進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-2708201223350600
論文名稱(中文) 人工物分類之跨語言研究
論文名稱(英文) Explorations on Artifact Categorization: A Cross-Linguistic Study
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 心理學系認知科學碩士班
系所名稱(英) MS in Cognitive Science
學年度 100
學期 2
出版年 101
研究生(中文) 李昀
研究生(英文) Yun Li
學號 U76991112
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 99頁
口試委員 口試委員-陳學志
口試委員-楊立行
指導教授-胡中凡
中文關鍵字 語意特徵分析  跨語言研究  晚期詞彙發展  人工物分類  命名  分堆 
英文關鍵字 semantic feature analysis  cross-linguistic studies  later lexical development  artifact categorization  naming  sorting 
學科別分類
中文摘要 分類,使個體能夠將在日常生活中所遭遇的一切作分類並快速的學習以適應環境,無論是具體事物或是抽象的概念,在分類的過程中,個體會將所知覺到的事物形成心理表徵,並提取過去經驗中相似的心理表徵,形成一類別的概念,儘管這項能力是人類與生俱來的基本能力,但其心理歷程卻十分複雜。
過去許多重要的研究皆在追求建構一個有效預測人類分類行為的模型,大部分皆主張分類的行為完全是受事物間的相似性支配,故個體在進行事物分類的歷程中,相似性程度的比較即是決定分類結果的機制。近期的跨語言研究藉由一批日常生活中常見的物品以了解類別形成的歷程,結果顯示物品分類型態並不完全受到物品間相似性的支配,語言特定性亦會影響個體的分類型態,然而目前卻無相關研究進一步探討語言特定性如何造成不同語言的使用者在分類型態上的差異及語言特性對個體在發展概念詞彙上的影響。
鑒於先前跨語言研究的發現與實驗設計,本研究透過以下三個實驗收集3個不同年齡層的中文使用者對一批日常生活中常見的物品的命名、分堆與語意特徵評比資料以探討成人與學齡兒童對該批物品的命名與分類方式,以及命名型態與物品名稱之特徵屬性間的關係。
本研究首先欲探討的問題是語系是否會影響個體的命名型態及分類型態,本研究假設承先前研究發現─分類行為會受到使用語言的影響。因此若個體間所使用的語言所屬的語系越相近,則命名的型態亦會更相近,反之亦然。因此本研究藉由實驗一中兩種不同的分類作業,收集並比較不同語言使用者的命名型態與分類型態以檢驗上述假設。
結果發現相同的語系的法文以及荷蘭文使用者在命名型態上的差異遠比不同語系的中文使用者與荷蘭文或法文的使用者在命名型態上的差異來得低,顯示了語系的遠近會影響語言使用者在命名型態上的差異。儘管該結果支持本研究所提出的假設,基於過去研究的相關研究發現,研究者認為熟悉度也可能是影響不同語言使用者在命名作業或分堆作業上的表現的因素之一。因此,另外採用物品熟悉度判斷作業,收集中文使用者對於該批刺激材料的熟悉分數,依據該資料篩選出不熟悉的圖片資料。結果發現語系的確會影響不同語言使用者在命名型態上的差異,然該種差異的來源大部分來自中文使用者認為不熟悉物品的命名型態;另外一方面,中文使用者與其他兩種語言使用者的分堆型態比較呈現與先前研究不一致的結果,中文使用者與法文或荷蘭文使用者的相關皆比荷蘭文與法文使用者在分堆型態上的相關來得低,研究者認為這可能也是受到物品熟悉度的影響,因此同樣藉由熟悉度判斷作業的資料篩選出不熟悉圖片的資料,結果發現中文與法文以及荷蘭文使用者在分堆型態上的相關有明顯的提升。
儘管已了解語言特定性與熟悉度對物品分類行為有顯著的影響,但卻尚未回答語言特定性在分類行為上的究竟造成那些差異,使得不同語言使用者的命名型態有顯著的差異。因此透過實驗二收集不同語言使用者對同一批刺激材料進行特徵評比的資料,以比較不同語文使用者在產生4個容器類別名稱時所依據的語意特徵型態,並藉此資料建構多元迴歸模型以了解語言特定性對分類行為的影響。
結果顯示荷蘭文使用者在產生主要的容器類別名稱時所依據的特徵面向與中文使用者並不相同,且另一相關研究更發現荷蘭文使用者與中文使用者可能依照不同的分類機制進行物品命名。
以上研究皆在探討語言特定性對個體分類行為的影響與造成使用不同語言的個體在分類型態上有差異的原因,但卻尚未觸及語言特定性如何影響個體從語言能力尚未成熟的狀態發展至展現出語言特定性對分類的影響,更具體來說,分類行為中所依據的特徵面向或是分類機制的發展是如何受到語言特定性的影響。
為回答上述問題,本研究藉由與實驗一相同的作業,收集並比較不同年齡層(9歲與12歲)的中文使用者的命名及分堆型態以探討此問題,並針對問題提出以下的假設:語言使用者隨著認知發展與環境學習,對自身所使用的語言愈精熟,語言特性對分類行為的影響應會愈加明顯,故推論學齡時期的中文使用者形成的類別概念應與成人時期的中文使用者不同,因此在命名型態上會有顯著的差異。
結合實驗二與實驗三的結果分析發現學齡時期與成人時期的中文使用者在命名型態以及知覺的分類型態上皆有顯著的差異,且所依據的語意特徵的面相及數量亦不同。
綜合上述研究結果發現:

(1)荷蘭文、法文以及中文使用者的命名型態顯示語系的遠近顯著地影響語言特定性在命名型態上所造成的差異。本研究透過收集並依荷蘭文與中文使用者的特徵評比資料建構多元迴歸模型,結果顯示中文使用者分類時所依據的主要特徵面向與荷蘭文使用者不同,這可能就是造成不同的語言使用者在分類型態上有顯著差異的具體原因。
(2)不同年齡層的分類型態顯示年齡越小的學齡兒童無論在命名分類型態或是知覺分類型態上,不同於成人的分類型態,兒童所具有的類別概念會涵蓋較大範圍的物品。藉由量化分析後,發現個體隨著認知與語言能力趨於成熟,不論是在命名型態或使知覺型態上皆越趨近於成人的型態,反之亦然。
(3)綜合實驗二與實驗三的資料分析,結果發現年紀較小學齡兒童在分類時所依據的特徵面向不同於成人的中文使用者,由此顯示出隨著對使用語言的精熟度以及辭彙量的增加,語言特定性對個體在分類行為上的影響亦越強。另外,藉由觀察類別詞彙的發展除了可更加了解中文的語言特性之外,同時可將此結果推論至中文使用者形成其他概念表徵的歷程。
由上可知,語言特定性在個體的分類行為中扮演十分重要的角色,不僅語系的遠近顯著地影響語言特定性在命名型態上所造成的差異,語言特定性亦會影響個體在進行分類時所依據的特徵面向及所其所使用的機制,且隨著語言能力的成熟,語言特定性對個體在分類上的影響會愈明顯。
英文摘要 According to Malt(1999), there are 2 acts which could be referred as the results of categorization processes. One is recognition which means people recognize objects as having properties in common with entities stored in memory, and this would result in reactivation of internal representations. The other is naming which means people use names to refer objects. Any given name will be connected to a group of objects. It seems that categorizations at least involve somewhat different 2 acts, but the relationship between recognition and naming is supposedly very close, because objects having similar features tend to be given the same names. Indeed, many prominent models of categorization assume that perceptual similarity is the determining basis of categorization.
However, based on the dissociation of naming and similarity, recent cross-linguistic studies suggest the recognition of objects commonalities which the way people conceptualize the objects non-linguistically may be largely universal, while naming, the way that people categorize them linguistically which is language-specific. Naming cannot be driven only by commonalities that speakers perceive among objects.
Although previous studies indicated that language specificity have an impact on the observed naming patterns of different language users, while such studies didn’t immerge further into the factors which would affect the divergence of naming patterns across different language users. Owing to language specificity plays an important role in the processes of naming, we assumed that language family would moderate the divergence of naming patterns across different language speakers, and predicted the divergence between language families would be detrimental to the correlations of the naming patterns. Hence, in Experiment 1, we adopted sorting task and naming task, and same stimulus as previous studies to compare the observed categorical patterns among Mandarin、Dutch and French users. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the correlation of naming patterns between Dutch and French which belong to the same language family is much higher than the correlations for Mandarin to Dutch or French. The results of Experiment 1 also revealed that familiarity would be one of factors which might moderate the divergences of naming patterns across different language speakers.
Although we demonstrated that language families would affect the divergence of naming patterns among different language speakers, questions arise as to whether the different language speakers may constitute the categorical concepts of containers through different featural properties of objects, and how language specificity affect the categorical process of language users.
To address the first question, we adopted feature generation task and feature rating task in Experiment 2 to collect the features Mandarin and Dutch speakers may use through constituting concepts of objects. After establishing fewer multiple regression models of the prominent container names in Mandarin and Dutch through these featural data, the results showed that Mandarin speakers would specialize in the situation properties of containers as performing the act of objects naming, but Dutch speakers do not. As our predictions, the results of Experiment 2 suggested that Mandarin and Dutch speakers would constitute the concepts of objects in different ways.
Even though we found that language specificity might affect the strategies of categorization, there is one question that we have to address, how language specificity affect the categorical process of language users.
In order to answer this question, in Experiment 3, we adopted the same tasks in Experiment 1 to explore how 9 and 12 years old child develop the naming and sorting patterns. Additionally, we constituted the models of prominent container categories in different age groups to understand whether the categorical strategies for child are same to adults. The results of Experiment 3 showed that the naming patterns for children gradually converged to the corresponding frequencies for the adult and the correlations between age groups are higher along with the increasing age.
We demonstrated those assumptions through three different experiments. The followings are our findings of this study.

(1) Language specificity would moderate the correlations of naming patterns among those different language speakers.
(2) The divergence of naming patterns between Dutch and Mandarin speakers would presumably be influenced by language specificity which would have an impact on the categorical processes.
(3) The impact of language specificity might gradually reflect implicitly on the naming patterns of different age groups.
And based on these findings, the implications for the organization of the bilingual lexicon are discussed.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 分類的行為-再認與命名 2
一、 再認與命名行為的差異 2
二、 分堆作業與命名作業在跨語言研究的應用 4
第二節 詞彙概念的建構:語意特徵基模 6
第三節 早期字彙發展的特徵理論 9
一、 Clark (1973)的語意特徵假說 10
二、 Nelson (1974)的語意特徵發展假說 10
三、 Mervis(1987) 語意特徵發展假說 11
第四節 小結及預期結果 12
第二章 實驗一:分類型態之跨語言分析 15
第一節 實驗目的、推論與假設 15
第二節 實驗方法 16
一、 受試者 16
二、 實驗材料 16
三、 實驗設計 17
四、 實驗程序 17
第三節 結果 18
一、 命名作業:語詞分類界線的比較 19
二、 命名作業:命名型態間的相關 21
三、 分堆作業:知覺相似性的比較 24
第四節 討論 24
一、 命名型態間的歧異 25
二、 知覺相似性的差異 26
第三章 實驗二:中文使用者與荷蘭文使用者的語意特徵分析 29
第一節 實驗目的、推論與假設 29
第二節 實驗方法 30
一、 受試者 30
二、 實驗材料 30
三、 實驗設計 31
四、 實驗程序 31
第三節 結果 33
一、 語意特徵的歸類 34
二、 建構預測類別名稱的迴歸模型 35
第四節 討論 47
一、 建構容器類別的多元迴歸模型 47
二、 特徵屬性上的差異 48
三、 無關的屬性特徵 50
第四章 實驗三:兒童命名作業與分堆作業 52
第一節 實驗目的、推論與假設 52
第二節 實驗方法 53
一、 受試者 53
二、 實驗材料 53
三、 實驗設計 53
四、 實驗程序 54
第三節 結果 55
一、 語詞分類界線與命名型態的比較 55
二、 預測類別名稱的多元迴歸模型 59
三、 分堆作業:知覺相似性的比較 63
第四節 討論 65
一、 命名型態與建構詞彙概念上的差異 66
二、 分堆型態上的比較 69
第五章 綜合討論 70
第一節 研究發現 70
第二節 結論 77
第三節 未來研究方向建議 80
參考文獻 83
附錄 87
附錄I 刺激圖片 87
附錄II 受試者語言背景調查表 90
附錄III 特徵編碼作業說明 91
附錄IV 特質歸類整理表_中文使用者 95
附錄V 特質歸類整理表_荷蘭文使用者 98
參考文獻 中文參考文獻:
王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2008)。一到九年級學生國字識字量發展。教育心理學報,39,555-568。

西文參考文獻:
Ameel, E., Malt, B., & Storms, G. (2008). Object naming and later lexical development: From baby bottle to beer bottle. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 262-285.
Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 60-80.
Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (1992). Complex Decision Rules in Categorization - Contrasting Novice and Experienced Performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 50-71.
Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149-178.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-609; discussion 610-560.
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5), 513-562.
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281-1289.
Clark, E. V. (1973). What’s in a word? On the child’s acquition of semantics in his first language. In I. T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65-110). New York: Academic Press.
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 132(2), 163-201.
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 611-631.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1), 41-50.
Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 117(3), 227-247.
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65(2-3), 231-262.
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: the case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 125-155.
Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 441-461.
Hampton, J. A. (1993). Prototype models of concept representation. In I. V. Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. S. Michalski , & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 67-95). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Huttenlocher, J., & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: The case of object names. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 63-89.
Kronenfeld, D. B., Armstrong, J. D., & Wilmoth, S. (1985). Exploring the internal structure of linguistic categories: An extensionist semantic view. In J. W. D. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. (pp. 109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Malt, B. C. (1995). Category Coherence in Cross-Cultural-Perspective. Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 85-148.
Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2003). Linguistic diversity and object naming by non-native speakers of English. . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6 (1), pp 47-67.
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M. Y., & Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 230-262.
Mann, C., Canny, B., Lindley, J., & Rajan, R. (2010). The influence of language family on academic performance in Year 1 and 2 MBBS students. Medical Education, 44(8), 786-794.
Mateus, G., & Otero, J. (2011). Memory content of scientific concepts in beginning university science students. Educational Psychology, 31(6), 675-690.
McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in mind and brain (pp. 211-250). East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
McRae, K., deSa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 126(2), 99-130.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context Theory of Classification Learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89-115.
Mervis, C. B. (1987). Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 201-233). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, K. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review, 81(4), 267-267-285.
Norman, D. A. (1993). Cognition in the Head and in the World: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Situated Action. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 1-6.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(1), 104-114.
Nosofsky, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., & McKinley, S. C. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 18(2), 211-233.
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 369-398.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605.
Shepard, R. N. (1986). Discrimination and generalization in identification and classification: Comment on Nosofsky. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 58-61.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174-215.
Sutcliffe, J. P. (1993). Concepts, class, and category in the tradition of Aristotle. In I. Van Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. S. Michalski & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 33-65). London: Academic Press.
Volterra, V., & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5(2), 311-326.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk , New York: Sharpe.
Waxman, S. R. (2002). Early word-learning and conceptual development: everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 102-126). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica(Amst), 132(2), 173-189.
Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. W. (2006). The situated nature of concepts. American Journal of Psychology, 119(3), 349-384.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2012-09-10起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2012-09-10起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw