漢語母語者及英語第二外語者對弱標量詞“some”的解讀之實證研究

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	周穎 Zhou, Ying
論文名稱：	漢語母語者及英語第二外語者對弱標量詞“some”的解讀之實證研究 An Empirical Investigation on Interpreting the Weak Scalar Term “some” in L1 Mandarin and L2 English
指導教授：	許淳潔 Hsu, Chun-Chieh
口試委員:	謝承諭 Hsieh, Chen-Yu 陳仲妤 Chen, Chung-Yu
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2024
畢業學年度：	113
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	76
中文關鍵詞：	有一些、關聯理論、邏輯意思、語用意思、預設推理模型
外文關鍵詞：	some, The Default Inference Model, Relevance Theory, pragmatic interpretation, logical interpretation
相關次數：	點閱：20 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

在量化尺度 <some, most, all> 中，“some”可以在邏輯上可以被解讀為“有一些，甚至可能是全部”，或在語用上可以解讀為“有些，但不是全部”。例如，當解讀包含較弱量詞 “some” 的句子時，如“Some professors are smart (有些教授很聰明),”聽者可以解讀出其邏輯意思 “Possibly all professors are smart (可能所有教授都很聰明)。”他們也可以推斷出語用意思 “Not all professors are smart (並非所有教授都很聰明),”語用意思的推斷是由於說話者選擇了較弱的量詞，而不是較強的量詞。這種推斷被稱為量詞涵義推理 (scalar implicature)。
有兩種不同的模型解釋了量詞涵義推理的形成和處理方式。一種是由 Levinson(2000)提出的“預設推理模型 (DefaultInferenceModel)”，該模型認為聽者會自動地、不費意識地產生語用意思。另一種是由 Sperber and Wilson (1986) 提出的“關聯理論 (RelevanceTheory)”，這是一種非預設模型，主張聽者能夠在較少的認知努力下產生邏輯意思，而產生語用意思則需要更多的認知努力。先前的研究提供了不同的發現。有一些研究發現，母語者和二語學習者在處理包含較弱量詞 “some” 的事實性普遍句和情境依賴句時，更傾向於語用意思，這個結果支持了預設推理模型 (Slabakova, 2010) 。相反，其他研究發現，母語者和二語學習者在情境依賴句中更傾向於產生邏輯意思，這與關聯理論一致 (Dupuy et al., 2019) 。為了明確區分預設推理模型和關聯理論，本研究通過一項結合了線上測量反應時間的離線判斷任務，探究漢語/英語母語者及母語為漢語/第二語言為英語的學習者在事實性普遍句和情境依賴句中如何解讀和處理弱量詞 “some”。
本研究發現:在事實性普遍句環境中，漢語母語者和英語二語學習者主要產生更多的邏輯意思，且反應時間較短，而英語母語者則顯著地產生更多的語用意思，且反應時間較長，這與關聯理論一致。在情境依賴句環境中，三個組別都產生了更多的語用意思，且反應時間較短，這與預設推理模型相符。總之，我們研究的主要發現為，在離線判斷任務和在線反應時間測量中，句子的環境對參與者的表現有明顯的主要影響。在事實性普遍句環境中，英語二語學習者的行為與漢語母語者相似，與英語母語者不同，這可能是由於二語者第一語言的影響。在基於語境的句子環境中，三組的行為相似，這可能受到語境信息的影響。

In the quantificational scale <some, most, all>, some can be logically interpreted as “some and possibly all” or pragmatically interpreted as “some but not all.” For example, when interpreting a sentence containing the weak scalar term some, such as “Some professors are smart,” listeners can decode the logical interpretation “Possibly all professors are smart.” They can also infer the pragmatic interpretation “Not all professors are smart,” which results from the speaker choosing the weaker term instead of the stronger one. This inference is known as scalar implicature.
Two different models have been proposed to explain how scalar implicatures are formed and processed. One is the Default Inference Model proposed by Levinson (2000), which suggests that listeners produce pragmatic interpretations automatically, without conscious effort. The other is Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986), a non-default model that posits listeners can generate logical interpretations with minimal effort, whereas producing pragmatic interpretations requires more cognitive effort. Previous studies have provided mixed findings. Some studies found that both native speakers and L2 learners produced more pragmatic interpretations for factually universal statements and context-based statements containing the weaker scalar term “some,” supporting the Default Inference Model (e.g., Slabakova, 2010). In contrast, other studies found that native speakers and L2 learners produced more logical interpretations in context-based statements, which is consistent with Relevance Theory (e.g., Dupuy et al., 2019). To clearly distinguish between the Default Inference Model and Relevance Theory, the present study examined how Mandarin/English native speakers and L1-Mandarin/L2-English learners interpret and process the weak scalar term “some” across factually universal condition and context-based condition through an offline judgment task that incorporated online measurements of response time (RT).
vii
In the factually universal condition, L1-Mandarin speakers and L2-English speakers predominantly produced more logical interpretations with shorter RTs, whereas L1-English speakers produced significantly more pragmatic interpretations with longer RTs, which is consistent with Relevance Theory. In the context-based condition, all three groups produced more pragmatic interpretations with shorter RTs, which aligns with the Default Inference Model. In conclusion, the major finding of our study is that in both the offline judgment task and the online RT measurements, there was a clear main effect of the statement type (factually universal vs. context-based) on the participants’ performance. In the factually universal condition, L2-English learners behaved similarly to L1-Mandarin speakers but differently from L1-English speakers, which may possibly be due to L1 transfer. In the context-based condition, all three groups behaved similarly, which may be influenced by the salient contextual information.

List of Tables ..........................................iii
List of Figures................................................iv
摘要............................................................. v
Abstract ................................................... vii
Acknowledgment ..................................... ix
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................. 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation....................1
1.2 The Present Study and Research Purposes................... 5
1.3 Overview of the Thesis ............. 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review.....................................7
2.1 Grice’s Maxims and Scalar Implicature ...................... 7 2.1.1 Grice’s Maxims..........................................7
2.1.2 Scalar Implicature .................................... 12
2.2 Two Processing Models..................................14
2.2.1 The Default Inference Model.......................14
2.2.2 Relevance Theory .................. 17
2.3 Previous Studies on Interpreting the Weak Scalar Term Some ......................... 19
2.3.1 The Interpretation of the Weak Scalar Term Some in L1 Native Speakers.....20
2.3.2 The Interpretation of the Weak Scalar Term Some in L2 Learners .......... 24
2.4 The Weak Scalar Term Some in Mandarin....................... 29
2.5 Summary and Research Questions.....................33
Chapter 3 Methodology ......................... 35
3.1 Participants..............................35
3.2 Design and Test Materials ................ 36
3.3 Procedure ................................. 39
3.4 Data Coding, Trimming and Analysis ..............41
Chapter 4 Results ............................... 42
4.1 Results of the Judgment Data .........42
4.2 Results of the Choice Frequency Patterns .... 44
4.2.1 Factually Universal Condition .............45
4.2.2 Context-Based Condition .........................47
4.3 Results of the RT Data ........................................48 4.4 Discussion....................................51
Chapter 5 General Discussion and Conclusion....................53
5.1 Discussion on Offline Judgment Results (RQ1)................................................54 5.2 Discussion on Online Results (RQ2) ................................................................. 57 5.3 Discussion on the Two Competing Theories (RQ3)................60
5.4 Significance and Limitations ........62
References.........................................................64
Appendix A. CEFR Chart ...........................................67
Appendix B. Language Questionnaire for Native Mandarin Speakers and L2-English Learners .......................68
Appendix C. Language Questionnaire for Native English Speakers.....69
Appendix D. The Experimental Materials for the Sentence Evaluation Task.....70
                                

Bates, D. (2016). lme4: Linear mixed‐effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version, 1, 1.
Bergen, L., & Grodner, D. J. (2012). Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1450.
Blome-Tillmann, M. (2013). Conversational implicatures (and how to spot them). Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 170-185.
Bott, L., Bailey, T. M., & Grodner, D. (2012). Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of memory and language, 66(1), 123-142.
Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of memory and language, 51(3), 437-457.
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. Pragmatics And Beyond New Series, 179-238.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, N., & Fan, L. (2015). A review of research on the generation and acquisition of scalar implicatures. Modern Chinese: Late October, Language studies(1), 13- 17.
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Mit Press.
Cummins, C., & Katsos, N. (2019). The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Déprez, V., Van der Henst, J.-B., Jayez, J., Stepanov, A., & Reboul, A. (2019). Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(2), 314-340.
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(3), 223-241.
Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., & Handley, S. J. (2004). The story of some: everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(2), 121.
Fernández Gaspar, T. (2017). Scalar Implicatures: A Gricean vs. a Relevance Theory Approach.
Gazdar, G. (1980). Pragmatics and logical form. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(1), 1-13. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Brill. Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some,”
and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116(1), 42-55.
64
Guasti, M., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and cognitive processes, 20(5), 667-696.
Horn, L. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-and R-based implicature. Meaning, form and use in context.
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. University of California, Los Angeles.
Hu, S., Zhou, P., Foppolo, F., Vender, M., & Delfitto, D. (2019). Scalar implicatures in Chinese children with reading difficulties. First Language, 39(5), 479-507.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow/Farrar. Straus and Giroux. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language.
Language Learning.
Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the
acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120(1), 67-81. Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Ezeizabarrena, M.-J., Gavarró, A., Kuvač Kraljević, J.,
Hrzica, G., Grohmann, K. K., Skordi, A., Jensen de López, K., & Sundahl, L. (2016). Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(33), 9244-9249.
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Implicature explicated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(4), 722-723.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT press.
Lin, Y. (2016). Processing of scalar inferences by Mandarin learners of English: An online measure. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0145494.
Mazzaggio, G., Panizza, D., & Surian, L. (2021). On the interpretation of scalar implicatures in first and second language. Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 62-75.
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78(2), 165-188.
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253-282.
Sadock, J. M. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In Pragmatics (pp. 281-297). Brill.
Sirajudin, N., & Suratno, J. (2021). Developing creativity through STEM education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120(10), 2444-2462.
Snape, N., & Hosoi, H. (2018). Acquisition of scalar implicatures: Evidence from adult Japanese L2 learners of English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 163-192.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Citeseer.
65

Su, Y. E., & Su, L. Y. (2015). Interpretation of Logical Words in Mandarin-Speaking Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Uncovering Knowledge of Semantics and Pragmatics. J Autism Dev Disord, 45(7), 1938-1950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2350-0
Traugott, E. C. (2004). A critique of Levinson’s view of Q-and M-inferences in historical pragmatics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), 1-26.
Tsai, W. T. D. (2004). On “you ren”,“you de ren” and “you xie ren”(Tan “you ren”,“you de ren” he “you xie ren”). Chinese Linguistics, 2, 16-25.
Wu, Z., & Tan, J. (2009). Hanyu ertong yuyan zhong de dengji hanyi–Yixiang shiyan yanjiu [Scalar implicature in Chinese child language: An experimental study]. Waiguoyu/Journal of Foreign Languages, 32(3), 69-75.
Xie, Y. (2003). Guanyú ‘you de. VP’ [On the construction of ‘you de. VP’]. Yuyán Yánjiu [Studies on Language Linguistics], 23, 37-44.
Zhang, J., & Wu, Y. (2023). Epistemic reasoning in pragmatic inferencing by non- native speakers: The case of scalar implicatures. Second language research, 39(3), 697-729.
Zhao, M. (2012). Hanyu dengji hanyi jiagong de shenjing jizhi yanjiu [The study on the neuromechanism underlying the scalar implicature processing in Chinese](Doctoral dissertation). Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文