MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2302891154 · doi:10.14288/1.0078288

English and Japanese word associations and syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift of Japanese children learning English as a second language

2010· article· en· W2302891154 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuko Yasutake

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSyntagmatic analysisLinguisticsWord (group theory)PsychologyLanguage acquisitionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingComputer sciencePhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Research in word association studies found that children give predominantly syntagmatic responses (responses from different form classes from stimuli). English children were found to undergo a shift to paradigmatic (responses from the same form classes as stimuli) before age ten (referred to as S-P shift) which is the adult norm. On the other hand, Japanese children do not have S-P shift, and Japanese adults' responses are dominantly syntagmatic (Moran 1968). Leicester (1981) collected English word association responses from Japanese beginner and advanced learners of English as a second language and found S-P shift like increase of paradigmatic responses as English ability improves. This study purports to replicate Leicester's study among children. It is because the existence of the S-P shift in English of second-language learners whose first language does not have the shift would mean that second language learning parallels first language acquisition. Two main hypothesis were tested: 1. That Japanese children learning English as a second language will give dominantly syntagmatic responses in Japanese regardless of their grade level. 2. That Japanese children learning English as a second language of higher grade level will give more paradigmatic responses than those of lower grade level. Three subsidiary hypotheses were tested: 3. That Japanese children learning English as a second language will give different proportion of paradigmatic responses in Japanese and English. 4. That Japanese children learning English as a second language will give different pattern of responses in each language. 5. That Japanese children learning English as a second language will give fewer paradigmatic responses in English than monolingual English children of the same grade. Thirty students each of grades one, three, and five from two Japanese supplementary schools in Vancouver and Seattle were used as subjects. The subjects attend regular English classes at public schools, and therefore, their English ability was assumed to parallel their grade level. 27-item word association test was administered in English and Japanese. The ratio of paradigmatic responses was analyzed according to grade level. In agreement with literature, no grade difference was found among Japanese paradigmatic responses. In English, however, grade one subjects performed most paradigmatically, and thereby, no linear correspondence between English ability and English paradigmatic responses was found. Although English responses were close to the English norm, and Japanese responses to the Japanese norm, a significant number of Japanese responses were given in English association by grade five students. Significant difference in paradigmaticity was also found when two schools were compared as well as between two languages. Grade one students outperformed equivalent English monolingual children in English. It was speculated that young children develop L2 vocabulary systems independently and directly from the start resulting in higher rate of paradigmatic responses, whereas older children initially construct a one to one association between LI and L2, resulting in translation responses and low paradigmaticity in the case of English. School difference suggests that there are some other variables affecting word association.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,778
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,990

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,202
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetSecond Language Acquisition and LearningTravaux en français237 207