Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/149684
|
| Title: | 分類詞選擇之心理語言學研究
A Psycholinguistic Study of the Selection of Sortal Classifiers |
| Authors: | 賴怡心
Lai, Yi-Sin |
| Contributors: | 何萬順
陳紹慶
Her, One-Soon
Chen, Sau-Chin
賴怡心
Lai, Yi-Sin |
| Keywords: | 中文分類詞
分類詞選擇
認知
Chinese sortal classifiers
Classifier selection
Cogntion |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-02-01 13:01:17 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 中文分類詞在分類名詞時扮演著強調名詞某些語義特徵的角色。例如，分類詞「頂」可以與具有「帽子」或「轎子」特徵的名詞配對，如「安全帽」、「平頂帽」、「神轎」和「婚轎」。中文的量詞可分為兩大類：個體量詞（亦稱分類詞）與計量量詞。本研究聚焦於分類詞，因為其功能能突顯物品內在和固有的語義特徵，而計量量詞僅表現物品的數量。我們的研究假設是：如果一個名詞能與一個以上合適的分類詞搭配，每個分類詞強調名詞的不同固有特徵，那麼在名詞的心理圖片中，與更突出特徵的分類詞搭配更有可能被選擇，反之亦然。換句話說，若在合適的分類詞中選擇了一個特定的分類詞，所選的分類詞可能會產生一個與分類詞強調特徵相匹配的名詞心理圖片。我們進行了兩個實驗來驗證這一假設：基於圖片的分類詞評分和基於名詞片語的分類詞評分。實驗材料包含了10組[一 分類詞 名詞]的片語，分類詞是透過Sinica Corpus的詞頻查詢、分類詞屬性的問卷調查和信賴區間統計所選定。實驗素材的可行性經過了Gao&Malt (2009)的語義特徵製產作業確認，其中受試者需列舉分類詞和名詞片語的語義特徵。我們透過繪圖師手繪或使用Bing製圖生成軟體製作了10組相配的圖片，每一組中的圖片都突顯了物品的一些特徵。在基於圖片的分類詞評分中，受試者看到一張圖片，然後需要在兩個合適的片語中選擇更貼近該圖片的片語。而在基於片語的分類詞評分中，受試者看到一個名詞片語，需要在兩個相符的圖片中選擇更貼切該片語的圖片。研究結果驗證了我們的假設，並顯示出對於能夠與一個以上分類詞搭配的名詞，中文母語者會根據較為突出的特徵來選擇分類詞。我們發現在基於圖片和基於片語的分類詞評分中，對於明確定義的分類詞的評分明顯高於對於任意的分類詞的評分。此外，在基於片語的分類詞評分中更能夠觀察到明顯的評分偏好。在明確定義的和任意的分類詞之間以及基於圖片和基於片語的分類詞評分之間都能看出顯著的差別。
Chinese classifiers play the role of classifying nouns by highlighting some semantic features of nouns. For example, the classifier ding (頂) can be paired with nouns with the feature ‘hat’ or ‘sedan chair’, e.g., ‘safety helmet’, ‘flat cap’, ‘divine sedan’, and ‘wedding sedan’. Chinese numeral classifiers can be divided into two subcategories: sortal classifiers and mensural classifiers. This study is concerned with sortal classifiers because their functions can reveal the essential and inherent semantic features of object nouns, while mensural classifiers only quantify the object nouns. We gave the hypothesis: If a noun can pair with more than one appropriate sortal classifier, each highlighting a different inherent feature of the noun, the one that matches the more prominent feature in the mental picture of the noun is more likely to be selected, and vice versa, that is, given a noun phrase with a particular classifier selected among the appropriate ones, the selected classifier will likely generate a mental picture of the noun that matches the feature highlighted by the classifier. Two experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis: picture-based classifier rating and phrase-based classifier rating. 10 pairs of [1 Clf N] phrases were constructed as experimental materials, where the classifiers were selected through word frequency in Sinica Corpus, questionnaire survey of classifier attributes, and confidence interval statistics. The materials used in the experiments have been confirmed via the semantic feature generation task used in Gao & Malt (2009), where the participants were asked to do a feature listing of the classifiers and noun phrases. 10 pairs of matching pictures have been hand drawn or created by the Bing image creator, and the object in one picture of each pair has a slightly more prominent feature. In the picture-based classifier rating, participants were presented with a picture and asked to choose between two appropriate phrases the one that better matches the phrase. In the phrase-based classifier rating, participants were presented with a nominal phrase and asked to choose between two appropriate pictures the one that better matches the phrase. The results confirmed the hypothesis and showed that for nouns that can pair with more than one sortal classifier, native speakers will choose the classifier based on the prominent feature. We observed that the ratings for well-defined classifiers exceeded those for arbitrary classifiers in both picture-based and phrase-based classifier ratings. Moreover, a more pronounced rating preference was discernible in phrase-based classifier rating. Distinctions were apparent not only between well-defined and arbitrary classifiers but also between picture-based and phrase-based classifier ratings. |
| Reference: | Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
Bi, Y., Yu, X., Geng, J., & Alario, F. X. (2010). The role of visual form in lexical access: Evidence from Chinese classifier production. Cognition, 116(1), 101-109.
Chan, S. H. (2019). An elephant needs a head but a horse does not: An ERP study of classifier-noun agreement in Mandarin. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 52, 100852.
Chen, Yi-Ru & One-Soon Her (2020). Huayu fenlei ci de jieding yu jiaoxue shang de fenji. Huawen shijie, (126), 19-34.
Cheng, L. L. S., & Sybesma, R. (1998). Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua journal of Chinese studies, 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.
Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Level of categorisation effect: A novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and cognitive processes, 18(2), 205-234.
Costa, A., Alario, F. X., & Caramazza, A. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 125-131.
Dell’Acqua, R., Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Pascali, A. (2007). The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14, 717-722.
Dosedlová, A.; Lu, W. (2019). “The Near-Synonymy of Classifiers and Construal Operation. A Corpus-Based Study of 棵 kē and 株 zhū in Chinese”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 113-30. https://doi.org/10.1075/ rcl.00028.dos
Erbaugh, M. S. (2013). Classifier choices in discourse across the seven main Chinese
dialects. Increased empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese linguistics, 101-126.
Gao, M. Y., & Malt, B. C. (2009). Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7-8), 1124-1179.
Grinevald, C. (2000). A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 50–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Her, O. S. (2012). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691.
Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2005). Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 984-1000.
Her, O.-S., Hammarström, H., & Allassonnière-Tang, M. (2022). Defining numeral classifiers and identifying classifier languages of the world. Linguistics Vanguard. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0006
Her, O. S., & Lai, W. J. (2012). Classifiers: The Many Ways to Profile'one'—A Case Study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 24(01), 79-94.
Higgins, E. T., & Chaires, W. M. (1980). Accessibility of interrelational constructs: Implications for stimulus encoding and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(4), 348-361.
Hsu, T. T. C. (2009). Emergence of Chinese Sortal Classifiers and the Interactive Model of Human Categorization. UST Working Papers in Linguistics (USTWPL), 5, 29-57.
Huettig, F., Chen, J., Bowerman, M., & Majid, A. (2010). Do Language-Specific Categories Shape Conceptual Processing? Mandarin Classifier Distinctions Influence Eye Gaze Behavior, but only During Linguistic Processing. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(1-2), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853710X497167
Kuipers, J. R., La Heij, W., & Costa, A. (2006). A further look at semantic context effects in language production: The role of response congruency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7-8), 892-919.
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(1), 1-38.
Li, L. H. L., & Lin, P. H. (2017). Monster character profiling and Chinese classifier cognition: linguistic and conceptual perspectives. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 433-449.
Lobben, M., & Bochynska, A. (2018). Grounding by attention simulation in peripersonal space: pupils dilate to pinch grip but not big size nominal classifier. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 576-599.
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 503.
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. mit Press.
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: a counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 228.
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1-3), 107-142
Saalbach, H., and Imai, M. (2007). Scope of linguistic influence: does a classifier system alter object concepts? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 485–501. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.485
Saalbach, H., & Imai, M. (2012). The relation between linguistic categories and cognition: The case of numeral classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(3), 381-428.
Schmitt, B. H., & Zhang, S. (1998). Language structure and categorization: A study of classifiers in consumer cognition, judgment, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 108-122.
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit - A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096-1104.
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24-31.
Stokes, S. F., & So, L. K. (1997). Classifier use by language-disordered and age-matched Cantonese-speaking children. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 2(2), 83-101.
Tai, J., & Wang, L. (1990). A Semantic Study of the Classifier Tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 25(1), 35-56.
Tai, J. H. (1992). Variation in classifier systems across Chinese dialects: Towards a
cognition-based semantic approach. Chinese Language and Linguistics, 1, 587-608.
Tai, J. H. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, 479-494.
Vitkovitch, M., & Tyrrell, L. (1999). The effects of distractor words on naming pictures at the subordinate level. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(4), 905-926.
Zhang, S., and Schmitt, B. (1998). Language-dependent classification: the mental representation of classifiers in cognition, memory, and ad evaluations. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 4, 375–385. doi: 10.1037//1076-898x.4.4.375
Zhou, X., Jiang, X., Ye, Z., Zhang, Y., Lou, K., & Zhan, W. (2010). Semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 48(6), 1551-1562. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
110555001 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110555001 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [語言學研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 500101.pdf | | 13687Kb | Adobe PDF | 3 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
