期刊文献+

汉语母语者和第二语言学习者名名组合的理解 被引量:13

Comprehension of Noun-noun Compounds by Chinese Native Speakers and L2 Learners
原文传递
导出
摘要 本文通过两个实验考察汉语母语者和第二语言学习者对陌生的汉语名名组合的理解以及汉语水平对第二语言学习者理解策略的影响。实验一要求43名汉语母语者和42名不同水平的汉语第二语言学习者理解15个陌生的名名组合并在两个解释(关系解释和属性解释)中选择一个恰当的解释,实验二要求55名不同水平的汉语学习者对45个陌生的名名组合做出解释。研究结果显示:(1)汉语母语者和汉语第二语言学习者理解名名组合时会采用关系解释和属性解释这两种主要的策略;(2)汉语母语者和第二语言学习者对于陌生复合词的理解都存在关系解释的偏好,表明关系竞争理论更适合解释汉语名名组合的理解机制;(3)没有发现关系解释、属性解释的比率随着语言水平的提高而发生变化。 The present study addresses in two experiment show Chinese noun-noun compounds are interpreted by Chinese nativespeakers and Chinese L2 learners and how interpretation change as learners improve their L2 proficiency.In the first experiment,43 native speakers and 42L2 learners of Chinese of different proficiency levels were presented15 novel noun-noun compounds.They were asked to choose out of two interpretations:relational interpretation and property interpretation.In the second experiment,55 L2 learners of Chinese of different levels were asked to interpret 45 novel noun-noun compounds.The results showed that:(a)relational interpretation and property interpretation were two major types of interpretations selected by both Chinese native speakers and L2learners;(b)both Chinese native speakers and L2 learners preferred relational interpretation to property interpretation,a finding which is consistent with the Competition among Relations in Nominals Theory(CARIN);(c)the ratio of relational interpretations to property interpretations was found not to vary with the learners' Chinese L2 proficiency.
出处 《世界汉语教学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第2期226-238,共13页 Chinese Teaching in the World
基金 北京语言大学校级科研项目(中央高校基本科研业务专项资金)的支持和资助 项目编号为14ZDJ03
关键词 汉语母语者 第二语言学习者 名名组合 关系解释 属性解释 语言水平 Chinese native speaker L2 Chinese learner noun-noun compound relational interpretation property interpretation language proficiency level
  • 相关文献

参考文献26

二级参考文献81

  • 1胡爱萍,吴静.英汉语中N+N复合名词的图式解读[J].语言教学与研究,2006(2):66-72. 被引量:19
  • 2McRae K, Cree G S. Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In: Forde M E, Humphreys G Weds. Category specificity in brain and mind. New York: Psychology Press,2002. 211~249
  • 3Markman A B, Wisniewski E J. Similar and Different: The Differentiation of Basic-level Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1997, 23(1):54~74
  • 4Estes Z, Glucksberg S. Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 2000, 28(1): 28~34
  • 5Estes Z, Glucksberg S. Similarity and attribution in concept combination: Reply to Wisniewski. Memory & Cognition,2000, 28(1): 39~40
  • 6Bock J S, Clifton C. The role of salience in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition, 2000, 28(8): 1378~1386
  • 7Costello F J, Keane M T. Efficient Creativity: Constraintguided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 2000, 24(2): 299~349
  • 8Costello F J, Keane M T. Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concept. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2001, 27(1): 255~271
  • 9Farah M. J. & McClelland J. L. A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 1991, 120(4): 339~357
  • 10Santos L R, Caramazza A. The domain-specific hypothesis: A developmental and comparative perspective on category-specific deficits. In: Forde M E, Humphreys G Weds. Category specificity in brain and mind. New York: Psychology Press, 2002. 1~23

共引文献33

同被引文献277

引证文献13

二级引证文献33

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部