Source, Location, and Goal in Japanese Children's Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The goal of this paper to demonstrate how the patterns of child acquisition of grammatical morphemes in Japanese may reveal the interactions among the three basic relational concepts, namely, SOURCE, LOCATION, and GOAL, in children's minds. These three concepts appear to form fairly symmetrical relationships at the structural or functional level: An entity X can be coded in a SOURCE-oriented relation (as in 'from X' in English), a GOAL-oriented relation ('to X'), or in a static, LOCATIVE relation ('in/at X'). Despite the apparent symmetry exhibited by the three concepts at the structural level, they do not seem to have equal status at the cognitive level. Previous studies, including Ikegami (1987), demonstrated that GOAL-type entities and SOURCE-type entities manifest themselves differently in many languages. Speakers tend to produce GOAL-oriented events much more frequently than SOURCE-oriented events in natural speech data (Stefanowitsch & Rohda, 1994), and children, as well as adults, show such bias towards GOAL in encoding motion events (Lakusta & Landau 2004). According to Ikegami (1987), the GOAL is invariably the most natural and more dominant element, while the SOURCE uncertain and unstable (1987: 135). While most of the previous studies have dealt with the asymmetry between GOAL and SOURCE, I am also interested in how LOCATION, which serves as a pivotal concept, interacts with GOAL and SOURCE. Is LOCATION more closely associated with GOAL or with SOURCE? Using three sets of corpus data taken from the CHILDES archive (Miyata-Aki corpus, Ishii-corpus, and Hamasaki-corpus), I examine the acquisition patterns of three different particles in Japanese, namely, Ni, De, and Kara, which are all associated with multiple senses including spatial senses: Ni marks GOAL, De LOCATION and Kara SOURCE. By determining the order of emergence and analyzing erroneous usages by children, I ask whether the patterns of acquisition differ among the three types of grammatical markers, and whether children tend to over- or under-use any particular type of grammatical markers. The preliminary results of the study have indicated that different grammatical markers are acquired differently, a finding consistent with McKercher (2001). It has also been found that children overuse LOCATIVE markers to mark GOAL, but not to mark SOURCE, suggesting the asymmetrical relationships between SOURCE, LOCATION, and GOAL. Further findings from this study will help us understand how the three concepts are related to one another and how children acquire such relationships. References Ikegami, Yoshihiko. (1987) 'Source' vs. 'goal': a case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven, and G. Radden (eds.), Concepts of Case, 122-146. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Lakusta, Laura M, & Barbara Landau. (2004) Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 96, 1-33. McKercher, David A. (2001) The polysemy of with in first language acquisition. Stanford University doctoral dissertation. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Ada Rohde. (1994) The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In K.-U. Panther and G. Radden (eds.), Motivation in Grammar, 249-267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».