成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	黃綉然 Huang, Hsiu-Jan
論文名稱：	漢語複合名詞的理解:以動物、植物及加工品三類複合詞為例 Strategies in Comprehending Mandarin Chinese Noun-Noun Compounds with Animals, Plants, and Artifacts as Constituents
指導教授：	謝菁玉 Hsieh, Ching-Yu Shelley
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	文學院 - 外國語文學系碩士在職專班 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (on the job class)
論文出版年：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	118
中文關鍵詞：	複合詞結構、關係的聯結、複合名詞、概念聯結、特色的映照
外文關鍵詞：	compounding structure, property mapping, relation linking, noun-noun compound, conceptual combination
相關次數：	點閱：105 下載：2
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

本論文主旨在探討理解漢語複合名詞的主要策略。我們以聯結關係的抉擇(Competition Among Relations in Nominals; CARIN) 及雙理解模式 (Dual-process) 兩個理論為基本理論架構，此二理論向來在討論理解英文複合名詞的策略。我們的研究方法是請受測者解釋假造的複合名詞的意義。本研究有四個目的：(1)、我們希望透過理解漢語複合名詞的主要策略來檢視聯結關係的抉擇及雙理解模式此二理論中，何者較可信。(2)、對於以同一類別名詞為語素的複合名詞的理解，Gagné (2000) 和Wisniewski (1996) 提出了不同的見解，本研究欲探討我們如何理解漢語裡以同一類別名詞為語素的複合名詞。(3)、Costello 及 Keane (1997b, 2001) 認為人們往往以特色映照 (property mapping) 的策略來解讀中心詞反轉的複合名詞 (focus-reverse compounds)，我們欲分析解讀中心詞反轉的漢語複合名詞的主要策略為何。(4)、Downing (1977) 發現以特定類別為中心詞的複合名詞多半具有某種典型的意義，這個發現暗示了人們解讀複合名詞的主要策略會因複合詞的結構而有異，我們欲驗證上述兩個變項之間的相關性。
基於上述四個研究目的，本論文中提出了四個問題: (1)、就理解中文複合名詞的主要策略而言，聯結關係的抉擇和雙理解模式二理論何者可信度較高? (2)、語素的相互比較及特色的映照，何者是理解以同一類別名詞為語素的漢語複合名詞的主要策略? (3)、特色的映照是理解中心詞反轉的漢語複合名詞的主要策略嗎? (4)、解讀複合名詞的主要策略會因複合詞的結構而有異嗎?
二百三十二位就讀於同校的中學生身為本實驗的受測者。測驗的題目由動物類、植物類及加工品類三種語素交叉配對的複合名詞所構成，共有九種結構的複合詞，如動物類-動物類，動物類-植物類，動物類-加工品類等等。我們對每種結構的複合名詞各設計了十二個題目，總計有一百零八題，題目再均分到四分問卷上，每分問卷各由五十八位受測者作答。由受測者的答案中，我們計算出各策略的使用比例，多數受測者所應用的策略即為理解漢語複合名詞的主要策略；為了驗證各理解策略在不同結構複合詞的使用率是否有顯著差異，我們又以變異數分析 (ANOVA) 來進一步檢視結果。
本研究發現：(1)、關係的聯結 (relation linking) 及特色的映照 (property mapping) 皆為理解漢語複合名詞的主要策略。(2)、理解以同一類別名詞為語素的漢語複合詞的主要策略為特色映照，而非語素間的相互比較。(3)、理解中心詞反轉的漢語複合名詞的主要策略是特色的映照，而不是關係的聯結。(4)、特色映照策略的應用和複合詞的結構並不相關，然而關係聯結策略的應用則和複合詞的結構相關。本研究中的結果皆肯定雙理解模式理論，而否決聯結關係的抉擇理論。亦即，關係的聯結並非理解複合名詞的唯一倚重的策略；反之，理解漢語複合名詞的策略是關係聯結及特色映照兩者並重。

This thesis aims to find out the major strategy in comprehending Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds. Two theories, the Competition Among Relations in Nominals (CARIN) Theory and the Dual-process Theory, which have been mainly applied to the research on the comprehension of English noun-noun compounds, are examined. We invited participants to make interpretations for test items composed of counterfeit noun-noun compounds containing animals, plants, and artifacts as constituents. The research goals were (i) to analyze the plausibility of the CARIN Theory and the Dual-process Theory through the observation of the preferable comprehending strategy for those compounds with different categories as constituents; (ii) to investigate the preferable strategy in figuring out Mandarin Chinese compounds with the same category as constituents; (iii) to explore the preferable strategy in interpreting left-headed compounds; (iv) to examine whether there is a correlation between the preferable comprehending strategy and the structure of compounds.
On the basis of the research goals, the thesis attempts to answer the four research questions as listed below: (i) Is the CARIN Theory or the Dual-Process Theory more plausible in the comprehension of Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds? (ii) Do compounds with the same category as constituents tend to be comprehended based on comparison of constituents or property mapping? (iii) Do focus-reverse compounds tend to be comprehended based on property mapping? (iv) Does the preferable comprehending strategy depend on the structure of noun-noun compounds?
The data was collected through noun-noun compound interpretation tasks. We recruited 232 high school students from the same school as participants. Compounds with the following nine structures serve as test items: animal-animal, animal-artifact, animal-plant, plant-animal, plant-artifact, plant-plant, artifact-animal, artifact-artifact, and artifact-plant. 12 test items were designed for each compounding structure. Overall, there were 108 test items. These test items were evenly distributed in four questionnaires. Eventually every questionnaire was distributed to 58 participants. The results were examined by comparing the proportion of the application of the comprehending strategies to find out the major one(s). To verify whether there was a significant difference in the frequency of use of comprehending strategies among compounds with different structures, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to further compare the variation.
The findings of the thesis are as follows: (i) Both relation linking and property mapping are of importance in the comprehension of Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds. (ii) Compounds with the same category as constituents tend to be comprehended based on property mapping instead of comparison of constituents. (iii) Focus-reverse compounds are more likely to be perceived by property-mapping strategies rather than relation-linking strategies. (iv) There is no correlation between the application of property-mapping strategies and the structure of compounds. However, there is a correlation between the application of relation-linking strategies and the structure of compounds. All of the examinations support the Dual-process Theory and reject the CARIN Theory. That is, relation linking is not the only major strategy in comprehending compounds. Instead, both relation linking and property mapping are of significance in the perception of Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds.

Abstract (Chinese)	i
Abstract (English)	ii
Acknowledgements	iii
Table of Contents	iv
List of Tables	viii
Chapter 1 Introduction	1
1 Motivation and Purpose	2
2 Research Questions of the Thesis	8
3 Organization of the Thesis	8
Chapter 2 Literature Review	10
1 Definitions of Noun-Noun Compounds	10
2 Syntactic Structures of Mandarin Compound Nouns	11
3 Complex Concepts in Noun-Noun Compounds	17
4 Studies on the Strategy in Comprehending Noun-Noun Compounds	20
4.1 CARIN (the Competition Among Relations in Nominals) Theory	21
4.2 Dual-Process Theory	25
4.3 Application of CARIN Theory and Dual-Process Theory in Mandarin Chinese Noun-Noun Compounds	28
5 Design of Test Items	33
5.1 Selection of Categories as Constituents of Compounds	33
5.2 Plausibility of the Designed Test Items	35
5.2.1 Plausibility of the Combining Structures	36
5.2.2 Norm for Selected Nouns	38
5.2.3 Selected Nouns Capable of Being Candidates for Modifiers and Head Nouns	40
6 Summary	43
Chapter 3 Methodology	44
1 Pilot Study	44
1.1 Hypothesis of the Pilot Study	44
1.2 Data Collection for the Pilot Study	45
1.3 Results of the Pilot Study	45
1.4 Implications for the Present Study	46
2 The Present Study	48
2.1 Participants	48
2.2 Materials	48
2.3 Procedure	51
3 Classification of Responses	52
3.1 Responses Based on Combination Strategies	52
3.1.1 Concepts Combined through Property Mapping	53
3.1.2 Concepts Combined through Relation Linking	55
3.1.3 Concepts Combined through Hybrids	55
3.1.4 Concepts Combined through Conjunctions	56
3.1.5 Concepts Combined through Homonyms	57
3.2 Responses Based on Non-Combination Strategies	58
3.2.1 Comparison of Constituents	59
3.2.2 Associating Compounds with Similar Terms	59
3.2.3 Associating Compounds with Homophonous Terms	60
4 Scoring of Responses	61
5 Reliability of the Categorization System	63
6 Summary	63
Chapter 4 Findings	64
1 Research Question One: For or against CARIN Theory and Dual-process Theory	64
1.1 Importance of Strategies	65
1.2 Plausibility of CARIN Theory and Dual-Process Theory	67
2 Research Question Two: Preferable Comprehending Strategy for Compounds with Similar Constituents	69
2.1 Contrastive Arguments over Preferable Comprehending Strategy for Compounds with Similar Constituents	69
2.2 Examination of Preferable Comprehending Strategy for Compounds with Similar Constituents	70
3 Research Question Three: Preferable Comprehending Strategy for Focus-Reverse Compounds	75
3.1 Previous Studies on Focus-Reverse Compounds	75
3.2 Examination of Focus-Reverse Compounds	76
4 Research Question Four: Correlation between the Preferable Comprehending Strategy and the Structure of Noun-Noun Compounds	80
4.1 Right-Headed Property Mapping and Relation Liking in Comprehending Compounds with Different Structures	81
4.2 Examination of Right-Headed Property Mapping in Comprehending Compounds with Different Structures	82
4.3 Examination of Right-Headed Relation Liking in Comprehending Compounds with Different Structures	83
4.4 Correlation between the Preferable Comprehending Strategy and the Structure of Noun-Noun Compounds	84
5 Summary	85
Chapter 5 Discussion	86
1 Discussion of Characteristics of Responses Based on Relation-Linking and Property-Mapping Strategies	86
1.1 General Templates for Compounds	86
1.2 General Templates for Compounds with Different Structures	88
2 Discussion of Focus-Reverse Responses	93
3 Discussion of Responses Based on Homonymous, Similar Term, and Homophonous Strategies	94
3.1 Discussion of Responses Based on Homonymous Strategies	94
3.2 Discussion of Responses Based on Similar Term Strategies	96
3.3 Discussion of Homophonous Strategies	97
4 Summary	99
Chapter 6 Conclusion	100
1 Summary of Major Findings	100
2 Significance of the Thesis	102
3 Limitation of the Thesis	102
4 Suggestions for Further Studies	103
References	105
Appendices	114
Appendix A: Test items for the pilot study	114
Appendix B: Questionnaires for the present study	115
                                    

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In Mechanisms of language acquisition, Brain MacWhinney (Ed.), 157-194. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme–morpheme base morphology. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.
Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65, 14-21
Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press.
Chang, Shu-min (張淑敏). (1996). A study on Mandarin compounds (漢語複合詞的研究). National Tsing Hua University Ph.D. dissertation.
Chao, Yuen-ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CKIP (Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group) (中央研究院中文詞知識庫小組). (1993). Classification of Parts of Speech in Mandarin Chinese (中文詞類分析). Technical Report no. 93-05. Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group of Institute of Information Science at Academia Sinica.
Clark, E. V. (1981). Lexical innovations: How children learn to create new words. In W. Deutsch (Ed.), The child’s construction of language (pp.299-328). New York: Academic Press.
Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. B. Flores d’Arcais & R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of understanding language. New York: Wiley.
Clark, E., & Berman, R. (1987). Types of linguistic knowledge: Interpreting and producing compound nouns. Journal of Child Language, 14, 547-567.
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A., & Lane, N. M. (1985). Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development, 56, 84-94.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27-58.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (1997a). Constraints on conceptual combination: A theory of polysemy in noun-noun combinations. Unpublished manuscript.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (1997b). Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cofnitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 255-271.
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810-842.
Estes, Z. (2003). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304–319.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language. 7th ed. Boston: Heinle.
Gagné, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN Theory and the Dual-Process Theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 365–389.
Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 236-254.
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 71-87.
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2006). Relation availability was not confounded with familiarity or plausibility in Gagne´ and Shoben (1997): Comment on Wisniewski and Murphy (2005). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1431-1437.
Gee, J. P., Allen, A. R., & Clinton, K. (2001). Language, class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning themselves through language. Linguistics and Education, 12, 175-194.
Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. New York: Norton.
Goldvarg, Y., & Glucksberg, S. (1998). Conceptual combinations: The role of similarity. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 243-255.
Gray, K. C., & Smith, E. E. (1995). The role of instance retrieval in understanding complex concepts. Memory & Cognition, 23, 665–674.
Gross, D., Fischer, U., & Miller, G. A. (1989). The organization of adjectival meanings. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 92-106.
Huang, Hsiu-jan (黃綉然), & Chen, Li-mei (陳麗美). (2006). Strategies in comprehending English compound nouns for Chinese EFL students. Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Vol 1. (pp. 212-221). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., & Claire, T. (1990). Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14, 551–577.
Kay, P. (1971). Taxonomy and semantic contrast. Language, 47, 866-887.
Lee, C. A. (1997). Chinese simple nouns and basic-level categories. Journal of the College of Liberal Arts (文史學報), 27, 213-229.
Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
Li, C. (1971). Semantics and the structure of compounds in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.
Li, C., N., & Thompson, S., A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press.
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.
Maguire, P., Devereux, B., Costello, F., & Cater, A. (2007). A reanalysis of the CARIN Theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 811-821.
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd ed. München: C. H. Beck.
Markman, E. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E.J. (1997). Similar and different: the differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 54-70.
Matthews, P. H. (1996). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Up.
Medin, D. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 158–190.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529-562.
Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 259-288.
Murphy, G. L., & Wisniewski, E. J. (2006). Familiarity and plausibility in conceptual combination: Reply to Gagne´ and Spalding (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1438-1442.
Nelson, K. (1976). Some attributes of adjectives used by young children. Cognition, 4, 13-30.
Nicoladis, E. (1999). “Where is my brush-teeth?” Acquisition of compound nouns in a French-English bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 245-256.
Nicoladis, E. (2002). The cues that children use in acquiring adjectival phrases and compound nouns: Evidence from bilingual children. Brain and Language, 81, 635–648.
Nicoladis, E. (2003). What compound nouns mean to preschool children. Brain and Language, 84, 38-49.
Reich, P. A. (1986). Language development. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sadock, J. M. (1998). On the autonomy of compounding morphology. In S.G. Lapointe, D.K. Brentari, & P. M. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax (pp. 161–187). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shoben, E. J. (1991). Predicating and nonpredicating combinations. In P. J. Schwanenflugal (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp.117-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485–527.
Storms, G., & Wisniewski, E. J. (2005). Does the order of head noun and modifier explain response times in conceptual combination? Memory and Cognition, 33, 852-861.
Tang, Ting-chi (湯廷池). (1988). Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax (漢語詞法句法論集). Taipei: Student Book.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1989). Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax: 2 (漢語詞法句法續集). Taipei: Student Book.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1992a). Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax: 3 (漢語詞法句法三集). Taipei: Student Book.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1992b). Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax: 4 (漢語詞法句法四集). Taipei: Student Book.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1994). Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax: 5 (漢語詞法句法五集). Taipei: Student Book.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. England. Pearson Education.
Warren, B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.” Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 245-274.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434–453.
Wisniewski, E. J. (2001). On the necessity of alignment: Reply to Costello and Keane (2001). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 272-277.
Wisniewski, E. J., & Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp.241-284). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.
Wisniewski, E. J., & Markman, A. B. (1993). The role of structural alignment in conceptual combination. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1083-1086). Boulder, CO: Erlbaum.
Wisniewski, E. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2005). Frequency of relation type as a determinant of conceptual combination: A reanalysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 169–174.
Xiong, Hui-ru. (熊慧如). (1998). A semantic study of material noun-noun compounds in Mandarin Chinese (中文物質複合名詞的語意研究). Fu Jen Catholic University dissertation.
Zhang, Q., Guo, C. Y., Ding, J, H., & Wang, Z. Y. (2006). Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinese words. Brain and Language, 96, 59-68.

校內：立即公開
校外：2008-01-22公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文