亲子互动情境中影响词性和语义识别的因素 *

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230607

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为考察亲子互动情境中的线索如何影响词汇学习,本研究通过人类模拟范式,采用2（词汇：名词/动词）× 3（线索：语言/情境/全线索）被试内设计,考察了30名成人对名词、动词的判断。结果发现：（1）动词词性和语义判断都比名词更容易。（2）动词词性在三种线索条件下都能正确判断,且全线索、语言线索优于情境线索;而名词词性仅在全线索条件下才能正确判断。（3）关于名词语义判断正确率,全线索>语言线索、情境线索;动词语义判断正确率,全线索>语言线索>情境线索。研究显示,汉语亲子互动情境中动词比名词更容易推断,这和英语不同。

关键词: 人类模拟范式, 输入语, 亲子互动, 词性, 语义

Abstract:

How do language learners infer the meaning of words through language input and situational factors is a complex and interdisciplinary problem. Based on the human simulation paradigm, the present study used 2 (word types: noun, verb) × 3 (language input clues: linguistic + situation, situation, linguistic) within-subjects design to investigate the influence of different language input clues in the situation of parent-child interaction on word-class and semantic identification of nouns and verbs.

The present study was carried out in two steps. First, we recorded the experimental materials. Five 18~24-month-old infants and their mothers were selected to record parent-child interactive videos and transcribe the videos word for word. The frequency of nouns and verbs used in the video was counted and 16 frequently used target words (8 nouns and 8 verbs) were screened out. For each target word, 6 video clips in different situations were cut as experimental materials. A total of 96 experimental materials and 2 exercise materials were edited. Second, the video clip was processed and the target word was replaced by the onomatopoeic word "beep". Then the video clip of each target word was coded, including syntactic information (word length, position of target word, sentence length) and situational factors (time interval between the occurrence of target words and indicators).

In the formal experiments, thirty college students were recruited. After each video clip was played, 6 options were presented for the participants to choose from. Participants needed to complete 96 selection tasks of target words, which were divided into three blocks (three types of input clues). Each block contained two video clips of each target word, with a total of 32 video clips (trials). Video clips and input clues were presented to each subject in a random order.

The results showed that: (1) For word class decision, the accuracy of verb class was higher than that of noun, and the accuracy of linguistic clue is higher than that of situation clue. (2) The interaction of word types and input clues together affected the accuracy of word class identification. That is, for nouns, the accuracy of linguistic + situation clues was higher than that of single clues (situation, linguistic). For verbs, the accuracy of linguistic + situation clue and linguistic clue was better than that of situation clue. (3) The semantic accuracy of verbs was higher than that of nouns, and the accuracy of voice clue was higher than that of situation clue. (4) The interaction of word types and input clues affected semantic accuracy. That is, for nouns, the accuracy of linguistic + situation clues was better than that of single cues (situation, linguistic). For verbs, the accuracy of linguistic + situation clues was higher than that of linguistic clues, and the accuracy of linguistic clues was higher than that of situation clues. (5) The analysis of syntactic information and situational factors showed that word length, and time interval between the occurrence of target words and indicators were significantly related to word class and semantic decision accuracy.

To conclude, (1) in the situation of parent-child interaction, the word class and semantic decision of Chinese verbs were easier than nouns. (2) The interaction of Chinese input clues and word types affected word class and semantic decision. (3) To identify nouns needed to combine situation clues with linguistic clues in order to better decide word class and semantics; for the word class and semantic decision of verbs, linguistic clues were more important than situation clues.

The innovation of this study is reflected in the following aspects: (1) This study adds linguistic cues on the basis of previous studies to distinguish the role of situational cues and linguistic cues more systematically. (2) This study changed the open response program of human simulation paradigm, so that participants can choose answers from six options. On the one hand, it reduces the difficulty of the task, and on the other hand, it makes the analysis of the results more quantitative and feasible. (3) Finally, it is noteworthy that the research shows that verbs are easier to infer than nouns in Chinese parent-child interaction, which is different from English learners in previous studies.

Key words: human simulation paradigm, language input, parent-child interaction, word class, semantics

陈永香, 李燕, 彭圆圆. 亲子互动情境中影响词性和语义识别的因素^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(6): 1329-1335.

Chen Yongxiang, Li Yan, Peng Yuanyuan. The Influencing Factors of Word-Class and Semantic Identification in Parent-Child Interaction[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(6): 1329-1335.

参考文献

[1] 李珂. (2016). 儿童语言学习理论的发展及其影响因素与策略. 学前教育研究, 7, 58-60.
[2] 谭霞灵. (2008). 汉语沟通发展量表使用手册. 北京大学医学出版社..
[3] Baldwin, D. A. (1991). Infants'contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62(5), 875-890.
[4] Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 264-293). MIT Press.
[5] Chen J., Tardif T., Pulverman R., Casasola M., Zhu L., Zheng X., & Meng X. (2015). English- and mandarin-learning infants'discrimination of actions and objects in dynamic events. Developmental Psychology, 51(10), 1501-1515.
[6] de Carvalho A., Babineau M., Trueswell J. C., Waxman S. R., & Christophe A. (2019). Studying the real-time interpretation of novel noun and verb meanings in young children. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 274-290.
[7] Gillette J., Gleitman H., Gleitman L., & Lederer A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition, 73(2), 135-176.
[8] Hao M. L., Liu Y. Y., Shu H., Xing A. L., & Li P. (2015). Developmental changes in the early child lexicon in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 42(3), 505-537.
[9] Kako, E. (2005). Information sources for noun learning. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 223-260.
[10] Ma W. Y., Zhou P., Golinkoff R. M., Lee, J, & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2019). Syntactic cues to the noun and verb distinction in mandarin child-directed speech. First Language, 39(4), 433-461.
[11] Maekawa, J., & Storkel, H. L. (2006). Individual differences in the influence of phonological characteristics on expressive vocabulary development by young children. Journal of Child Language, 33(3), 439-459.
[12] Piccin, T. B., & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Why nouns trump verbs in word learning: New evidence from children and adults in the human simulation paradigm. Language Learning and Development, 3(4), 295-323.
[13] Quine W. O.(1960). Word and object. MIT Press..
[14] Snedeker, J. (2000). Cross-situational observation and the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirtieth annual child language research forum. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
[15] Snedeker J.,& Gleitman, L. R. (2004). Why it is hard to label our concepts. In D. G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 257-293). MIT Press.
[16] Snedeker J., Gleitman L., & Brent, M. (1999). The successes and failures of word-to-world mapping. In A. Greenhill, M. Hughs, H. Littlefield, & H. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third Boston university conference on language development. Cascadilla Press.
[17] Snedeker J., Li P., & Yuan S. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the input to early word learning. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsch (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1094-1099). Erlbaum.
[18] Zhang Y. Y., Yurovsky D., & Yu, C. (2015). Statistical word learning is a continuous process: Evidence from the human simulation paradigm. Cognitive Science, 2015, 2793-2798.

亲子互动情境中影响词性和语义识别的因素^*

The Influencing Factors of Word-Class and Semantic Identification in Parent-Child Interaction

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	宋宜琪, 朱楚城, 梁丹丹. 汉语高功能自闭症儿童词汇语义加工中的空间象似效应——兼与图片知觉加工的比较^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(3): 554-561.
[2]	安姝牟程程毛伟宾. 负性情绪对不同语义、空间关系联结记忆的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(6): 1322-1328.
[3]	曾芷橙陈雪梅刘英芝梁正赵庆柏* 于全磊. 新颖性寻求对创造性行为表现的影响：语义网络的中介作用[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(5): 1037-1044.
[4]	吕明胡治国刘宏艳. 词汇的情绪效价对语义饱和效应的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(2): 295-305.
[5]	韦子谦陈栩茜 Roy B. Clariana. 文本信息加工中的知识结构的测量[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(2): 306-314.
[6]	庄恺祥杨文静何李颜廷瑞曾荣灿刘程邱江*. 基于语义网络的创造性认知机制研究现状与展望[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(5): 1104-1110.
[7]	胡博李开容陈雨嘉刘博常明. 时间压力下图标语义距离对雷达界面信息工作记忆的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(5): 1073-1080.
[8]	赵笑梅* 靳伟琼王莹平褚铮. 知识整合的时间进程：ERP研究[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(5): 1089-1096.
[9]	郭艺璇王权红王彤彤. 汉字刺激质量与语义启动间的交互作用[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(2): 282-289.
[10]	郭琪琪吕厚超. 未来心理时间的新取向：集体未来思考[J]. , 2021, 44(1): 184-190.
[11]	汪玉霞. 语义约束还是句法约束？------ 汉语简单和复合反身代词的母语加工研究[J]. 心理科学, 2017, 40(3): 527-533.
[12]	陈晓宇王美馨高雅婷蒋重清. 视觉与听觉情绪信息关系判断中的交互作用[J]. 心理科学, 2016, 39(4): 842-848.
[13]	陈苗苗冯成志田晓明. 错误归因的叠加效应：发生于情感还是语义过程？[J]. 心理科学, 2014, 37(3): 694-699.
[14]	杜瑞霞李杰七十三侯友. 平衡蒙汉双语者词汇与物理位置空间信息的语义表征[J]. 心理科学, 2014, 37(3): 528-535.
[15]	王军妮王勇慧佀建峰. 不同控制水平下的汉字语义加工[J]. 心理科学, 2013, 36(5): 1117-1122.