以中文為母語的學齡前兒童類別量詞與計量量詞習得之實證研究

Abstract

摘要

本研究主要探討以中文為母語的學齡前兒童對中文類別量詞(count classifiers)和計量量詞(mass classifiers)的母語習得，主要的研究議題包括學齡前兒童是否能分辨類別量詞和計量量詞之間的差異，年齡是否會影響習得的先後及使用的表現，量詞理解性測驗及口說表現兩者所呈現出的結果是否一致，何種類型的量詞對兒童習得較為容易，以及量詞「個」的錯誤使用等。本研究共設計兩個實驗，第一個實驗為圖片辨識測驗，第二個實驗為圖片描述測驗。研究對象為45位以中文為母語的學齡前兒童，根據其年齡分成三組（第一組為三歲零個月至三歲十一個月、第二組為四歲零個月至四歲十一個月、及第三組為五歲零個月至五歲十一個月的兒童）。 研究發現如下：首先，學齡前兒童能夠分辨類別量詞和計量量詞之間的差異，且此差異達到統計上的顯著，而學齡前兒童在類別量詞的表現顯著優於計量量詞。其次，「年齡」的確對類別量詞和計量量詞的習得有所影響並達到統計上的顯著差異，兒童年齡越長則其量詞的表現也越好，但是統計分析後發現，差異只在三歲和四歲兒童以及三歲和五歲兒童之間，換句話說，本研究發現三歲到四歲是兒童習得量詞的關鍵期。再者，實驗型態的設計確實能測出受試者不同的反應，兒童在理解性測驗的結果比口說使用表現優異。此外，本研究發現，整體而言，量詞「個」是兒童最早習得的量詞，「標準量詞」對兒童來說難度最高，因此為最慢習得的量詞。最後，兒童過度使用(overgeneralize)量詞「個」，並將其使用到其他量詞的語境，說明了量詞「個」對兒童而言為無標的(unmarked)的量詞。

ABSTRACT The present study aims to explore Chinese children’s acquisition of the count and mass classifiers by conducting an experiment with two tasks, a comprehension task (i.e., the Picture Identification Task), and a production task (i.e., the Picture Description Task). The experiment was designed to investigate issues in the count-mass distinction, age effect, task effect, hierarchy of difficulty in children’s acquisition of classifiers, and their misuse of the classifier ge. Forty-five Chinese-speaking preschoolers participated in the experiment, and they were further divided into three groups according to their age: Group 1 (3-year-olds), Group 2 (4-year-olds), and Group 3 (5-year-olds). The major findings of the present study are as follows. First, our children had performed significantly better on count classifiers than on mass classifiers (p<0.05). Second, age effects were found significant in subjects’ responses to overall count and mass classifiers (p<0.05). The Scheffe post hoc further indicated that a significant difference existed between Group 1 and Group 2, between Group 1 and Group 3, not between Group 2 and Group 3 (p>0.05). In other words, the age between three and four was found to be a critical stage in Chinese children’s classifier development. Third, there was a significant difference between the subjects’ comprehension and production (p<0.05). Our subjects showed better abilities in comprehension than in production of classifiers. Fourth, the results indicated that ge was the earliest acquired classifier whereas standard measures caused our children major difficulties, and thus they were acquired latest. Finally, the children’s misuse of the classifier ge exhibited overgeneralization. Our subjects predominately used ge to classify objects regardless of different semantic meanings. Their overwhelming use of ge indicated that gewas considered UNMARKED by our subjects.