引起較長的閱讀時間、較高的回溯機率及較久的回溯時間。最後，在眼動視覺情境的實驗裡，我們也發現當受試者聽到低形狀分類詞共現率的名詞時，注視繪有單一目標物圖片的機率會比聽到高形狀分類詞共現率的名詞時較低。本研究證明了中文名詞的確具有不同的指涉特性。同時，就像英語一樣，也有句法提示機制來幫助察覺詞彙內部具有不同分離性的語意特質。

This dissertation investigated whether Chinese nouns, like English nouns, have a linguistic apparatus of individuation using a psychological approach. We hypothesized that nouns that highly collocate with shape classifiers are lexically specified with [+individual] while nouns that do not are marked with [-individual]. We conducted two off-line and three on-line experiments to pursue this issue. In the dimension rating task, we intended to examine whether nouns that habitually go with shape classifiers tended to give rise to a number-based quantity judgment, as opposed to nouns that do not. The results did not show an effect. We suggest that the failure was due to a conceptual comfound. However, in the sentence completion task, nouns that frequently take shape classifiers showed a stronger tendency to incur non-generic sentences relative to nouns that are less compatible with shape classifiers. In the self-paced reading task, the results demonstrated that a longer time was taken in sentence reading in a quantificational context when the noun being quantified is less inclined to go with shape classifiers. On the contrary, a shorter reading time was consumed when the sentence contained a noun that tends to take shape classifiers. We suggest that the effect occurred because nouns that barely take shape classifiers have non-individuated denotation and consequently a coercive operation was triggered. In the eye-movement reading procedure, a marked effect of condition emerged on reading times as well as regressive probability and duration. In a context of quantification, nouns that scantly take shape classifiers caused not only a longer total reading time but also a higer probability and a longer duration of regression. Lastly, in the eye-movement visual world study, the findings indicated that, given a noun that less frequently occurs with shape classifiers, the probalbity of fixating the picture depicting the single instance of the target object was lower in comparison to a noun that frequently collocates with shape classifiers. The findings provided evidence that Chinese nouns are distinguished in terms of reference. Furthermore, akin to English, Chinese provides a syntactic cue to individuation at the lexical level.

CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………….. v
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………… viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS………………………………………….… ix

CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION…………………………………….…1
1.1. Background ………………………………………………………. ...1
1.2. Goals…………………………………………………………… .…..2
1.3. Overview…………………………………………………… …….....3
CHAPTER 2  APPARATUS OF INDIVIDUATION IN CHINESE NOUNS:
CONCEPTUAL OR LINGUISTIC…………………………………… .. 5
2.1. Mass-count Language versus Classifier Language………… 5
2.2. Conceptual Device of Individuation in Chinese Nouns. 7
2.3. Use of Shape Classifiers and Linguistic Convention (Zhang 2007)…16
2.4. Grammatical Categories as a Syntactic Cue to Word Meaning…19
2.5. Competing Views as to Chinese Noun Denotation…….…22
2.6. Featural Representation [±individual]……………………29
CHAPTER 3  INDIVIDUATION IN CHINESE NOUNS:
TWO OFF-LINE STUDIES………………………………………………31
3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………31
3.2. Individuation: Conceptual Apparatus and Linguistic Apparatus……..32
3.2.1. Individuation of Nouns that Frequently Collocate with Shape Classifiers…33
3.2.2. Denotations of Chinese Nouns……………………………..35
3.3. Experiment 1: Dimension Ratings…………………………..39
3.3.1. Prediction…………………………………………………………..42
3.3.2. Participants………….………………………………………..…43
3.3.3. Materials………………………………………………………………43
3.3.4. Procedure………………………………………………….…..53
3.3.5. Results and Discussion …………………………………………54
3.4. Experiment 2: Sentence Completion Task……………………56
3.4.1. Chinese Generic Sentences……………………………………58
3.4.2 Prediction………………………………………………………………66
3.4.3. Participants…………………………………………………….…67
3.4.4. Materials……………………………………………………….…68
3.4.5. Procedure…………………………………………….…….…..69
3.4.6. Coding Criteria………………………………………………….69
3.4.7. Results and Discussion………………………………...…73
3.5. General Discussion…………………………………………………76
CHAPTER 4  EVIDENCE FROM THREE ON-LINE STUDIES…………..78
4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………...78
4.2. Experiment 3: Self-paced Reading Task………….……….79
4.2.1. Prediction………………………………………………………...82
4.2.2. Participants…………………………………………………….83
4.2.3. Materials…………………………………………………………….84
4.2.4. Procedure………………………………………………………………88
4.2.5. Results and Discussion……………………………… …….90
4.3. Experiment 4: Eye-movement Monitoring Task…………….93
4.3.1. Prediction……………………………………………..…….98
4.3.2. Participants……………………………………………………...100
4.3.3. Materials………………………………………………………...101
4.3.4. Procedure…………………………………………………….….105
4.3.5. Results and Discussion………………………………………107
4.4. Experiment 5: Visual World Paradigm………………………113
4.4.1. Prediction……………………………………………………….117
4.4.2. Participants……………………………………………….…..119
4.4.3. Materials………………………………………………….…..119
4.4.4. Procedure……………………………………………………….….121
4.4.5. Results and Discussion ……………………………….…...123
4.5. General Discussion……………………………………………..…128
CHAPTER 5  CONCLUDING REMARKS……………………………..……..131
5.1. Summary of Findings…………………………………………..131
5.2. Linguistic Apparatus of Individuation and Shape Classifiers…133
5.3 Limitations of the Study…………………………………...134
5.4. Future Researches………………………………………………..135
REFERENCES…………………………….…………………………….…137
Appendix 1 Sample of Co-occurrence Judgment Task……………138
Appendix 2 Sample of Rigidity Rating Task...............142
Appendix 3 Sample of Dimension Rating Task………………146
Appendix 4 Sample of Sentence Completion Task……………160
Appendix 5 Experimental Items in Self-Paced Reading Task 162
Appendix 6 Fillers in Plausibility Ratings for Self-Paced Reading Task….164
Appendix 7 Experimental Items in Eye-Movement Reading Task…………………166
Appendix 8 Fillers in Plausibility Ratings for Eye-Movement Reading Task……...168
Appendix 9 Target Items in Visual World Study…….……..172
                                

Ahrens, K. (1994). Classifier production in normals and aphasics. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 22, 203–247.
Allan, K. (1980). Nouns and Countability. Language, 56, 541–567.
Bach, E. (1981). On Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics, In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 62-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26(3): 217-252.
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41-66.
Barner, D., Wagner, L., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Events and the ontology of individuals: Verbs as a source of individuating mass and count nouns. Cognition, 106, 805-832.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1–46.
Bloom, P. (1999). Semantics and the bootstrapping problem. In R. Jackendoff, P. Bloom, & K. Wynn (Eds.), Language, logic, and concepts: Essays in honor of John Macnamara. Mass.: The MIT Press.
Bloom, P., & Kelemen, D. (1995). Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns. Cognition, 56, 1-30.
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense: Volume 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 1-5.
Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. (1998). Yi-wan Tang, Yi-ge Tang: Classifiers and massifier. The Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 28(3), 385–412.
Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4), 509-542.
Chien, Y., Lust, B., & Chiang, C. (2003). Chinese children's comprehension of count-classifiers and mass-classifiers. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 91-120.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and Grammar (53-103). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: on the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden.
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The Non-Anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utterance. Language 47, 27-52.
Gelman, S. A., & Tardif, T. (1998). A cross-linguistic comparison of generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin. Cognition, 66, 215–248.
Gordon, P. (1988). Mass/count category acquisition: Distributional distinctions in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 15, 109–128.
Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (2000). Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalisations. In B. Peeters (Ed.) The lexicon-encyclopedia interface (pp. 349-374). Oxford: Elsevier.
Hsieh, M.-L. (2008). The internal structure of noun phrases in Chinese. Taipei: Crane.
Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K. (2003). Individuals, Kind and Events: Classifier Coercion of Nouns. Language Sciences, 25(4), 353-373.
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2004). The online processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eye-tracking. In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 187-207). New York: Psychology Press.
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96, B23_B32.
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 15(8), 985-1018.
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156.
Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M.W., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95, 95-127.
Kobuchi-Philip, M. (2007). Semantics of the Cardinal Partitive. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.) Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung 11 (pp. 390-402). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Koslicki, K. (1999). The semantics of mass-predicates. Nous, 33, 46-91.
Kratzer, A. (1989). An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought. Linguistics & Philosophy 12, 607-653.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi. (Eds.), Lexical Matters. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
-----. (1995). Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 398-411). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lavin, T. A. & Hall, D. G. (2002). Domain effects in lexical development: learning words for foods and toys. Cognitive Development, 16, 929–950.
Li, L. H.-L., & Lin, C.-J. C. (2008). Do Chinese nouns count? Syntax, Semantics, and Classifier Cognition. Paper presented at The Eleventh International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Hsinchu, R.O.C.
Lien, C.-F., & Wang, P.-Y. (1999). Shape Classifier in Mandarin and Taiwanese-A Psycholinguistic Perspective. In O. Tzeng (Ed), The Biological Bases of Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series No 13 (pp. 189-221). Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California at Berkeley.
Lin, T.-H. (1996) Deriving the intensionality of dou. Ms., National Tsing Hua University.
-----. (1998). On ge and other related problems. In L. Xu (ed.) The Referential properties of Chinese noun phrases (pp. 209- 253). Paris: Ecole des Hautes Estudes en Sciences Sociales.
Lin, J.-W. (2003). Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 259–311.
Link, G. (1983). The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice Theoretical Approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and A von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language (pp. 302-323). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Loke, K.-K. (1996). Norms and Realities of Mandarin Shape Classifiers. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 31(2), 1-22.
Macnamara, J. (1986). A border dispute: The place of logic in psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge. Mass: The MIT Press.
McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched semantic composition. Cognition, 78, B15–B25.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, B1-B13.
Prasada, S., Ferenz, K., & Haskell, T. (2002). Conceiving of entities as objects and stuff. Cognition, 83, 141-165.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Mass: The MIT Press.
Quine, W. V.O. (1960). Word and Object. Mass: The MIT Press.
Shi, Y.-Z. (1996). Proportion of Extensional Dimensions: the Primary Cognitive Basis for Shape-based Classifiers in Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 31(2), 37-59.
Smith, C. & Erbaugh, M. (2005). Temporal Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 43(4), 713-756.
Tai, James H-Y & Fang-Yi Chao. (1994). A semantic Study of the Classifier Zhang. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 29(3), 67-78.
Tai, J. H.-Y. & Wang, L. (1994). Chinese Classifier Systems & Human Categorization. In M. Chen and O. Tzeng (Eds.), Essays in Honor of Professor Williams S-Y Wang (pp. 479-494). Taipei: Pyramid Publishing Company.
Tang, C.-C. (2005). Nouns or classifiers: a non-movement analysis of classifiers in Chinese. Language and Languages, 6(3), 431-472.
Townsend, David J. and Thomas G. Bever. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Mass.:The MIT Press.
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 530–547.
Traxler, M. J., McElree, B., Williams, R. S., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 1–25.
Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Bick, S. (2003). Influence of consonantal context on the pronunciation of vowels: A comparison of human readers and computational models. Cognition, 88, 49–78.
Tsai, W.-T. (2008). Tense anchoring in Chinese. Lingua, 118, 675-686.
Underwood, J., Foulsham, T., Loon, E. Van, Humphreys, L., and Bloyce, J. (2006). Eye movements during scene inspection: A test of the saliency map hypothesis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 321-342.
Wilhelm, A. (2008). Bare Nouns and Number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 39-68.
Wisniewski, E. J., Imai, M., & Casey, L. (1996). On the equivalence of superordinate concepts. Cognition, 60, 269–298.
Wisniewski, E. J., Lamb, C. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2003). On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 583-624.
Wu, Z. (2002). Wo pao-le ge feikuai and Reanalysis of the Classifier ge. In S.-Z. Tang & C.-S. L. Liu (Eds.), On the formal way to Chinese languages (pp. 163-188). Standford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Zhang, Hong (2007). Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 43–59.

On-line Resources
全球華語文教與學資源中心(鄭錦全等, 2005). 現代漢語與料庫詞頻統計。http://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw/CWordfreq.html

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文