Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/151969
|
| Title: | 華語園徑句型之接受度與理解正確度—以動詞和補語之歧義性為例
Acceptability and Comprehension Accuracy of Mandarin Garden Path Sentences: A Case of Verb-Complement Ambiguity |
| Authors: | 蔡竣評
Tsai, Chun-Ping |
| Contributors: | 陳仲妤
Chen, Chung-Yu
蔡竣評
Tsai, Chun-Ping |
| Keywords: | 園徑句型
實驗語言學
華語教學
動補結構
garden path sentences
experimental linguistics
teaching Chinese as a second/foreign Language
verb complement |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-07-01 12:12:15 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 園徑句型（garden path sentences）是語言學界廣為討論的句型之一，因為在閱讀園徑句型時，讀者起初會產生誤解，繼續閱讀後才能得出正確的詮釋，故有許多語言學的學者解析該句型的句法架構，不僅針對園徑句型提出理解策略，亦進行實證研究加以佐證或質疑，但華語園徑句型針對母語者的研究卻較英語園徑句型來得少。故此，本研究之目的在於（一）彙整出研究者目前所知內省式、實證性的園徑句型研究，以供後續研究參照。（二）補足華語園徑句型的實證研究，以接受度測驗及重述確認測驗，分析母語者的接受度及理解正確度。（三）據研究結果提供華語教學建議。
根據Lee（2006）的分析，其中一種歧義類型是句中詞彙應理解為「補語子句之動詞」或是「動詞補語」，例如「愛上」在「愛上某人的容貌」或｢愛上某人的當」中，前者之「上」應為動詞補語「愛上」之義，後者則為補語子句之動詞「上當」之義。其中「動詞補語」乃是學習華語的難點之一，已有不少華語教學的文獻討論此詞彙結構（如Zhu，2014等），故本研究以此歧義類型的華語園徑句型及其相應之非園徑句型作為刺激文，測驗（一）母語者的接受度、理解正確度為何？（二）偏好結構是「補語子句之動詞」還是「動詞補語」？
研究結果發現，母語者對園徑句型的接受度偏低，接受度評分亦不一致，推測是不常接觸園徑句型所致。重述確認測驗的結果則發現母語者皆能理解園徑句型、非園徑句型，並無法得知偏好結構為何。但其中以「到」作為歧義結構的一組實驗句卻得出園徑句型的接受度高於非園徑句型的結果，推測可能是研究者設計之疏漏。本研究彙整了研究者所知與華語園徑句型相關的各式文獻，後續研究可以此做為基礎，探討華語園徑句型的相關議題。
Garden path sentences are one of the widely discussed sentence structures in linguistics. It is because when reading a garden path sentence, readers will initially misunderstand the sentence and reach the correct interpretation only after reananlyzing the sentence structure. Therefore, in their analyses of this sentence structure, many scholars proposed comprehension strategies and also conducted empirical research to support or question it. However, there are fewer studies on Mandarin garden path sentences (MGPS) than those on English ones. Thus, the purposes of this study are: (1) to summarize the introspective and experimental research on MGPS to the best of researcher’s knowledge; (2) to fill the gap of experimental research on MGPS with an acceptability judgement test (AJT) and a paraphrase verification test (PVT) to analyze the acceptability and comprehension accuracy of native speakers; (3) to provide suggestions on teaching Chinese language based on the research results.
According to Lee (2006), one of the ambiguity types arises from the fact that the vocabulary in the sentence should be understood as a “verb of the complement clause” or “verb complement.” Take "aishang" in aishang mouren de rongmao (fell in love with someone’s look) or aishang mouren de dang (fell in love with someone's trick) as example. “Shang” in the former should be understood as a verb complement, meaning "fall in love," and the latter should be a verb of the complement clause, meaning "fall for a trick." Verb complement is one of the learning obstacles in Chinese language and discussed in literature (e.g., Zhu, 2014). As a result, this study focused on this ambiguity type of MGPS and also used its counterpart in stimuli to examine the following questions: (1) What is the acceptability and comprehension accuracy of native speakers? (2) Is the preferred structure “verb of complement clause” or “verb complement”?
The results suggested that native speakers have low acceptability to MGPS and the ratings are also inconsistent. It is speculated that native speakers have infrequent exposure to this sentence structure. On the other hand, the results of the PVT suggested that native speakers can understand both garden path and non-garden path sentences so that we cannot know what the preferred structure is. However, a set of experimental sentences with “dao” as the ambiguous structure indicated that the acceptability of its garden path sentence was higher than the non-garden path one. It is speculated that this may be a design flaw of the stimuli. Nevertheless, this study compiled various literature related to the MGPS known to the researcher. Future research can use this as a basis to explore issues related to the MGPS. |
| Reference: | Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A.（2014）。漢語語法（修訂版）（黃宣範譯）。文鶴出版有限公司。（原著出版於1981年）
田意民、許儷絹、戴浩一與楊育芳（2014）。以工作記憶與創造力解析資優生的句法理解歷程。中華心理學刊，56（3），257-276。
朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。商務印書館。
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞（增訂本）。商務印書館。
李詩敏（2020）。國家教育研究院華語詞表與其他中文詞表的比較。華文世界，12（6），48-66。
李翠屏（2010）。語意在句法處理中的角色：中文關係子句的眼動閱讀研究［碩士論文］。國立政治大學語言學研究所。
屈承熹（2010）。漢語功能篇章語法－從認知、 功能到篇章結構。文鶴出版有限公司。
張瓊安（2020）。動補結構「V＋好」與「V＋完」完成語義之異同——以語料庫為本的研究［碩士論文］。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學系。https://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/thesis/detail/7b8dd7dcdb2dc30009e93c6a9975ddb3/
許婉榆（2021）。以華語教學為導向之「好」的多功能研究－基於語料庫與教材之分析［碩士論文］。中原大學應用華語文學系。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0017-0407202123112300#:~:text=10.6840/cycu202100354
郭沛玹（2013）。動詞重疊「VV 看」與「V 看看」之社會變異［碩士論文］。國立中正大學語言學研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/62j55v
陳佳宜（2015）。語序與有生性在中文與西班牙文孰輕孰重？－－檢視學習者的處理策略［碩士論文］。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學系。https://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/thesis/detail/8bd366f90a6a2bf9b1b6460ac80ba06e/
陳佳宜與徐東伯（2017）。西班牙語母語者之漢語簡單句的理解策略發展與習得。語言暨語言學，18（3），327-354。
楊惠媚、陳浩然與潘依婷（2015）。分析華語口語語料庫高頻詞之特點並對 TOCFL詞表提出建議。華語文教學研究，12（1），1-44。
趙靜雅（2009）。從構式語法看現代漢語動補結構的論元體現。華語文教學研究，6（2），23-43。http://dx.doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.200912.0023
劉玉紅（2009）。近義結構"V見"和"V到"比較研究［碩士論文］。華中師範大學語言學及應用語言學系。https://doi.org/10.7666/d.y1533157
歐德芬（2015）。教學為導向的漢語多義動詞辨析──以「開」為例。臺灣華語教學研究，（11），45-66。https://doi.org/10.29748/TJCSL.201512_(11).0004
蔡竣評（2022年8月16-17日）。中文園徑句型的理解難易度分析。［研討會演講］。2022第九屆兩岸華語文教師研討會暨第十二屆世界華語文研究生研討會，線上會議，甘肅省敦煌市，中國。
鄭錦全、黃居仁、羅鳳珠與蔡美智（2005）。全球華語文數位教與學資源中心詞頻統計。http://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw/CWordfreq.html
駱宛辰（2022）。華語「V得C」與「V到C」補語結構分析及教學建議［碩士論文］。國立台灣大學華語教學碩士學位學程。http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/79706
羅奕傑與何萬順（2021）。複數標記「們」在台灣華語中的新興用法。臺灣語文研究，16（1），129-167。
邊琯植（2014）。現代漢語動助詞的分析與教學［博士論文］。國立中央大學中國文學系。
Barton, S.B., & Sanford, A.J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 477–487.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognitive development of language, (pp. 279-363). Wiley.
Chen, Z., Xu, Y., & Xie, Z. (2020). Assessing introspective linguistic judgments quantitatively: The case of The Syntax of Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 29(3), 311-336.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague.
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 368–407.
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., Hussey, E. K., & Wochna, K. L. (2017). Why reread? Evidence from garden-path and local coherence structures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1380–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1186200
Chu, S. C. R. (1982). Chinese Grammar and English Grammar: A Comparative Study. The Commerical Press, Ltd.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Dominguez, L., Hicks, G., & Song, H. J. (2012). Untangling locality and orientation constraints in the L2 acquisition of anaphoric binding: A feature-based approach. Language Acquisition, 19(4), 266-300.
Erickson, T.A., & Mattson, M.E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–552
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current directions in psychological science, 11(1), 11-15.
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language. McGraw-Hill.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Connecticut.
Frazier, L. (1987) Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye-movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
Gao, H. (2001). The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: A Study of Chinese Verbs (Vol.41). Lund University.
Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1987). Interpreting elliptical verb phrases. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 611–625.
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of memory and language, 37(1), 58-93.
Gibson, E. (1991). A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing: Memory Limitations and Processing Breakdown [Doctoral dissertation]. Carnegie Mellon University.
Gorrell, P. (1995). Japanese trees and the garden path. Japanese sentence processing, 331-350. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2017.71003
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438-441.
Hasher, L., Lustig, C., & Zachs, R. (2008). Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 227–249). Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168648.003.0009
Hu, X., & Liu, C. (2007). Restrictive relative clauses in English and Korean learners' second language Chinese. Second Language Research, 23(3), 263-287.
Huang, C. T. J., Li, Y. H. A., and Li, Y. (2009). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Z. (1998). The theory of Hierarchical Network of Concepts (in Chinese). Tsinghua University Press.
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 30-52.
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain research, 1146, 2-22. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
Jin, Y. (2006). Semantic analysis of Chinese garden-path sentences [Paper presentation]. 2006 The Fifth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, Sydney, Australia.
Juffs, A & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46(2), 283–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01237.x
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kaiser, E. (2021). Anaphora: Experimental Methods for Investigating Coreference. In G. Goodall (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax (pp. 278-314). Cambridge University Press.
Kim, J.-H. (2008). Working memory effects on bilingual sentence processing [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 580-602.
Lassotta, R., Omaki, A., & Franck, J. (2016). Developmental changes in misinterpretation of garden-path wh-questions in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 829–854.
Lee, T. H. (2006). A note on garden path sentences in Chinese. In D. A. Ho, H. S. Cheung, W. Pan, & F. Wu (Eds.), Linguistic studies in Chinese and neighboring languages: Festschrift in honor of professor Panghsin Ting on his 70th birthday (pp. 491-518). Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.
Li, J.-I. & Lee, W.-S. (2018). L1 English speakers’ learning of Mandarin RVCs: Focusing on L1 influence in L2 acquisition. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 15(2), 23-62.
Lim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013). Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 518-537.
Liu, F. H. (2012). L2 acquisition of the progressive marker zai in Mandarin Chinese. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 1(2), 153-192.
Long, D. L., & Prat, C. S. (2008). Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Readers vary in their use of plausibility information. Memory and Cognition, 36, 375-391.
Lu, J., Thompson, C. K., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611-623.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 123-153). Psychology Press.
Maeng, J. (2016). Dao as a verbal suffix in Chinese verbs [Master's thesis]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/93031
Marcus, M. (1980). A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. MIT Press.
McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading, (pp. 3-36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Meseguer, E., Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194956
Miller, G.A., Chomsky, N. (1963) Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R.D., Bush, R.R., Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 419-492). Wiley.
Montrul, S. A., Bhatt, R. M., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 141-176.
Ning, L. H., & Shih, C. (2012, May 22-25). Prosodic effects on garden-path sentences [Conference presentation]. 2012 The 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Shang Hai, China.
Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186-217.
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development, 10, 206–233.
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: Online comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1230–1243.
Paape, D., & Vasishth, S. (2021). Conscious rereading is confirmatory: Evidence from bidirectional self-paced reading. PsyArXiv preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d7pvz
Prawatmuang, W., & Yuan, B. (2020). Roles of positive and indirect negative evidence in L2 feature reassembly: An empirical study of L2 acquisition of Chinese and Thai collective markers. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3(2), 205-232.
Pritchett, B. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64(3), 539-576.
Qian, Z. (2015). The reanalysis and interpretation of garden-path sentences by native speakers and second language learners [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Rosenbaum, O. (2018). Strictly incremental parsing, unconscious deletion and c-command [Doctoral dissertation]. Tel Aviv University.
Shi, Y., & Xie, Y. (2016). Viewpoint in garden path sentence: A functional approach. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7(1), 33-40.
Sommers, M. S., & Danielson, S. M. (1999). Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 14, 458–472. http://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.14.3.458
St. John, M., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 217-257.
Su, Y. C. (2004, Dec. 17-20). Relatives of Mandarin children. [Conference presentation]. 2004 Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition in North America, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Su, Y. C. (2006). Word order effect in children's garden path of relative clauses. Concentric, 32 (2), 33-57.
Tai, J. H. Y. (2003). Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 301-316.
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying online sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.
Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318.
Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2013). Sentence processing: An introduction in sentence processing (pp. 13-32). Psychology Press.
Van Valin, R. D., & Lapolla. R. J. (1997). Syntax Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge University Press.
Wu, F., Luo, Y., & Zhou, X. (2014). Building Chinese relative clause structures with lexical and syntactic cues: Evidence from visual world eye-tracking and reading times. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1205-1226.
Xiang, M. (2015). Sentence processing: resolving garden-path ambiguities. In R. Sybesma, W. Behr, Z. Handel & C.T. J. Huang (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2210-7363_ecll_COM_000158
Xie, Z., Zeng, G., Zhou, S., & Wang, J. (2022). The influence of cognitive control on the processing of L2 garden path sentence among Chinese–English bilinguals. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16.
Zhou, P., Shi, J., & Zhan, L. (2021). Real-time comprehension of garden-path constructions by preschoolers: A Mandarin perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(1), 181-205.
Zhu, Y. P. (2014). A study of the acquisition of Chinese Resultative Verb Complements and corresponding teaching strategies. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 11(1), 1-31. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
109161011 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109161011 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [華語文教學博／碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101101.pdf | | 1232Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
