1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 漢語兒童在對話與敘事中的動態事件表達
Mandarin-speaking Children’s Expressions of Motion Events in Conversation and Narration
作者 鄭宇涵
貢獻者 黃瓊之
Huang, Chiung Chih
鄭宇涵
關鍵詞 動態事件
兒童語言習得
語言特殊性
漢語
motion events
child language acquisition
language-specific
Mandarin
日期 2015
上傳時間 3-Feb-2016 11:15:12 (UTC+8)
摘要 世界各地的人們在生活中皆能觀察到各種動態事件 (Motion events)，然而，不同類型的語言卻使用不同的表達方式來描述這種經歷。這些不同的語言可以分成動詞框架（Verb-framed）語言、衛星框架（satellite-framed）語言，以及均衡框架（equipollently-framed）語言（Talmy 1985; Slobin 1996）。不同類型的語言習慣使用不同的動詞種類（例如：方式動詞（Manner verb, M）、路徑動詞（Path verb, P）、指示動詞（Deixis verb, D））、動詞數量、動詞組合等方式表達動態事件，而這些面向的不同造就了每種類型語言特殊的特徵。被歸類為均衡框架語言的漢語，具有以下特徵：以動詞種類（type）來說，方式動詞種類多於路徑動詞種類；以動詞數量（token）來說，方式動詞數量大於路徑動詞數量；以動詞結構（construction）來說，M+P+D是最常見的結構（Chen, 2005）。當兒童在語言習得的過程中，必須學會以該類型語言獨特的方式描述動態事件。前人研究中指出，在相當年幼的兒童語言中就可以發現語言特殊的特徵（e.g. Choi & Bowerman, 1991）。然而，對於漢語兒童動態事件表達的研究似乎仍然存有衝突。敘事性語料中能觀察出均衡框架語言的特徵（Guo & Chen, 2009），但在這種特徵在對話性語料中並不明顯（Huang, 2012）。雖然某些前人研究暗示兒童的語言表達在敘事和對話中的確會呈現不同的特徵，但是很少研究關注語體（genre）如何影響兒童的動態事件編碼。因此，本研究目的是探討三、四和五歲漢語兒童在對話與敘事中如何表達動態事件，並研究漢語兒童在兩種語體中，動態事件的表達有何異同。
本研究從三至五歲兒童中蒐集兩組語料。第一種語料從8位兒童與母親日常對話中蒐集401句動態子句，語料時數達4小時。第二種語料從22位兒童之敘事語料中蒐集402句動態子句，語料時數達1.5小時。語料編碼方面，動態動詞分為三種（Ｍ，Ｐ與Ｄ）；動態結構分為九種（例如：P, M+P, P+D, M+P+D等等）。語料以動詞種類、動詞數量、動態結構等三方面進行分析。
本研究結果發現，在兩種語體中，所有年齡層的兒童都使用較多種類的M，較少種類的P，而他們也偏好使用M+P+D動態結構。這種特性顯示出兒童在兩種語體的動態事件表達皆保有均衡框架語言的特徵。雖然本研究也發現，兩種語境中的動態事件表達存在某程度的差異性（例如：在對話中找到比敘事中更多種類的M，且動態結構在對話中比在敘事更簡易），但是漢語兒童的動態事件編碼仍然與均衡框架語言的特徵一致。而語言特殊特徵無論在何種語體中都保有一致性的觀察，支持了Slobin（1996）的 “Thinking for Speaking” 學說。同時，本研究觀察到的差異性也暗示，不同語體裡不同的溝通目的，在某種程度上能夠影響兒童的動態表達。本研究對於語言特殊特徵在兒童動態事件描述的展現有更深入的了解，並且對於探討語體如何影響兒童動態事件表達的議題具有價值性。
Motion is experienced by humans around the world, but this experience can be expressed in diverse ways in different typological languages, namely verb-framed languages, satellite-framed languages, and equipollently-framed languages (Talmy 1985; Slobin 1996). The typologically different languages encode motions differently in terms of the use of verb types (i.e. Manner (M), Path (P), Deixis (D)), verb tokens, and verb constructions, which shape language-specific characteristics. It has been suggested that Mandarin, an equipollently-framed language, is characterized by the following patterns: the types of Manner are more than those of Path; the tokens of Manner are more than those of Path, and M+P+D is the most common construction (Chen, 2005). Children, when describing motions, must learn the language-specific patterns along the course of language acquisition. Previous studies have demonstrated that language-specific patterns could be found in young children (e.g. Choi & Bowerman, 1991). However, studies seem to present conflicting results regarding Mandarin-speaking children’s motion expressions in different discourse genres. These studies showed that children narratives, but not their conversations, demonstrated equipollently-framed-language patterns (Guo & Chen, 2009; Huang, 2012). While previous studies have implied that children’s language expressions could be different in narration and conversation, few studies have examined how genre differences may affect children’s motion encoding. Therefore, the study aims to investigate how Mandarin-speaking children aged 3, 4 and 5 encode motion events in conversation and narration, and whether their use of the expressions differs in the two genres.
Conversation and narration data were collected from children of three age groups (3 to 5). In the mother-child conversation data, 401 motion clauses were collected from 8 children with a total data length of 4 hours. In the narration data, 402 motion clauses were collected from 22 children with a total data length of 1.5 hour. Three categories of motion verbs (i.e. M, P and D) and 9 categories of motion constructions (e.g. P, M+P, P+D, M+P+D) were coded. The data were analyzed in terms of the use of verb types, verb tokens, and motion constructions.
The results show that, in both genres, children in all age groups used more types of M than P, and that they preferred M+P+D constructions more than any other types of constructions, indicating that children’s motion expressions in both genres present the characteristics of equipollantly-framed language. Although the patterns of the two genres showed some variations (such as the use of more diverse types of M and simpler motion constructions in conversation than in narration), the children’s motion encodings were consisted with Mandarin’s language-specific characteristics. That language-specific patterns were observed in both genres supports Slobin’s (1996) “Thinking for Speaking” theory. In addition, the variations found in the comparison suggest that the different communicative goals of different genres could affect children’s motion expressions to some extent. This study has provided a more comprehensive understanding of how language-specific characteristics are manifested in children’s motion expressions, and how genres are related to the patterns of children’s motion expressions.
參考文獻 Allen, S., Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., & Turanli, R. (2003). Early speech about manner and path in Turkish and English: Universal or language-specific. Paper presented at the the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Aske, Jon. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Paper presented at the the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Berman, R., & D, Slobin. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children`s grammars? In S. D (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Chen, Liang. (2005). The Acquisition and Use of Motion Event Expressions in Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Louisiana.
Choi, S, & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
Cifuentes-Férez, Paula, & Gentner, Dedre. (2006). Naming Motion Events in Spanish and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 443-462.
Crystal, D. (1979). Working with LARSP. London: Edward Arnold.
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., & Tomlin, R. (1990). Video narration as language sampling context. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 55, 582-590.
Humboldt, W. (1988). On language: The diversity of human language-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. (P. Health, Trans.): Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nous are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In K. II (Ed.), Language development (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Guo, J., & Chen, L. (2009). Learning to express motion in narratives by Mandarin-speaking children. In E. L. J. Guo, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K Nakamura, & S. Ozcaliskan (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York: Psychology Press.
Hickmann, Maya. (2006). The Relativity of Motion in First Language Acquisition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 281–308). Amsterdam.
Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2010). Typological constraints on the acquisition of spatial language in French and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 189-215.
Hohenstein, Jill. (2013). Parent–child talk about motion: Links to children’s development of motion event language. First Language, 33(4), 411-425.
Huang, P. S. (2012). Children`s Expressions of Motion Events in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study. (M. A. Thesis), National Chiayi University, Chiayi.
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Crandall, K. A. (1997). Phylogeny Estimation and Hypothesis Testing Using Maximum Likelihood. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 437-466.
Ji, Yinglin, Hendriks, Henriette, & Hickmann, Maya. (2011). The expression of caused motion events in Chinese and in English: Some typological issues. Linguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences, 49(5).
Leadholm, B., & Miller, J. (1992). Language Sample Analysis: The Wisconsin guide. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference
grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, S. J. (2006). Encoding motion events: A study of mandarin-speaking children. (M. A. Thesis), National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Logan, K. J., Byrd, C. T., Mazzocchi, E. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2011). Speaking rate characteristics of elementary-school-aged children who do and do not stutter. Journal of communication disorders, 44(1), 130-147.
MacLachlan, B. G., & Chapman, R. S. (1988). Communication breakdowns in normal and language learning-disabled children’s conversation and narration. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 2-7.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.
Özçaliskan, S, & Slobin, D. I. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development, Somerville, MA.
Özyurek, A, & Özçaliskan, S (2000). How do children learn to conflate manner and path in their speech and gestures? Differences in English and Turkish. Paper presented at the The proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Child language Research Forum, Stanford, CA.
Özyürek. A, S. Kita, S.E.M. Allen, R. Furman, A. Brown. (2003). How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures?: Insights from crosslinguistic variations and similarities. Gesture, 5.1(2), 219-240.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle,‘n’roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84(2), 189-219.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposed what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), B75-B87.
Pourcel, Stéphanie. (2004). What Makes Path of Motion Salient? Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Pourcel, Stéphanie. (2005). Linguistic Relativity in Cognitive Processes. Paper presented at the 1st UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference Sussex, UK.
Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Maguire, M., Meyer, M. (2004). Foundations of verb learning: Infants categorize path and manner in motion events. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston university conference on language development.
Sapir, E. (1958). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Selimis, Stathis, & Katis, Demetra. (2010). Motion Descriptions in English and Greek: A Cross-Typological Developmental Study of Conversations and Narratives. Linguistic Online, 42(2), 57-76.
Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to Think for Speaking: Native Language, Cognition, and Rhetorical Style. Pragmatics, 1, 7-26.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibitani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 70-96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. Rethinking linguistic relativity, 7, 70-96.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalization events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In R. D. Niemeier (Ed.), Evidance for linguistic relativity (pp. 107-138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 7-23). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and Thought Online. Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity". In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 157–191): Cambridge.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (2011). Thinking for speaking. Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 143.
Tai, James H.-Y. (2003). Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4, 301-316.
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 181-238). New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 3, pp. 57-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wagner, R., Nettelbladt, U., Sahlen, B., & Nilholm, C. (2000). Conversation versus narration in pre-school children with language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35(1), 83-93.
Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., & Miller, J. F. (2004). Spoken language samples of New Zealand children in conversation and narration. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6(4), 195-208.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. (1940). Linguistics as an exact science. Technology Review, 43, 61-63, 80-83.
Wu, Jia-lin. (2008). Chinese Motion Event Packaging in Chinese-English Bilinguals: The Role of English Experience. (M.A. Thesis), National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Zheng, M, & Golding-Meadow. (2002). Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children expression motion events across cultures. Cognition, 85, 145-175.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
101555001
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101555001
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 黃瓊之zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Huang, Chiung Chihen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 鄭宇涵zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 鄭宇涵zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2015en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2016 11:15:12 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Feb-2016 11:15:12 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2016 11:15:12 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101555001en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81101-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101555001zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 世界各地的人們在生活中皆能觀察到各種動態事件 (Motion events)，然而，不同類型的語言卻使用不同的表達方式來描述這種經歷。這些不同的語言可以分成動詞框架（Verb-framed）語言、衛星框架（satellite-framed）語言，以及均衡框架（equipollently-framed）語言（Talmy 1985; Slobin 1996）。不同類型的語言習慣使用不同的動詞種類（例如：方式動詞（Manner verb, M）、路徑動詞（Path verb, P）、指示動詞（Deixis verb, D））、動詞數量、動詞組合等方式表達動態事件，而這些面向的不同造就了每種類型語言特殊的特徵。被歸類為均衡框架語言的漢語，具有以下特徵：以動詞種類（type）來說，方式動詞種類多於路徑動詞種類；以動詞數量（token）來說，方式動詞數量大於路徑動詞數量；以動詞結構（construction）來說，M+P+D是最常見的結構（Chen, 2005）。當兒童在語言習得的過程中，必須學會以該類型語言獨特的方式描述動態事件。前人研究中指出，在相當年幼的兒童語言中就可以發現語言特殊的特徵（e.g. Choi & Bowerman, 1991）。然而，對於漢語兒童動態事件表達的研究似乎仍然存有衝突。敘事性語料中能觀察出均衡框架語言的特徵（Guo & Chen, 2009），但在這種特徵在對話性語料中並不明顯（Huang, 2012）。雖然某些前人研究暗示兒童的語言表達在敘事和對話中的確會呈現不同的特徵，但是很少研究關注語體（genre）如何影響兒童的動態事件編碼。因此，本研究目的是探討三、四和五歲漢語兒童在對話與敘事中如何表達動態事件，並研究漢語兒童在兩種語體中，動態事件的表達有何異同。
本研究從三至五歲兒童中蒐集兩組語料。第一種語料從8位兒童與母親日常對話中蒐集401句動態子句，語料時數達4小時。第二種語料從22位兒童之敘事語料中蒐集402句動態子句，語料時數達1.5小時。語料編碼方面，動態動詞分為三種（Ｍ，Ｐ與Ｄ）；動態結構分為九種（例如：P, M+P, P+D, M+P+D等等）。語料以動詞種類、動詞數量、動態結構等三方面進行分析。
本研究結果發現，在兩種語體中，所有年齡層的兒童都使用較多種類的M，較少種類的P，而他們也偏好使用M+P+D動態結構。這種特性顯示出兒童在兩種語體的動態事件表達皆保有均衡框架語言的特徵。雖然本研究也發現，兩種語境中的動態事件表達存在某程度的差異性（例如：在對話中找到比敘事中更多種類的M，且動態結構在對話中比在敘事更簡易），但是漢語兒童的動態事件編碼仍然與均衡框架語言的特徵一致。而語言特殊特徵無論在何種語體中都保有一致性的觀察，支持了Slobin（1996）的 “Thinking for Speaking” 學說。同時，本研究觀察到的差異性也暗示，不同語體裡不同的溝通目的，在某種程度上能夠影響兒童的動態表達。本研究對於語言特殊特徵在兒童動態事件描述的展現有更深入的了解，並且對於探討語體如何影響兒童動態事件表達的議題具有價值性。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Motion is experienced by humans around the world, but this experience can be expressed in diverse ways in different typological languages, namely verb-framed languages, satellite-framed languages, and equipollently-framed languages (Talmy 1985; Slobin 1996). The typologically different languages encode motions differently in terms of the use of verb types (i.e. Manner (M), Path (P), Deixis (D)), verb tokens, and verb constructions, which shape language-specific characteristics. It has been suggested that Mandarin, an equipollently-framed language, is characterized by the following patterns: the types of Manner are more than those of Path; the tokens of Manner are more than those of Path, and M+P+D is the most common construction (Chen, 2005). Children, when describing motions, must learn the language-specific patterns along the course of language acquisition. Previous studies have demonstrated that language-specific patterns could be found in young children (e.g. Choi & Bowerman, 1991). However, studies seem to present conflicting results regarding Mandarin-speaking children’s motion expressions in different discourse genres. These studies showed that children narratives, but not their conversations, demonstrated equipollently-framed-language patterns (Guo & Chen, 2009; Huang, 2012). While previous studies have implied that children’s language expressions could be different in narration and conversation, few studies have examined how genre differences may affect children’s motion encoding. Therefore, the study aims to investigate how Mandarin-speaking children aged 3, 4 and 5 encode motion events in conversation and narration, and whether their use of the expressions differs in the two genres.
Conversation and narration data were collected from children of three age groups (3 to 5). In the mother-child conversation data, 401 motion clauses were collected from 8 children with a total data length of 4 hours. In the narration data, 402 motion clauses were collected from 22 children with a total data length of 1.5 hour. Three categories of motion verbs (i.e. M, P and D) and 9 categories of motion constructions (e.g. P, M+P, P+D, M+P+D) were coded. The data were analyzed in terms of the use of verb types, verb tokens, and motion constructions.
The results show that, in both genres, children in all age groups used more types of M than P, and that they preferred M+P+D constructions more than any other types of constructions, indicating that children’s motion expressions in both genres present the characteristics of equipollantly-framed language. Although the patterns of the two genres showed some variations (such as the use of more diverse types of M and simpler motion constructions in conversation than in narration), the children’s motion encodings were consisted with Mandarin’s language-specific characteristics. That language-specific patterns were observed in both genres supports Slobin’s (1996) “Thinking for Speaking” theory. In addition, the variations found in the comparison suggest that the different communicative goals of different genres could affect children’s motion expressions to some extent. This study has provided a more comprehensive understanding of how language-specific characteristics are manifested in children’s motion expressions, and how genres are related to the patterns of children’s motion expressions.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose 5
1.3 Organization 6
Chapter 2 Literature review 7
2.1 Motion events encoding 7
2.1.1 Motion event typology 7
2.1.2 The acquisition of motion events encoding 11
2.2 Motion events encoding of Mandarin Chinese 14
2.2.1 Motion encoding typology of Mandarin 14
2.2.2 The acquisition of Mandarin speaking children’s motion encoding 18
2.3 Children’s language performance in conversation and narration 22
Chapter 3 Method 28
3.1 Subjects 28
3.2 Data collection 29
3.2.1 Motion expressions in natural conversation 29
3.2.2 Motion expressions in elicited narration 30
3.3 Coding 30
3.3.1 Motion verbs 32
3.3.2 Motion constructions 34
Chapter 4 Results 37
4.1 Children’s motion event expressions in conversation 37
4.1.1 General results 38
4.1.2 Motion verbs 41
4.1.3 Motion constructions 44
4.2 Children’s motion event expressions in narration 50
4.2.1 General results 50
4.2.2 Motion verbs 53
4.2.3 Motion constructions 56
4.3 The comparison of children’s motion event expressions in conversation
and narration 64
4.3.1 Motion verbs in conversation and narration 65
4.3.2 Motion constructions in conversation and narration 67
Chapter 5 Discussion 69
5.1 Children’s motion expressions in conversation 69
5.2 Children’s motion event expressions in narration 72
5.3 The comparison of children’s motion event expressions in conversation
and narration 74
Chapter 6 Conclusion 79
Appendix I 83
Appendix II 85
References 86		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1952257 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101555001en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 動態事件zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 兒童語言習得zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言特殊性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 漢語zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) motion eventsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) child language acquisitionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) language-specificen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Mandarinen_US
dc.title (題名) 漢語兒童在對話與敘事中的動態事件表達zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Mandarin-speaking Children’s Expressions of Motion Events in Conversation and Narrationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Allen, S., Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., & Turanli, R. (2003). Early speech about manner and path in Turkish and English: Universal or language-specific. Paper presented at the the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Aske, Jon. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Paper presented at the the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Berman, R., & D, Slobin. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children`s grammars? In S. D (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Chen, Liang. (2005). The Acquisition and Use of Motion Event Expressions in Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Louisiana.
Choi, S, & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
Cifuentes-Férez, Paula, & Gentner, Dedre. (2006). Naming Motion Events in Spanish and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 443-462.
Crystal, D. (1979). Working with LARSP. London: Edward Arnold.
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., & Tomlin, R. (1990). Video narration as language sampling context. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 55, 582-590.
Humboldt, W. (1988). On language: The diversity of human language-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. (P. Health, Trans.): Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nous are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In K. II (Ed.), Language development (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Guo, J., & Chen, L. (2009). Learning to express motion in narratives by Mandarin-speaking children. In E. L. J. Guo, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K Nakamura, & S. Ozcaliskan (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York: Psychology Press.
Hickmann, Maya. (2006). The Relativity of Motion in First Language Acquisition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 281–308). Amsterdam.
Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2010). Typological constraints on the acquisition of spatial language in French and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 189-215.
Hohenstein, Jill. (2013). Parent–child talk about motion: Links to children’s development of motion event language. First Language, 33(4), 411-425.
Huang, P. S. (2012). Children`s Expressions of Motion Events in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study. (M. A. Thesis), National Chiayi University, Chiayi.
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Crandall, K. A. (1997). Phylogeny Estimation and Hypothesis Testing Using Maximum Likelihood. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 437-466.
Ji, Yinglin, Hendriks, Henriette, & Hickmann, Maya. (2011). The expression of caused motion events in Chinese and in English: Some typological issues. Linguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences, 49(5).
Leadholm, B., & Miller, J. (1992). Language Sample Analysis: The Wisconsin guide. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference
grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, S. J. (2006). Encoding motion events: A study of mandarin-speaking children. (M. A. Thesis), National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Logan, K. J., Byrd, C. T., Mazzocchi, E. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2011). Speaking rate characteristics of elementary-school-aged children who do and do not stutter. Journal of communication disorders, 44(1), 130-147.
MacLachlan, B. G., & Chapman, R. S. (1988). Communication breakdowns in normal and language learning-disabled children’s conversation and narration. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 2-7.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.
Özçaliskan, S, & Slobin, D. I. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development, Somerville, MA.
Özyurek, A, & Özçaliskan, S (2000). How do children learn to conflate manner and path in their speech and gestures? Differences in English and Turkish. Paper presented at the The proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Child language Research Forum, Stanford, CA.
Özyürek. A, S. Kita, S.E.M. Allen, R. Furman, A. Brown. (2003). How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures?: Insights from crosslinguistic variations and similarities. Gesture, 5.1(2), 219-240.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle,‘n’roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84(2), 189-219.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposed what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), B75-B87.
Pourcel, Stéphanie. (2004). What Makes Path of Motion Salient? Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Pourcel, Stéphanie. (2005). Linguistic Relativity in Cognitive Processes. Paper presented at the 1st UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference Sussex, UK.
Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Maguire, M., Meyer, M. (2004). Foundations of verb learning: Infants categorize path and manner in motion events. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston university conference on language development.
Sapir, E. (1958). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Selimis, Stathis, & Katis, Demetra. (2010). Motion Descriptions in English and Greek: A Cross-Typological Developmental Study of Conversations and Narratives. Linguistic Online, 42(2), 57-76.
Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to Think for Speaking: Native Language, Cognition, and Rhetorical Style. Pragmatics, 1, 7-26.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibitani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 70-96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. Rethinking linguistic relativity, 7, 70-96.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalization events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In R. D. Niemeier (Ed.), Evidance for linguistic relativity (pp. 107-138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 7-23). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and Thought Online. Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity". In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 157–191): Cambridge.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (2011). Thinking for speaking. Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 143.
Tai, James H.-Y. (2003). Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4, 301-316.
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 181-238). New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 3, pp. 57-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wagner, R., Nettelbladt, U., Sahlen, B., & Nilholm, C. (2000). Conversation versus narration in pre-school children with language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35(1), 83-93.
Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., & Miller, J. F. (2004). Spoken language samples of New Zealand children in conversation and narration. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6(4), 195-208.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. (1940). Linguistics as an exact science. Technology Review, 43, 61-63, 80-83.
Wu, Jia-lin. (2008). Chinese Motion Event Packaging in Chinese-English Bilinguals: The Role of English Experience. (M.A. Thesis), National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Zheng, M, & Golding-Meadow. (2002). Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children expression motion events across cultures. Cognition, 85, 145-175.		zh_TW