Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106802| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 蕭宇超 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Hsiao, Yuchau E. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | 宋凱琳 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Sung, Kailin | en_US |
| dc.creator | 宋凱琳 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Sung, Kailin | en_US |
| dc.date | 2017 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-03-01T09:00:50Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2017-03-01T09:00:50Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-03-01T09:00:50Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0097555501 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106802 | - |
| dc.description | 博士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 97555501 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 本文旨在研究國語語者在英語單純名詞(simplex nouns), 合成詞(complex words)與複合名詞(compound nouns)的重音習得現象，根據錯誤驅動制約條件降級演算系統(Error-Driven Constraint Demotion Algorithm)，本文提出其擴充理論用於解釋第二語言重音習得的動態演變過程。中介語語料設計主要為25種音節形式組合的雙音節單純名詞，三種後綴形式的合成詞，以及25種音節形式的雙音節複合名詞，受試者為20位英文程度分別為低程度及高程度的英語學習者。研究結果顯示，第二語言的重音習得主要分為兩階段，第一階段為中介語制約條件升級，此時，在第一語及目標語排序較低或靜態的制約受到升級，稱為所謂中介語制約(interlanguage constraint), 由於中介語制約提升至第一語及目標語的制約排序之上，使得正確的目標語形式無法產生。在第二階段，目標語形式所違反的制約會依序降級，直到目標語能成功產出為止。在單純名詞部份，低程度學習者受到中介語制約ALLFTR, XV́O的影響，傾向將重音指派在倒數第二音節及詞尾的XVO音節，高程度學習者的單純名詞語法雖與目標語有所差距，但已能擺脫中介語制約ALLFTR, XV́O的影響，將重音指派在正確的音節。在合成詞部分，中介語制約ALLFTR, NON-FIN(σ) 使得低程度學習者傾向將重音指派在倒數第二音節，但高程度學習者已建立類似目標語的合成詞並存音韻語法(Cophonology Grammar)。複合名詞部分，受到中介語制約ALIGN (WD, FT) 的影響，低程度與高程度的學習者都傾向將重音指派至每一個複合詞單字，造成字字重音的現象。本文所提出的錯誤驅動制約條件降級演算系統之擴充理論(Extended Error-Driven Constraint Demotion Algorithm)經過證明可用於解釋第二語言習得的重音指派現象。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study is aimed to investigate Mandarin-speaking English leaners’ stress assignment of simplex nouns, complex words, and compound nouns. Based on Error-Driven Constraint Demotion Algorithm, this study proposes its extended theory to account for the dynamic process of second language (L2) acquisition of stress assignment. The tokens were simplex nouns composed of 25 syllable types, compound words composed of three types of suffixes, and disyllabic compound nouns composed of 25 syllable types. The subjects were 20 high and low achievers of English respectively. The result shows that L2 stress assignment acquisition is divided into two stages. The first stage features interlanguage constraint promotion; lower ranked constraints in first language (L1) or L2 are promoted to the undominated position, which prevents the target form from being selected. In stage two, the target-disfavoring constraints undergo gradual and sequential error-driven demotion until the target form successfully surfaces. In terms of simplex nouns, low achievers were influenced by ALLFTR and XV́O, and tended to place the main stress on the penultimate syllable and ultimate XVO. High achievers were able to stress simplex nouns accurately, which implies simplex cophonology has been established at high-achieving stage. As far as compound words are concerned, undominated interlanguage constraints, ALLFTR and NON-FIN(σ), mislead low achievers to place stress on the penultimate syllable, while high achievers had no difficulty stressing complex words, suggesting that high achievers were equipped with the complex cophonology. As for compound nouns, under the influence of interlanguage constraint, ALIGN (WD, FT), low achievers tended to stress every compound element. The extended Error-Driven Constraint Demotion Algorithm proposed in this study is proved able to account for L2 acquisition of stress assignment. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Chinese Abstract I \nEnglish Abstract II \nTable of Contents III\nList of Tables VI\nList of Figures VII\nCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION\n A. Why an L2 Learning Algorithm Necessary? 1\n B. Contribution and Outline 3 \nCHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND BASIC RATIONALE OF THE \n PROPOSED ALGORITHM 4\nA. Phonotactic Basics 4 \n 1. Stress features and stress assignment 4 \n 2. Degrees of stress 5 \n 3. Placement of primary stress 6\n 4. Representation of stress 6\n a. The grid . 6\n b. Feet 7\n 5. Stress related Constraints and Theories 8 \n a. Main constraint types in Optimality Theory 8 \n b. Markedness and faithfulness constraints 8\n c. Alignment Theory 10\n d. Cophonology Theory 10\nB. OT-Based Algorithms in Learning the Phonology of a \n Language 11 \n 1. Constraint Demotion 11\n 2. Error-driven Constraint Demotion 13 \n 3. Biased Constraint Demotion 15 \n 4. Gradual Learning Algorithm 15\n 5. Error-driven Ranking Algorithms . 17\n C. Theoretical Proposal of the Extended EDCD Algorithm 18\n 1. The initial state 18\n 2. Stage one 19 \n 3. Stage two 20\n 4. Operation of the extended EDCD 22\n 5. The irreplaceability of extended EDCD algorithm 28\nCHAPTER III. STRESS ASSIGNMENT OF ENGLISH SIMPLEX NOUNS 31\nA. Data Description 31 \n 1. Participants 32\n 2. Test tokens 32 \n 3. Data collection 34 \nB. Results 35\n 1. Disyllabic simplex nouns 35 \n a. XVO-ending nouns 35\n b. XVN-ending nouns 36 \n c. XVL-ending nouns 37\n d. XVV-ending nouns 38\n e. XV-ending nouns 39\n 2. Trisyllabic simplex nouns 40\n a. XVO-ending trisyllabic nouns 40\n b. XVN/L-ending trisyllabic nouns 41\n c. XV-ending trisyllabic nouns 41\nC. Extended EDCD Analysis 42 \n 1. XV-ending nouns 48\n 2. XVN-ending nouns 57\n 3. XVL-ending nouns 60\n 4. XVO-ending nouns 64\n 5. XVO-ending trisyllabic simplex nouns 68\nD. Cophonology of Simplex Nouns 69\nE. Summary 70\nCHAPTER IV. STRESS ASSIGNMENT OF ENGLISH COMPLEX WORDS 71\nA. Data Description 71 \n 1. Test tokens 72 \n 2. Results 72 \n a. Stress-neutral suffixation 72\n b. Stress-shifting suffixation 73\n c. Stress-attracting suffixation 74\nB. Extended EDCD Analysis 75\n 1. Stress-neutral suffixation 76\n 2. Stress-attracting suffixation 89\n 3. Stress-shifting suffixation 94\nC. Cophonology of Complex Words 101\nD. Summary 102 \nCHAPTER V. STRESS ASSIGNMENT OF ENGLISH COMPLEX WORDS 103\nA. Data Description 103 \n 1. Participants 103\n 2. Test tokens 103\n 3. Results 105 \n a. ŃN 105\n b. [ŃN]N 108\n c. N[ŃN] 108\n d. ŃŃ 109\nB. Extended EDCD Analysis 110\n 1. ŃN 110\n 2. N[ŃN] 115\n 3. [ŃN]N 118\n 4. ŃŃ 120\nC. Cophonology of Compound Nouns 122\nD. Summary 123 \nCHAPTER VI. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS 124\nCHAPTER VII. CONCLUSION 133\nREFERENCES 134 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 4704163 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097555501 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 錯誤驅動制約條件降級演算系統 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 第二語言習得 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 重音指派 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 中介語 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 優選理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 並存音韻理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Error-Driven Constraint Demotion Algorithm | en_US |
| dc.subject | Second language acquisition | en_US |
| dc.subject | Stress assignment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Interlanguage | en_US |
| dc.subject | Optimality Theory | en_US |
| dc.subject | Cophonology | en_US |
| dc.title | 國語語者之英語詞彙重音習得： 錯誤驅動制約條件降級演算系統之擴充理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Mandarin speakers` acquisition of English word stress : an extended theory of error-driven constraint demotion algorithm | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference | Anttila, A. (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In F. Hinskens, R. Van Hout, & W. Wetzels (Eds), Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.\nAoyama, K., & Guion, S. G. (2007). Prosody in second language acquisition: An acoustic analysis on duration and F0 range. In O. S. Bohn & M. Munro (Eds.), The role of language experience in second-language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 281-297). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.\nArchibald, J. (1995). The acquisition of stress. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory (pp. 81-109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.\nArchibald, J. (1997). The acquisition of second language phrasal stress: A pilot study. In S. J. Hannahs & M. Scholten (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 263-289). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.\nArchibald, J. (1998). Metrical parameters and lexical dependency: Acquiring L2 stress. In S. Flynn & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 279-301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. \nArchibald, L. (1998). Second language phonology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.\nBeckman, M. E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.\nBoersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.\nBroselow, E. (2004). Unmarked structures and emergent rankings in second language phonology. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 51-65.\nBroselow, E., Chen, S., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(2), 261-280.\nBroselow, E., & Park, B. (1995). Mora conservation in second language prosody. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory (pp. 151-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.\nBroselow, E., & Xu, Z. (2004). Differential difficulty in the acquisition of second language phonology. International Journal of English Studies, 4(2), 135-163.\nChao, Y. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley.\nChao, Y. (2014). Some Prosodic Characteristics of Taiwan English Accent. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 19(2), 61-76 \nClahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2(2), 93-119.\nCruttenden, A. (2008). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold.\nDalton, C & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. London: Oxford University Press.\nDavenport, M., & Hannhas, J. (2010). Introducing Phonetics and Phonology (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.\nDechert, H. (1983). How a story is done in a second language. Strategies in \nInterlanguage Communication, eds. C. Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman, London\nDryer, M. S. (1997). On the Six-Way Word Order Typology. Studies in Languages. 21:1. 69-103.\nDuanmu. S. (1990). Phonetic correlates of register in Shanghai. Paper presented at the Second Northeast Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Philadelphia. \nDuanmu, S. (2000). The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. \nEckman, F. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 23-41.\nEllis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.\nEpstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 677-758.\nFeng, S. L. (1998a). On default footing in Chinese. Zhonghuo Yuwen. 40-47.\nFeng, S. L. (1998b). Prosodic structure and compound words in Classical Chinese, In J.L. Packard, ed. New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 197-260.\nFlege, J. E., & Bohn, O. S. (1989). An instrumental study of vowel reduction and stress placement in Spanish-accented English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 35-62.\nFlynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht: Reidel.\nFudge, C. (1984). English word-stress. London: George Allen & Unwin.\nGass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1992). LanguageTransfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.\nGiegerich, H. (2004). Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics, 8, 1-24.\nGiegerich, H. (2009). Compounding and lexicalism. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (Eds.), Handbook of compounding (pp. 178‐200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nGiorgio, M. (2012). Convergence of error-driven ranking algorithms. Phonology, 29(2), 213-269.\nGordon, M. (2002). A typology of quantity-insensitive stress language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 20(3), 491-552.\nGuion, S. G., & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In O. S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 57-78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.\nHall, Christopher (2003). Modern German Pronunciation: An Introduction for Speakers of English (pp.28). Manchester: Manchester University Press.\nHalliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140-165). Harmondsworth: Penguin. \nHargus, S. (1988). The lexical phonology of Sekani. New York: Garland.\nHarris, J. W. (1983). Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. \nHayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.\nIdsardi, W. (1992). The computation of prosody. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.\nInkelas, S. (1998). The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study from dominance. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1997 (pp.121-155). Dordrecht: Kluwer.\nJames, A. (1988). The acquisition of a second language phonology. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.\nKiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In I. S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul, Korea: Hanshin Publishing Company.\nKiparsky, P. (1984). Lexical Phonology of Sanskrit Word Accent. In S.D. Joshi (ed.), Amrtadhara: R.N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.\nKiparsky, P. (2006). Amphichronic linguistics vs. evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics, 32, 217-236.\nKochanski, G., Shih, C., Jing, H.. (2003). Quantitative Measurement of Prosodic Strength in Mandarin, Speech Communication 41(4).\nKrashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and applications. Beverly Hills: LaRed.\nLadefoged, P. (2006). A course in phonetics. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.\nLibermann, M., & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249-33.\nLiceras, J., Maxwell, D., Laguardia, B., Fernandez, Z., & Fernandez, R. (1997). A longitudinal study of Spanish non-native grammars: Beyond parameters. In A. T. PZrez-Leroux & W. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 99-132). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.\nMcCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts.\nMcCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In G. Booij & J. van Marie (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993 (pp. 79-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer.\nMcCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript. University of Massachusetts.\nMcCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In M. González (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24 (pp. 333–379). Amherst, MA: GLSA.\nMohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.\nMonahan, P. J. (2001). Brazilian Portuguese coda condition constraint transfer into L2 English. Journal of Undergraduate Research, 3(4). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from www.clas.ufl.edu/jur/200112/papers/paper_monahan.htm.\nMoren, B. (1999). Distinctiveness, Coercion and Sonority: a unified theory of weight. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.\nOrgun, C. O. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology: With special attention to Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.\nPater, J. (2000). Nonuniformity in English stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology, 17, 237-274. \nPater, J. (2004). Bridging the gap between receptive and productive development with minimally violable constraints. In R. Kager, J. Pater & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 219-244). New York: Cambridge University Press.\nPaul, B., & Bruce, H. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.\nPrince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 19-100.\nPrince, A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS, 26(2), 355-398.\nPrince, A., & Bruce, T. (1999). Learning phonotactic distributions. Manuscript, Rutgers University.\nPrince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical report, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\nRoach, P. (2000). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.\nRosenthall, S & Hulst, H. (1999). Weight-by-Position by position. NLLT 17. 499–540.\nSchwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317-368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.\nSereno, J. A. & Wang, Y. (2007). Behavioral and cortical effects of learning a second language: The acquisition of tone. In O. S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 241-258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.\nTesar, B. (1995). Computational Optimality Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.\nTesar, B., & Smolensky, P. (1998). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 229-268.\nTesar, B., & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\nTsimpli, I. M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 149-170.\nWhite, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47-62.\nWhite, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: An investigation of the pro-drop parameter. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language acquisition (pp.55-72). Oxford: Pergamon Press.\nZec, Draga (2007). The syllable. In Paul de Lacy (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, p.182.\n史嘉琳(民92)。英語教學死角:複合名詞重音【部落格文字資料】取自http://www.cet-taiwan.com/drcet/detail.asp?serno=599 | zh_TW |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| item.grantfulltext | restricted | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 550101.pdf | 4.59 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.