汉语限制焦点“只”的儿童语言习得研究
发布时间：2018-07-21 16:01
【摘要】：儿童对限制焦点副词的习得是语言习得研究的热点之一。在汉语中，当限制焦点副词“只”出现在主语前时，成人一般将其理解为对主语的限制，如“只有玛丽吃了香蕉”表达的是“除玛丽外没有其他人吃了香蕉”。儿童对“只”的位置与其限制的成分之间的关系是否有与成人相同的认识，，是一个值得探索的课题。本研究采用真值判断任务法，考察汉语儿童对主语前“只”的理解情况，并比较他们与成人理解的异同。 关于儿童对限制焦点“只”的习得，以往的研究主要有以下两点发现：(1)儿童倾向于把主语前的“只”理解成对谓语的限制。也就是说，儿童会把类似“只有玛丽吃了香蕉”这样的句子理解成“玛丽只吃了香蕉”。(2)儿童对谓语前“只”的歧义句的理解遵循语义子集原则，而成人则遵循简约原则。即，对于类似“小男孩只背着书包”这样的句子，只要是小男孩背着的只有书包，成人就倾向于接受。至于小男孩有没有同时进行其他的活动，如抱着花盆、拿着风筝等等，成人不关注；而儿童则要求小男孩只进行了“背着书包”这一个活动。本研究集中探讨第一个问题，考察对于主语前“只”，儿童是否存在谓语倾向性，并验证Zhou and Crain提出的“否定的介入有助于儿童理解主语前‘只’”的观点。本文的研究问题是:(1)儿童是否倾向于将主语前的“只”理解成谓语焦点？(2)如果儿童确实存在这种倾向，否定的介入是否有助于儿童得到与成人相似的理解？(3)3-6岁的小孩在对主语前“只”的理解方面有没有明显的差别？如果“否定”的介入没有作用，儿童又是如何过渡到成人语法的呢？ 研究结果显示，4-6岁的儿童的确存在谓语倾向性。但儿童的发展很不一致。存在谓语倾向性的儿童也同时拥有正确的理解，他们在两种理解中徘徊，所以出现偏向做出成人的理解或偏向做出谓语倾向性理解的情况。而绝大多数成人都没有谓语倾向性。否定的介入对这个问题的帮助不大，4-6岁的儿童也没有明显的年龄差别。实验一支持大多数学者的观点（Yang, Restrictive Focus; Notley et al.; Zhou and Crain）。对于实验二和Zhou and Crain实验的差异，我们认为与儿童的个体差异及语言输入有关。但值得说明的是，暂时性的不理解并不代表儿童大脑中这块知识的缺乏，而是需要接触更多支持他们做出正确选择的语料。
[Abstract]:Children's acquisition of restricted focus adverbs is one of the hotspots in language acquisition. In Chinese, when the restricted focus adverb "only" appears before the subject, the adult generally understands it as the restriction on the subject, for example, "only Mary ate the banana" means "no one but Mary has eaten the banana". It is worth exploring whether children have the same understanding of the relationship between the position of "only" and their limiting elements as adults. In this study, we used the truth judgment task method to investigate the Chinese children's understanding of "only" before subject, and to compare their understanding with adults. There are two main findings in previous studies on children's acquisition of restricted focus: (1) Children tend to interpret "only" before subject as the limitation of predicate. That is to say, children will interpret sentences such as "only Mary eats bananas" as "Mary only eats bananas". (2) Children's understanding of "only" ambiguous sentences before predicate follows the principle of semantic subset, while adults follow the principle of minimization. That is, for sentences like "little boys carry only schoolbags," adults tend to accept as long as they carry only schoolbags. As for whether the boy has other activities at the same time, such as holding a flowerpot, holding a kite and so on, the adult does not pay attention to it, while the child asks the boy to carry out only the "backpack" activity. This study focuses on the first question, examines whether there is predicate tendency in children before subject, and verifies Zhou and Crain's view that "negative intervention can help children understand the presubjective 'only'." The research questions in this paper are: (1) does the child tend to regard the "only" before the subject as the focus of the predicate? (2) if the child does have this tendency, Does negative intervention help children to get a similar understanding as adults? (3) are there significant differences in the understanding of "only" before subject among children aged 3-6? If "negative" intervention does not work, how do children transition to adult grammar? The results show that children aged 4-6 years do have predicate tendency. But the development of children is very inconsistent. The children who have predicate tendency also have correct understanding, they are wandering in the two kinds of understanding, so they tend to make the adult understanding or the predicate tendency understanding. The vast majority of adults have no predicate bias. Negative intervention did little to help the problem, and there was no significant age difference between 4-6-year-olds. Experiment 1 supports the view of most scholars (Yang, restrictive focus; Notley et al.; Zhou and rain). As to the difference between experiment 2 and Zhou and rain experiment, we think it is related to the individual difference and language input of children. But it is worth noting that a temporary lack of understanding does not represent a lack of knowledge in children's brains, but requires more access to data that support them in making the right choices.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H193.1
本文编号：2136043
[Abstract]:Children's acquisition of restricted focus adverbs is one of the hotspots in language acquisition. In Chinese, when the restricted focus adverb "only" appears before the subject, the adult generally understands it as the restriction on the subject, for example, "only Mary ate the banana" means "no one but Mary has eaten the banana". It is worth exploring whether children have the same understanding of the relationship between the position of "only" and their limiting elements as adults. In this study, we used the truth judgment task method to investigate the Chinese children's understanding of "only" before subject, and to compare their understanding with adults. There are two main findings in previous studies on children's acquisition of restricted focus: (1) Children tend to interpret "only" before subject as the limitation of predicate. That is to say, children will interpret sentences such as "only Mary eats bananas" as "Mary only eats bananas". (2) Children's understanding of "only" ambiguous sentences before predicate follows the principle of semantic subset, while adults follow the principle of minimization. That is, for sentences like "little boys carry only schoolbags," adults tend to accept as long as they carry only schoolbags. As for whether the boy has other activities at the same time, such as holding a flowerpot, holding a kite and so on, the adult does not pay attention to it, while the child asks the boy to carry out only the "backpack" activity. This study focuses on the first question, examines whether there is predicate tendency in children before subject, and verifies Zhou and Crain's view that "negative intervention can help children understand the presubjective 'only'." The research questions in this paper are: (1) does the child tend to regard the "only" before the subject as the focus of the predicate? (2) if the child does have this tendency, Does negative intervention help children to get a similar understanding as adults? (3) are there significant differences in the understanding of "only" before subject among children aged 3-6? If "negative" intervention does not work, how do children transition to adult grammar? The results show that children aged 4-6 years do have predicate tendency. But the development of children is very inconsistent. The children who have predicate tendency also have correct understanding, they are wandering in the two kinds of understanding, so they tend to make the adult understanding or the predicate tendency understanding. The vast majority of adults have no predicate bias. Negative intervention did little to help the problem, and there was no significant age difference between 4-6-year-olds. Experiment 1 supports the view of most scholars (Yang, restrictive focus; Notley et al.; Zhou and rain). As to the difference between experiment 2 and Zhou and rain experiment, we think it is related to the individual difference and language input of children. But it is worth noting that a temporary lack of understanding does not represent a lack of knowledge in children's brains, but requires more access to data that support them in making the right choices.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H193.1
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前9条
1 孔令达,傅满义;儿童语言中副词的发展[J];安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版);2004年05期
2 杨小璐;儿童汉语中的限制焦点[J];当代语言学;2002年03期
3 李宝伦,潘海华,徐烈炯;对焦点敏感的结构及焦点的语义解释(上)[J];当代语言学;2003年01期
4 周国光;儿童习得副词的偏向性特点[J];汉语学习;2000年04期
5 李宇明;;儿童习得语言的偏向性策略[J];华中师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版);1991年04期
6 李行德;语言发展理论和汉语儿童语言[J];现代外语;1997年04期
7 徐以中;副词“只”的语义指向及语用歧义探讨[J];语文研究;2003年02期
8 方梅;;汉语对比焦点的句法表现手段[J];中国语文;1995年04期
9 殷何辉;;焦点敏感算子“只”的量级用法和非量级用法[J];语言教学与研究;2009年01期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 张全生;现代汉语焦点结构研究[D];南开大学;2009年
本文编号：2136043
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2136043.html
