Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52706
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor萬依萍zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorWan, I Pingen_US
dc.contributor.author陳采君zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorChen, Tsai Chunen_US
dc.creator陳采君zh_TW
dc.creatorChen, Tsai Chunen_US
dc.date2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-04-17T01:05:34Z-
dc.date.available2012-04-17T01:05:34Z-
dc.date.issued2012-04-17T01:05:34Z-
dc.identifierG0097555011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52706-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description97555011zh_TW
dc.description100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本篇研究的目的是要去比較中文跟英文小孩的誘發過度泛化現象的不同之處。誘發過度泛化現象指的是小孩子因為受到之前誘發過的字的影響進而造成對物品過度泛化現象的情況而稱之。Gershkoff-Stowe et al. (2006) 認為Dell (1986) 提出的擴散激活機制 (spreading activation mechanisms) 可用來解釋小孩的三種泛化錯誤類型: 類別錯誤 (category errors) 、語用錯誤 (pragmatic errors) 跟提取錯誤 (retrieval errors),此三種泛化錯誤的基底機制應該都是同樣的。另外,他們也認為最近激活跟形狀的類似對小孩的命名應該都扮演了很重要的角色。年紀較大的小孩也應該會擁有比較成熟的心理詞彙所以會比起年紀較小的小孩比較不容易受到之前提取過的字的影響。因為中文跟英文心理詞彙的不同,我們想去檢視是否一樣的理論也可套用在中文小孩身上。實驗方法沿用了Gershkoff-Stowe et al. (2006)的相同實驗法,做了與他相同的兩個實驗。第一個實驗是熟悉物與不熟悉物的命名,兩歲小孩要做六次的試驗,然後我們是用三張圖片做為誘發圖片,然後請小孩去命名一個真實的物品。第二個實驗是虛構物品命名,我們在這個實驗裡比較兩歲小孩跟四歲小孩的不同表現。實驗過程跟實驗一是一樣的,只是實驗二是看虛構物品不是真實物品,且有八個試驗機會而不是六個。結果顯示有一個跟英文大致上類似的結果。然而我們仍有發現一些不同之處。第一,我們發現熟悉物在中文裡比起英文似乎有更強的力量。第二個則是兩個語言不同的構詞法可能會對於比較成熟的心理詞彙造成不一樣的誘發方式。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThis purpose of this study is to compare the difference of priming overextension phenomena between Mandarin Chinese children and English children. Priming overextension means that children overextend some words due to the effects of the previously primed words. Gershkoff-Stowe et al. (2006) found that spreading activation mechanisms (Dell, 1986) should be the underlying mechanisms of three types of children’s overextension errors, i.e., category errors, pragmatic errors, and retrieval errors. Moreover, they thought that recent activation and perceptual similarity both play an important role on children’s object naming. Besides, older children should have a more mature mental lexicon and thus less susceptible to previously retrieved words than younger children. Due to the difference of the lexicon networks between Mandarin Chinese and English, we want to examine whether the same theory also could apply to Mandarin children. Two experiments which followed Gershkoff-Stowe et al. (2006) were conducted. The first one was familiar or unfamiliar object naming. 2-year-old Children underwent six trials and were primed by three pictures and then were asked to name a real object. The second experiment was novel object naming. We compared the performances of children aged 2 and aged 4 together. The procedure was the same as the experiment 1 despite the fact that children in experiment 2 named novel objects rather than real ones and they underwent 8 trials rather than six. And results showed a generally similar finding with English. However, there are still something different between these two languages. First, we found that familiar objects should have stronger strengths in Mandarin than in English. Second, different morphology in two languages may result in different priming way for more mature mental lexicons.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n\n\nAcknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...iv\nChinese Abstract…………………………………………………………………….viii\nEnglish Abstract……………………………………………………………………….x\nChapter\n1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1\n2. Literature Review……………...…………………………………………………..8\n2.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………8\n2.1 Three Types of Errors………………………………………………………….8\n2.1.1 Category Errors……………………………………………………….....9\n2.1.2 Pragmatic Errors……………………………………………………......15\n2.1.3 Retrieval Errors………………………………………………………...20\n 2.2 Comprehension and Production Problems…………………………………...24\n 2.3 Shape bias…………………………………………………………………….27\n2.4 The Study in Gershkoff-Stowe, Connell, and Smith (2006)…………………30\n2.5 Characteristics of Mandarin Chinese………………………………………...40\n2.6 Summary……………..………………………………………………………42\n3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………..45\n3.1 Experiment 1………...……………………………………………………….45\n3.1.1 Procedure…………………………………………………………….....47\n3.1.2 Subjects.………………………………………………………………..48\n3.1.3 Materials………………………………………………………………..48\n3.1.4 Coding………………………………………………………………….50\n3.1.5 Adults’ Similarity Judgments………..…………………………………52\n3.1.6 Word comprehension…………………………………………………...53\n3.2 Experiment 2…………………………………………………………………54\n3.2.1 Procedure…………………………………………………………….....55\n3.2.2 Subjects………………………………………………………………...55\n3.2.3 Materials………………………………………………………………..56\n3.2.4 Coding………………………………………………………………….57\n4. Results and Discussion…………….....…………………………………………..59\n4.1 Children’s Word Comprehension and Production in Experiment 1………….59\n4.2 Object Naming in Experiment 1……………………………………………...61\n4.3 Priming Effects in Experiment 1……………………………………………..64\n4.4 Novel Object Naming in Experiment 2………………………………………69\n4.5 Priming Effects in Experiment 2……………………………………………..77\n4.6 Perseverative Naming in Experiment 2………………………………………78\n4.7 Summary……………………………………………………………………..81\n5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………83\nReferences……………………………………………………………………………86\nAppendix……………………………………………………………………………..97zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097555011en_US
dc.subject誘發zh_TW
dc.subject過度泛化zh_TW
dc.subject語言發展zh_TW
dc.subject幼兒zh_TW
dc.subject中文zh_TW
dc.subject詞彙zh_TW
dc.subjectPrimingen_US
dc.subjectoverextensionen_US
dc.subjectlanguage developmenten_US
dc.subjectchildrenen_US
dc.subjectMandarin Chineseen_US
dc.subjectlexiconen_US
dc.title台灣以中文為母語的小孩的誘發過度泛化現象zh_TW
dc.titlePriming overextensions in Taiwan Mandarin childrenen_US
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.referenceReferenceszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnglin, J. M. (1977). Word, object, and conceptual development. New York: W. W.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNorton and Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBaldwin, D. A. (1989). Priorities in children’s expectations about object labelzh_TW
dc.relation.referencereference: Form over color. Child Development, 60, 1291 – 1306.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBaldwin, D. A. (1992). Clarifying the role of shape in children’s taxonomiczh_TW
dc.relation.referenceassumption. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 392 – 416.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBarrett, M. D. (1986). Early semantic representations and early word usage. In Stan A.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKuczaj II and Martyn D. Barrett (eds.), The development of word meaning:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceprogress in cognitive development research (pp. 39-67). Berlin and New York:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSpringer.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBarrett, M., Harris, M., & Chasin, J. (1991). Early lexical development and maternalzh_TW
dc.relation.referencespeech: a comparison of children’s initial and subsequent uses of words. Journalzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceof Child Language, 18, 21-40.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIndividual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridgezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUniversity Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBenedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: Comprehension and production.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal of Child Language, 6, 183-200.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBiederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human imagezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceunderstanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115 – 147.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBillow, R. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphor in children. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceExperimental Child Psychology, 31, 430-445.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single word utterances beforezh_TW
dc.relation.referencesyntax. The Hague: Mouton.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBowerman, M. (1978). The acquisition of word meaning: an investigation of somezh_TW
dc.relation.referencecurrent conflicts. In Natalie Waterson and Catherine E. Snow (eds.), Thezh_TW
dc.relation.referencedevelopment of communication (pp. 263-287). New York: John Wiley and Sons.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBraunwald, S. R. (1978). Context, word and meaning: toward a communicationalzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceanalysis of lexical acquisition. In Andrew Lock (ed.), Action, gesture andzh_TW
dc.relation.referencesymboll: the emergence of language (pp. 487-527). London: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarey, S. (1982). Semantic development: the state of the art. In E. Wanner & L. R.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGleitman (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarlson, P., & Anisfeld, M. (1969). Some observations on the linguistic competencezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceof a two-year-old child. Child Development, 40, 565-575.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCharles-Luce, J., & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of words in youngzh_TW
dc.relation.referencechildren’s lexicons. Journal of Child Language, 17, 205-215.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceClark, E. V. (1973). What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in hiszh_TW
dc.relation.referencefirst language. In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelanguage (pp.65-110). New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceClark, E.V. (1983). Meanings and concepts. In Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCognitive development, ed. J. Flavell and E. Markman. New York: Wiley.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceClark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, L. & Dehaene, S. (1998). Competition between past and present : assessmentzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand interpretation of verbal perseverations. Brain 121(9), 1641–59.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCorrigan, R. (1978). Language development as related to Stage 6 object permanencezh_TW
dc.relation.referencedevelopment. Journal of Child Language, 5, 173-189.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDapretto, M. & Bjork, E. L. (2000). The development of word retrieval abilities inzh_TW
dc.relation.referencethe second year and its relation to early vocabulary growth. Child Developmentzh_TW
dc.relation.reference71(3),635–48.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychological Review 93(3), 283–321.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDell, G. S., Burger, L. K. & Svec, W. R. (1997). Language production and serialzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceorder : a functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review 104(1), 123–47.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDore, J. (1978). Conditions for the acquisition of speech acts. In I. Marikowa (Ed.),zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThe social context of language (pp. 87-111). New York: Wiley.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridgezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUniversity Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFeson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Bates, E., Thal, D., Reilly, J., & Harthung, J. (1990).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: Technical Manual. Sanzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDiego: San Diego State University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceForster, K. I. & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627-635.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceForster, K. I. (1990). Lexical processing. In D. N. Osherson & H. Lasnik (Eds.),zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLanguage: An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 1, pp. 95-131). Cambridge,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFremgen, A., & Fay, D. (1980). Overextensions in production and comprehension: Azh_TW
dc.relation.referencemethodological clarification. Journal of Child Language, 7, 205-211.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFromkin, V., Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. (2003) An introduction to language (7th ed.).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUnited States: Michael Rosenberg.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGelman, S. A., Croft, W., Fu, P., Clausner, T. & Gottfried, G. (1998). Why is azh_TW
dc.relation.referencepomegranate an apple? The role of shape, taxonomic relatedness, and priorzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelexical knowledge in children’s overextensions of apple and dog. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChild Language, 25(2), 267–91.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGentner, D. (1983a). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versuszh_TW
dc.relation.referencenatural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLanguage, thought, and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGentner, D. (1983b). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCognitive Science 7(2), 155–70.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGershkoff-Stowe, L. (2001). The course of children’s naming errors in early wordzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelearning. Journal of Cognition & Development 2(2), 131–55.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGershkoff-Stowe, L., Connell, B. & Smith, L. (2006). Priming overgeneralizations inzh_TW
dc.relation.referencetwo-and four-year-old children. Journal of child language 33, 461-486.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGershkoff-Stowe, L. & Smith, L. B. (1997). A curvilinear trend in naming errors as azh_TW
dc.relation.referencefunction of early vocabulary growth. Cognitive Psychology 34(1), 37–71.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGershkoff-Stowe, L. & Smith, L. B. (2004). Shape and the first hundred nouns. Childzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDevelopment, 75(4), 1098-1114.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: Rate, content, andzh_TW
dc.relation.referencethe vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language, 17, 171-183.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoldin-Meadow, S., Seligman, M. E., & Gelman, R. (1976). Language in thezh_TW
dc.relation.referencetwo-year-old. Cognition, 4, 189-202.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1987). The development of categorization in the secondzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceyear and its relation to other cognitive and linguistic developments, Childzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDevelopment, 58, 1523-1531.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHalliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelanguage. London: Edward Arnold.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHoek, D., Ingram, D. & Gibson, D. (1986). Some possible causes of children’s earlyzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceword overextensions. Journal of Child Language 13(3), 477–94.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHuang, S. (1998). Chinese as a headless language in compounding morphology. In J.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceL. Packard(Ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology,zh_TW
dc.relation.referencephonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient Chinese (pp. 261_284). Newzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYork: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHudson, J., & Nelson, K. (1984). Play with language: Overextensions as analogies.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal of Child Language, 11, 337-346.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHuttenlocher, J. (1974). The origin of language comprehension. In R. L. Solso (ed.),zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTheories in cognitive psychology – The Loyola Symposium. Potomac, MD:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceErlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHuttenlocher, J. & Kubicek, L. F. (1983). The source of relatedness effects on namingzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelatency. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory & Cognitionzh_TW
dc.relation.reference9(3), 486–96.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceImai, M., Gentner, D., & Uchida, N. (1994). Children’s theories of word meaning: thezh_TW
dc.relation.referencerole of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development, 9, 45-75.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIngram, D. (1978). Sensorimotor intelligence and language development. In A. Lockzh_TW
dc.relation.reference(Ed.), Action, gesture, and symbol. New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJohnson, C. J., Paivio, A. & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive components of picturezh_TW
dc.relation.referencenaming. Psychological Bulletin 120(1), 113–39.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJones, S. S., Smith, L. B., & Landau, B. (1991). Object properties and knowledge inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceearly lexical learning. Child Development, 62, 449 – 516.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKhami, A. G. (1986). The elusive first words: the importance of the naming insight forzh_TW
dc.relation.referencethe development of referential speech. Journal of Child Language, 13, 155-161.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLandau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in earlyzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLandau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1998). Object shape, object function, andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceobject name. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 1-27.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLifter, K., & Bloom, L. (1989). Object knowledge and the emergence of language.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceInfant Behavior and Development, 12, 395-423.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMartin, N., Weisberg, R. W. & Saffran, E. M. (1989). Variables influencing thezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceoccurrence of naming errors : implications for models of lexical retrieval.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal of Memory & Language 28(4), 462–85.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcShane, J. (1980). Learning to talk. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMok, L. W. (2009). Word superiority effect as a function of semantic transparency ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChinese bimorphemic compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7), 1039-1081.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNaigles, L. & Gelman, S. (1995). Overextensions in comprehension and productionzh_TW
dc.relation.referencerevisited : preferential-looking in a study of dog, cat, and cow. Journal of Childzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLanguage, 22(1), 19–46.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of thezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSociety for Research in Child Development, 38 (Serial No. 149).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNelson, K. (1974). Concept, word and sentence: interrelations in development.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychological Review, 81(4), 267–85.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning. New York:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAcademic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNelson, K., Rescorla, L., Gruendel, J., & Benedict, H. (1978). Early lexicons: Whatzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedo they mean? Child Development, 49, 960-968.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRapp, B. & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken wordzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceproduction. Psychological Review 107(3), 460–99.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceReich, P. A. (1976). The early acquisition of word meaning. Journal of Childzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLanguage, 3, 117-123.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRescorla, L. A. (1980a). Overextension in early language development. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChild Language, 7, 321-335.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRescorla, L. A. (1980b). Category development in early language. Journal of Childzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLanguage, 8, 225-238.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSamuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Statistical regularities among count/masszh_TW
dc.relation.referencesyntax, solidity, and category structure in early noun vocabularies. Cognition, 73,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference1 – 33.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSamuelson, L. K. & Smith, L. B. (2005). They call it like they see it : spontaneouszh_TW
dc.relation.referencenaming and attention to shape. Developmental Science 8(2), 182–98.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, L. B. (1989). A model of perceptual classification in children and adults.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychological Review, 96(1), 125-144.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, L. B. (2005). From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: a role forzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceassociative learning. Psychological Review, 112(2), 347-382.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, L. B., & Heise, D. (1992). Perceptual similarity and conceptual structure. In B.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBurns & et al. (Eds.), Percepts, concepts and categories: The representation andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceprocessing of information. (pp. 233-272). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHolland.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, L. B., Jones, S. S., & Landau, B. (1992). Count nouns, adjectives, andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceperceptual properties in children’s novel word interpretations. Developmentalzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePsychology, 28, 273 – 289.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSoja, N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. S. (1991). Ontological categories guide youngzh_TW
dc.relation.referencechildren’s inductions of word meanings: Object terms and substance terms.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCognition, 38, 179 – 211.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStemberger, J. P. (1989). Speech errors in early child language production. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMemory and Language, 28, 164–88.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThomson, J. R., and Chapman, R. (1977). Who is ‘Daddy’ revisited: the status ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencetwo-year-olds’ over-extended words in use and comprehension. Journal of Childzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLanguage, 4, 359-375.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTomikawa & Dodd (1980). Early word meaning: Perceptually or functionally based?zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChild Development, 51, 1103-1109.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceToyoda, E. & Scrimgoeour, A. (2009). Common and script-specific awareness inzh_TW
dc.relation.referencerelation to word recognition in English and Chinese. Language Awareness, 18(1),zh_TW
dc.relation.reference61-73.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVitkovitch, M., Humphreys, G. W., & Lloyd-Jones, T. J. (1993). On naming a giraffe azh_TW
dc.relation.referencezebra: Picture naming errors across different object categories. Journal ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 243-259.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1983). The emergence of the literal-zh_TW
dc.relation.referencemetaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development, 54,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference154-161.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWally, A. C. (1993). The role of vocabulary growth in children’s spoken wordzh_TW
dc.relation.referencerecognition and segmentation ability. Developmental Review, 13, 286-350.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWinner, E. (1979). New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJournal of Child Language, 6, 469-491.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWinner, E. (1988). The point of words : children’s understanding of metaphor andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceirony. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.openairetypethesis-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
501101.pdf1.61 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.