Braine 1976 Pinker 1984 Levy 1988 Maratsos & Chalkley 1980 Christophe 1997 Shi Morgan & Allopenna 1998 Shi 2005 Shi 2005 Shi & Moisan 2009 Kelly 1992

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Braine 1976 Pinker 1984 Levy 1988 Maratsos & Chalkley 1980 Christophe 1997 Shi Morgan & Allopenna 1998 Shi 2005 Shi 2005 Shi & Moisan 2009 Kelly 1992"

聪死静司
7 years ago
Views:

1 * % 1. van de Weijer 1998 Shi 1998 Jusczy 1999 Mattys 2001 Aslin & Newport 1996 Curtin 2001 Kooijman 2004 Polka & Sundara 2003 Nazzi 2006 Jusczyk 1999 Nazzi 2006 * 08AYY

2 Braine 1976 Pinker 1984 Levy 1988 Maratsos & Chalkley 1980 Christophe 1997 Shi Morgan & Allopenna 1998 Shi 2005 Shi 2005 Shi & Moisan 2009 Kelly 1992 Conwell & Morgan Shi Morgan & Allopenna 1998 Monaghan Christiansen & Chater 2007 Shi Morgan & Allopenna 1998 Shi 1996 Shi Werker & Morgan 1999 Lee Zhang Shi Li & Zheng

3 1 4 HH LH HL 1 2 N WN1 - WN4 V WV1 - WV4 WN1 WV1 cha2 song4 No. WN2 WV2 dun4 jie1 1 N V WN3 WV3 shi1 deng1 2 N V WN4 WV4 jia4 lu4 3 N V AKG WMS 40 PRO 44. 1KHz * 2*

4 24* 2* m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3. 1 praat http / /www. fon. hum. uva. nl /praat / 947 praat F Hz F 0 F 0 F 0 = 12* log 2 f dur1ratio = dur1 /durtotal dur2ratio = dur2 /durtotal Dur1Rdur2 = dur1 /dur2 dur1 dur2 durtotal F 0 z-score ZF 0 z-score = F 0 -μ F0 / σ F0 μ F0 σ F0 F 0 ZF 0 max ZF 0 min ZF 0 ZF 0 rang ZF 0 rang = ZF 0 max-zf 0 min ZF 0 means1 ZF 0 means2 ZF 0 390

5 Wv1 ~ Wv4 Wn1 ~ Wn4 F 0 W1 cha2song4 W4 jia4lu4 F 0 12 St W2 dun4 jie1 F

6 3 dur1ration dur2ration dur1rdur2 W1 W2 W3 W Paired Samples T Test W3 ZF 0 min ZF 0 max ZF 0 range ZF 0 mean1 ZF 0 mean2 dur1rdur2r dur1rdur2 ZF 0 max p =. 54 ZF 0 range p =. 89 ZF 0 mean1 p =. 39 ZF 0 mean2 p =. 32 dur1r p =. 33 dur2r p =. 33 dur1 Rdur2 p =. 37 independent-samples T-Test WN2 WV2 dun4jie1 F 0 max WN1 WV1 cha2 song4 F 0 rang Dur1R Dur1Rdur2 Dur1R Dur1Rdur2 F 0 4 Dur1R 6 F 0 392

7 5 Dur1Rdur2 6 F creaky voiced F 0 T-Test 13 4 F 0 ZF 0 mean2 4 p < T-Test Dur1Rdur2 t df Sig. 2 - tailed p = < 0. 1 ZF 0 max ZF 0 range ZF ZF 0 mean ZF 0 mean ** means2 Dur1Rdur2 dur1r ONEWAY ANOVA dur2r WN1 & WV1 dur1rdur *

8 p < ** 5 4 ZF 0 means2 Dur1Rdur2 F Sig. ZF 0 means ** ZF WN1 & WV1 0 means2 Dur1Rdur Dur1Rdur2 ZF 0 means ** WN2 & WV2 Dur1Rdur ** ZF 0 means ** WN3 & WV3 Dur1Rdur ** ZF 0 means ** WN4 & WV4 Dur1Rdur ** F 0 Linear Discriminant Aanalysis LDA 1 cha2song4 6 cha2song4 LDA Original a Count % idnv1 Predicted Group Membership Total % of original grouped cases correctly classified % 65. 5% cha2song % cha2song4 ZF 0 means dun4jie1 7 dun4jie1 LDA Original a Count % idnv2 Predicted Group Membership Total % of original grouped cases correctly classified % 43. 9% dun4sjie % dun4sjie1 394

9 dur1rdur2 3 shi1deng1 8 shi1deng1 LDA Original Count % idnv3 Predicted Group Membership Total a 69. 7% of original grouped cases correctly classified % 69. 1% shi1deng % shi1deng1 ZF 0 means2 4 jia4lu4 9 jia4lu4 LDA Original Count % idnv4 Predicted Group Membership Total a 63. 0% of original grouped cases correctly classified % 54. 9% jia4lu % jia4lu4 ZF 0 means F % 67. 9% 60. 4% 4 LDA ZF 0 MeanS2 DR LDA Original Count % idnvall Predicted Group Membership Total a 60. 4% of original grouped cases correctly classified

10 tiger tigers the tiger s ZF 0 means2 Dur1Rdur2 60% 68% 52%

11 IACA Braine M Children's first word combinations. In Monographs of the Society for Research. Child Development 41 No. 1. Christophe A. T. Guasti M. Nespor E. Dupoux and B. V. Ooyen 1997 Reflections on phonological bootstrapping Its role for lexical and syntactic acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes Conwell E. and J. L. Morgan submitted. When parents verb nouns Resolving the ambicategoricality problem. Gentner D Why nouns are learned before verbs Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj II Ed. Language Development Vol. 2 Language Thought and Culture. Hillsdale NJ Lawrence Erlbaum. J. van de Weijer 1998 Language Input for Word Discovery. Ph. D. dissertation Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen the Netherlands. Kelly M. H Using sound to solve syntactic problems The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review Lee T The acquisition of syntactic categories in Chinese issues of bootstrapping and productivity. International Workshop on Grammar & Evidence Taiwan. Maratsos M. P. and M. A. Chalkley 1980 The internal language of children's syntax The ontogenesis and representation of syntactic categories. In K. Nelson ed. Children's Language Vol. 2. New York Gardner Press Mintz T. H Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition Monaghan P. M. H. Christiansen N. Chater 2007 The phonological-distributional coherence hypothesis Cross-linguistic evidence in language acquisition. Cognitive Psychology Pinker S Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge. MA Harvard University Press. Shi R. J. F. Werker and A. Cutler 2006 Recognition and representation of function words in Englishlearning infants. Infancy Shi R. Morgan J. and Allopenna P Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language Shi R. Werker J. and J. Morgan 1999 Newborn infants' sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words. Cognition 72 B Shi R Early syntactic categories in infants' language. In Cohen Henri & Claire Lefebvre eds. Handbook of Categorisation in Cognitive Science pp Elsevier. Shi R. and A. Moisan 2008 Prosodic Cues to Noun and Verb Categories in Infant-Directed Speech. Shi R Perceptual Correlates of Content Words and Function Words in Early Language Input Ph. D. dissertation Brown University Dissertation Abstracts International A. Zhang Z. Shi R. Li A. Zheng L Rudimentary form class categorization of nouns and verbs in Chinese-learning infants NCMMSC

12 ZHONGGUO YUWEN STUDIES OF THE CHINESE LANGUAGE September 2011 Abstracts of Major Papers in This Issue LI Aijun SHI Rushen ZHANG Zhao The prosodic features of verbs and nouns in infant-directed Mandarin Chinese Some grammatical categories in Mandarin Chinese such as nouns and verbs and their classification are assumed to differ from Indo-European languages. This paper by analyzing the acoustic features of the infant-directed speech aims to figure out whether prosodic distinctions exist between nouns and verbs and to explore the acquisition of the nouns and verbs. In the experiment homophonous nonsensical disyllabic words are embedded into noun phrases and verb phrases. Each homophonous disyllabic word is represented by two simplyconjoining characters which originally represent verbs or nouns such as dunjie shield street vs. dunjie stew uncover. Twenty Mandarin-speaking mothers are instructed to read the words and phrases to their infants and the records are then analyzed acoustically. The result shows that the isolated verbs and nouns have no prosodic difference. However when they are read in the noun phrases and verb phrases the average F 0 of the second syllable and the duration ratio between the first and second syllables are statistically different. The subsequent discrimination experiment indicates that 60-70% of verbs and nouns can be correctly discerned. The infants may classify the nouns and verbs with the help of the prosodic cues. Key words infant language acquisition grammatical category prosodic feature verb noun ZHANG Yunqiu WANG Yueting A case study of the acquisition of the subjectivisation markers in Beijing Mandarin This paper investigates the acquisition of the subjectivisation markers by a young Beijing Mandarin speaker below four years age. It offers the finding that the child has had the cognitive abilities such as narrowing broadening optimistic inferring and contextual subsuming to learn the subjectivisation meanings and to use the corresponding markers by the age of four. These abilities are also considered to have influenced the characteristics of the subjectivisation markers. Subjectivisation as an interaction in speech communication is one of the motivations behind children's syntax development

( 70 ) B,,,, B,,,, : (5) ( ),, A, : (6) ( ) (7), ( ) (8),, ( ) (9), ( ) (6), (7), (8), (9) B,,,, : (10),, ( ) (11)! ( ) 1. 2 A A,, : (12), ( )

: Ξ,, ( ) :, (1) ;, (2) (1), ( ) (2),, ( ) A (1), B (2),,,,, 1. 1, :A, ;B,,, A, : (3),, ( ) (4)? ( ) (3) ; (4), Ξ ( ), 27 2004 4 ( 70 ) B,,,, B,,,, : (5) ( ),, A, : (6) ( ) (7), ( ) (8),, ( ) (9), ( )