以中文為母語的兒童對新奇複合名詞之理解與使用

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 以中文為母語的兒童對新奇複合名詞之理解與使用 Mandarin-speaking Children’s Comprehension and Production of Novel Noun-noun Compounds. 指導教授：陳純音博士 Advisor: Dr. Chun-yin Doris Chen 研究生：游俊賢 Student: Joseph Chun-hsien Yu. 中華民國一○二年六月 June, 2013.

(2) 摘要. 本研究旨在探討以中文為母語之兒童詮釋新奇複合名詞(novel noun-noun compound)之發展。本研究包含兩個控制變因，第一為名詞之動物性(animacy)/ 非動物性(inanimacy)，第二為修飾詞(modifier)/中心詞(head)之特性。本研究採用兩種實驗類型：看圖回答測驗與理解選擇測驗。研究對象包括實驗組的一百位兒童，依平均年齡四至八歲分成五組，每組二十人，以及對照組的二十位成人。實驗結果顯示，五歲之兒童對於新奇複合名詞解讀之偏好已經類似於成人之偏好，亦即以第一名詞為導向(N1-preference)之解讀。至於在動物性與否對於複合名詞使用之影響方面，當修飾詞或中心詞為動物性時，所有年齡受試者之表現類似。反之，當修飾詞或中心詞為非動物性時，受試者之表現則無明顯之趨勢。關於不同之測驗對於受試者表現之影響，僅在修飾詞為非動物性時，所有年齡層表現一致：看圖回答測驗傾向於引導以修飾詞為導向之解讀，而理解選擇測驗則傾向於引導以中心詞為導向之解讀。然而，當修飾詞為動物性時，此種結果之一致性則不存在。最後，我們提出兒童新奇複合名詞之習得有三階段：四歲兒童屬第一階段，五、六歲兒童在第二階段，七、八歲兒童則在第三階段。其中，第三階段兒童新奇複合名詞之使用幾乎已與成人相似。. 關鍵字：母語習得、複合名詞、動物性. i.

(3) ABSTRACT. The present study aims to analyze the developmental patterns of Chinese children’s noun-noun compound uses by investigating their production and comprehension of novel noun-noun compounds under the manipulations of the animacy/inanimacy and modifier/head. A production task and a comprehension task were assigned to 100 Chinese children (aged 4-8) and a control group of 20 Chinese-speaking adults. The 100 children subjects were further divided into five age groups, each of which consisted of 20 subjects. The results showed that Chinese children as young as five were able to choose the N1-preference reading, which was adult-like. With regard to the animacy effect, all the children were found to perform similarly to the adult controls when either the modifier or the head was [+animate]. In contrast, when either the modifier or the head was [-animate], no clear trend was found. With regard to the task effect, it was found that only when the modifier was [-animate] would all the group results be consistent: the production tended to receive the N1-preference readings while the comprehension task tended to trigger the N2-preference reading. In contrast, when the modifier was [+animate], there was no such consistency. Finally, there was a three-stage development pattern of our children’s uses of noun-noun compounds: the four-year-olds were at the first stage, the five-and six-year-olds at the second stage, and the seven- and eight-year-olds at the third stage, the use of the sub-strategies at the last stage being almost similar to the adults’ pattern.. Keywords: L1 acquisition, noun-noun compounds, animacy. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Chun-Yin Doris Chen, for her helpful suggestions and spiritual support. Dr. Chen not only guided me to the completion of this thesis but also sparked my interest in L1 acquisition. Her patience, encouragement, and constant belief in me allowed me to continue working throughout the odyssey of accomplishing this thesis. Sincere gratitude is given to the other members of my committee, Dr. Jen-I Li and Dr. Ruei-ling Fahn, for providing their expertise to this thesis. They offered critical and insightful remarks on earlier revisions of this thesis. There would have been more tough problems in this thesis without their meticulous reading and valuable suggestions. Of course none of the aforementioned professors is responsible in any way for the shortcomings of the thesis; I assume full responsibility for all errors. A great indebtedness is owed to Affiliated Kindergarten of Taipei Municipal Guting Elementary School, and Taipei Municipal Xikou Elementary School, where the children were recruited. My heartfelt gratitude is also given to those adult subjects who rendered their valuable time to participate in the experiment. I would like to thank other professors who taught me in NTNU: Dr. Miao-Ling Hsieh, Dr. Ing Cherry Li, Dr. Jen-I Li, Dr. Hsueh-O Lin, Dr Kwock-Ping Tse, and Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng, by alphabetical order. This thesis would not have been completed without these professors’ instruction. An expression of thanks is also extended to all of my classmates in NTNU: Justine Chang, Marco Chang, Wallace Chang, Ray Chen, Linda Huang, Patricia Huang, Rebecca Li, Terry Li, Ansel Lin, Mars Lin, Martha Lin, Mina Lo, and Rose Lu, by alphabetical order. My tenure as an NTNU graduate student could have been monotonous without their company. iii.

(5) Finally, I am forever grateful to my beloved parents for their love, support, and understanding. They are always tolerant of my emotional fluctuations and never put pressure on me to abandon my attempt to study linguistics. They are always there when I need them. To them, I dedicate this thesis.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………..i ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..iii TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………...v LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………vii LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………viii Chapter One Introduction……………………………………………………….........1 1.1 Motivation…...……………………………………..………………………..1 1.2 Theoretical Background...…………………………………………………...2 1.3 Research Questions………………………………………………………….3 1.4 Significance of the Study..…………………………………………………..4 1.5 Organization of the Thesis…………………………………………………...4 Chapter Two Literature Review……………………………………………………….5 2.1 Previous Studies of Mandarin Noun-Noun Compounds…………………….5 2.1.1 Li & Thompson (1981)……………………………………………….5 2.1.2 Xiong (1998)…………………………………………………….......10 2.1.3 Huang (2008)……………………………………………………......13 2.1.4 Summary…………………………………………………………….16 2.2 Previous Empirical Studies of Noun-noun Compounds in L1 Acquisition...17 2.2.1 Nicoladis (2003)……………………………………………………..17 2.2.2 Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback (2005)………………………19 2.2.3 Krott & Nicoladis (2005)……………………………………………24 2.2.4 Krott, Gagne & Nicoladis (2009)……………………………………27 2.2.5 Summary…………………………………………………………….29 2.3 Summary of Chapter Two…………………………………………………..31 Chapter Three Research Design……………………………………………………...33 3.1 Subjects……………………………………………………………………..33 3.2 Methods and Materials……………………………………………………...35 3.2.1 The Production Task…………………………………………………37 3.2.2 The Comprehension Task……………………………………………37 3.3 Procedures…………………………………………………………………..39 3.3.1 Pilot Study…………………………………………………………...39 3.3.2 Formal Study………………………………………………………...40 v.

(7) 3.3.3 Scoring………………………………………………………………41 3.4 Summary of Chapter Three…………………………………………………41 Chapter Four Results and Discussion………………………………………………...43 4.1 N1-preference Reading……………………………………………………..43 4.1.1 Overall Findings…………………………………………………….43 4.1.2 General Discussion……………………………………….…………50 4.2 Animacy Effect…………………………………………….........................51 4.2.1 Overall Findings…………………………………………………….51 4.2.2 General Discussion………………………………………………….63 4.3 Task Effect…………………………………………………………………64 4.3.1 Overall Findings…………………………………………………….65 4.3.2 General Discussion………………………………………………….77 4.4 Age Effect………………………………………………………………….77 4.5 Summary of Chapter Four………………………………………………….80 Chapter Five Conclusion……………………………………………………………..81 5.1 Summary of the Major Findings……………………………………………81 5.2 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Further Research…...82 References……………………………………………………………………………83 Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………..88 Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………108 Appendix C………………………………………………………………………....119. vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Relation Types between Constituents within Compounds………..……….3 Table 2-1 N1- Relations………………………………………………………………7 Table 2-2 N2-Relations……………………………………………………………….8 Table 2-3 N1 & N2-Relation………………………………………………………...10 Table 2-4 An Example of a Question in Xiong’s Questionnaire…………………….11 Table 2-5 Huang’s (2008) Test Items Formed by the Nine Combination Types…….14 Table 2-6 Frequency of Use of Property-Mapping and Relation-linking among Compounds with Different Structures…………………………………….15 Table 2-7 Conceptual Combinations Used by Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback…………………………………………………………………21 Table 2-8 Stimuli by Family Size (High or Low) of Modifiers and Heads…………25 Table 2-9 Major Findings and Limitations of the Previous Studies…………………30 Table 3-1 A Summary of the Subjects……………………………………………….34 Table 3-2 Test Items Designed for the Two Tasks…………………………………...36 Table 3-3 An Example of the Test Scenario in the Production Task…………………37 Table 3-4 An Example of the Test Scenario in the Comprehension Task……………38 Table 4-1 Overall Performance of Each Age Group………………………………...44 Table 4-2 Subjects’ Overall Performances on Types 1-1 and 1-2………………..….45 Table 4-3 Overall Performance on Types 2-1 and 2-2……………………………….46 Table 4-4 Subtype Design for Testing the Animacy Effect………..………………...48 Table 4-5 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading Frequency Counts When N1 was [+animate]………………………………………………...48 Table 4-6 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading When N1 was [-animate]………………………………………………………………...51 Table 4-7 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading When N2 was [+animate]………………………………………………………………..52 Table 4-8 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading When N2 was [-animate]………………………………………………………………...52 Table 4-9 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading for Type 1-1 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task……………………………………....54 Table 4-10 N1-preference and N2-preference Reading for Type 1-2 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task ……………………………………...55 Table 4-11 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading for Type 2-1 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task……………………………………....57 Table 4-12 N1-preference vs. N2-preference Reading for Type 2-2 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task……………………………………...58 vii.

(9) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1 Subjects’ Overall Percentages for the Four Types of Noun-noun Compounds……………………………………………………………....44 Figure 4-2 Overall Performances on Type 1-1………………………………...…....46 Figure 4-3 Overall Performances on Type 1-2……………………………………...47 Figure 4-4 Subjects’ Overall Performances on Type 2-1…………………….……..49 Figure 4-5 Subjects’ Overall Performances on Type 2-2……………………………49 Figure 4-6 N1-preference Reading for Type 1-1 and Type 1-2……………..………53 Figure 4-7 N2-preference Reading for Type 1-1 and Type 1-2…………..…..……..53 Figure 4-8 N1-preference Reading for Type 2-1 and Type 2-2………………..……56 Figure 4-9 N2-preference Reading for Type 2-1 and Type 2-2……………………..56 Figure 4-10 N1-preference Reading for Type 1-1 and Type 2-1……………………59 Figure 4-11 N2-preference Reading for Type 1-1 and Type 2-1……………………59 Figure 4-12 N1-preference Reading for Type 1-2 and Type 2-2……………………62 Figure 4-13 N2-preference Reading for Type 1-2 and Type 2-2…………………....62 Figure 4-14 N1-preference Reading for Type 1-1 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task…………………………………………………....67 Figure 4-15 N2-preference Reading for Type 1-1 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task……………………………………………………67 Figure 4-16 N1-preference Reading for Type 1-2 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task ……………………………………………….…..70 Figure 4-17 N2-preference Reading for Type 1-2 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task…………………………………………………....70 Figure 4-18 N1-preference Reading for Type 2-1 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task…………………………………………………….73 Figure 4-19 N2-preference Reading for Type 2-1 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task………………………………………………….....73 Figure 4-20 N1-preference Reading for Type 2-2 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task…………………………………………………….76 Figure 4-21 N2-preference Reading for Type 2-2 in the Production Task and the Comprehension Task…………………………………………………….76 Figure 4-22 The Developmental Stages of the Noun-noun Compounds…………….79. viii.

(10) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Motivation In this modern era with high technology, we are encountering more and more brand-new facilities that we have never heard of before. In order to name these new products, we extensively use noun-noun compounds (Tang 1989, Chang 1996), which corresponds to the statement made by Downing (1977: 824), “Compounding serves as the back door into the lexicon.” Noun-noun compounds consist of at least two nouns; thus plentiful information is embedded. Novel compounds have come to be members of the Mandarin Chinese lexicon in recent years, which can be illustrated by the following examples (Huang 2008): kanu, meaning a card-slave, someone who can only pay the minimum balance on his/her credit card debt every month, zhainan, referring to a male person with no social life, huoxingwen, meaning Internet language used for swift typing and thus long terms replaced by numbers or symbols. More specifically, these are noun-noun compounds, which are used to create novel expressions (Li & Thompson 1981: 48). For Mandarin Chinese compounds with nouns as heads, the position of modifiers can be occupied by adjectives, verbs, and nouns (Chao 1968: 382). Of these diverse compounds, the noun-noun combination has been debated since it involves more complex concepts than the others (Smith, Osherson, Rips & Keane 1988). In other words, a noun-noun compound mostly could be explained in various ways. Take mouse hat for example. Either “a hat with a mouse on it” or “a hat that a mouse wears” can be plausible (Nicholadis 2003: 39). The complexity of noun-noun compounds results from a variety of types of combination of concepts (Huang 2008). However, the combination of concepts is not arbitrary but it actually follows certain 1.

(11) modes (Downing 1977, Levi 1978, Shoben 1991). To be able to interpret novel compounds, one must understand not only the distinction between heads and modifiers, but also the possible types of subcategorizations, i.e. the possible thematic relations between heads and modifiers. What makes it difficult for children to learn how to infer relations is that there are many possible relations (e.g. a chocolate muffin is a muffin that HAS chocolate in it, a mailbox is a box FOR mail, and a cardboard box is a box that is MADE OF cardboard). In addition, a compound can have several likely interpretations (e.g. a chocolate bowl can be a bowl FOR chocolate, a bowl MADE OF chocolate and a bowl that looks LIKE chocolate because of its color). Consequently, children must learn how to choose the correct or most likely relation for the compound. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to understand the types of strategies children may employ in interpreting noun-noun compounds, the developmental pattern of children’s interpretation of Chinese noun-noun compounds, and the reasons for children’s strategy use in interpreting noun-noun compounds.. 1.2 Theoretical Background As mentioned earlier, to be able to interpret novel compounds, one must understand the possible thematic relations between heads and modifiers. Gagné & Shoben (1997) proposed the CARIN Theory, or the Competition among Relations in Nominals Theory, which states that a reasonable relation will be selected to connect the modifier and head noun. For example, book magazine could be interpreted as “a magazine that reviews books,” in which the meaning of book and magazine does not undergo any change. From the perspective of the CARIN Theory, the comprehension of a compound noun always begins with the selection of a proper thematic relation. Gagné and Shoben argue that “relations may function during conceptual combination, 2.

(12) much like syntactic structures function during sentence processing (1997: 72).” Fifteen relation types are applied in this theory. Given the diversity of relations to be chosen, the most plausible one is picked out after considering all possibilities. This process is like a competition among relation choices.. Table 1-1 Relation Types between Constituents within Compounds (Gagné & Shoben 1997: 72) Relation Types. Examples. 1. noun causes modifier. flu virus. 2. modifier causes noun. college headache. 3. noun has modifier. picture book. 4. modifier has noun. lemon peel. 5. noun makes modifier. milk cow. 6. noun made of modifier. chocolate bird. 7. noun for modifier. cooking toy. 8. modifier is noun. dessert food. 9. noun uses modifier. gas antiques. 10. noun about modifier. mountain magazine. 11. noun located modifier. mountain cloud. 12. noun used by modifier. servant language. 13. modifier located noun. murder town. 14. noun derived from modifier. oil money. 15. noun during modifier. summer cloud. 1.3 Research Questions The research questions of the present study are as follows: 1) Do our children take N1-preference or N2-preference reading in Chinese noun-noun compounds? 2) How does the animacy of modifier or head influence the subjects’ performances? 3) Do different tasks elicit different experimental results? 3.

(13) 4) What is the growing pattern for all age groups?. 1.4 Significance of the Study Children’s acquisition of compounds has long been investigated (Nicoladis 2003, Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback 2005, Krott & Nicoladis 2005, Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis 2009). Studies on the acquisition of noun-noun compounds have indicated a possible onset of using noun-noun compounds and some developmental patterns of children’s compound use (Nicoladis 2003, Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback 2005), but no studies to date have been found to probe into the issue of Chinese-speaking children’s noun-noun compound interpretation. Some research on L1 acquisition of noun-noun compounds in English has been done (Nicoladis 2003, Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback 2005, Krott & Nicoladis 2005, Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis 2009), but there has not been any research on L1 acquisition in Mandarin Chinese yet. Thus, the research questions addressed in the present study can shed new light on the comparatively unknown area of Chinese children’s comprehension and production of noun-noun compounds. Furthermore, compounding is an important process in creating new words or phrases, that is, the lexicon of the target language. Therefore, by investigating this part, we can provide a picture of Mandarin-speaking children’s innovative ability to produce new words.. 1.5 Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter Two reviews several previous studies on Chinese noun-noun compounds, classifications of noun-noun compounds, and the acquisition of noun-noun compounds in English. Chapter Three introduces the research design of the present study. Chapter Four presents the results and discussion. Finally, the major findings are summarized in Chapter Five. 4.

(14) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, we will review some previous studies on Chinese noun-noun compounds and introduce a new classification of noun-noun compounds in Mandarin. In addition, some empirical L1 acquisition studies of noun-noun compounds will be explored. Section 2.1 reviews three studies on noun-noun compounds in Chinese. In Section 2.2, some previous empirical studies on noun-noun compounds in L1 acquisition will be reviewed. As for Section 2.3, a new classification of noun-noun compound comprehension strategies in Chinese will be introduced. Finally, the main points of this chapter are summarized in Section 2.4.. 2.1 Previous Studies of Mandarin Noun-Noun Compounds In the previous literature, relatively little research focuses on Chinese noun-noun compounds. Theoretically, Li & Thompson’s research (1981) is probably the earliest study on noun-noun compound relations in Chinese. Empirically, researchers such as Xiong (1998) and Huang (2008) investigated Chinese noun-noun compounds with different viewpoints. These previous studies will be reviewed in the following subsections.. 2.1.1 Li & Thompson (1981) To uncover the same set of relations that may hold for all languages utilizing productive noun-noun (N-N) compounds, Li & Thompson (1981) propose twenty-one classes (i.e., Class (i) to Class (xxi)) of prevalent semantic relations between N-N compounds, as shown in Tables 2-1 to 2-3, where N1 stands for the first noun of the compound, while N2 stands for the second. For the sake of discussion, the order of 5.

(15) these classes will be rearranged as follows. There are relation classes that describe the relation using a sentence starting with N1, which are called N1-Relations as shown in Table 2-1. Similarly, N2-Relations and N1 & N2-Relations as listed in Tables 2-2~2-3, respectively. In Table 2-1, Classes (i) and (ii) are similar since N1 of these two classes denotes a place, as in (1) and (2). Chuang ‘bed’ and chun ‘lip’ are places where dan ‘sheet’ and gau ‘ointment’ are put on. In (3)~(6), spring, electric, a ghost, and Beijing denote the time, the source, a metaphorical description, and a proper name, respectively. We should notice that Class (xvi) is similar to “a partial concept shift,” where the concept of N1 is partially shifted:. 6.

(16) Table 2-11 N1- Relations Class. Example. (i) N1 denotes the place where N2 is located. (1) chuang-dan(zi) bed sheet ‘bed sheet’. (ii) N1 denotes the place. (2) chun-gao. where N2 is applied (xiv) N1 denotes the time for N2. lip ointment ‘lipstick’ (3) chun-tian spring day ‘spring’. (xv) N1 is the source of energy of N2. (4) dian-deng electric lamp ‘electric lamp’. (xvi) N1 is a metaphorical description of N2. (5) gui-liang ghost face ‘ghost face’. (xx) N1 denotes a proper name for N2, which may be a location, an organization,. (6) Beijing-daxue Beijing university ‘Peking University’. an institution, or a structure Table 2-2 lists 14 of the 21 classes. Examples (7)~(9) are for Classes (iii), (vii), and (xi). In (7), qiang-dan ‘gun bullet’ means a bullet is used for a gun; in (8), you-ji ‘oil-stain’ means the stain is caused by oil; furthermore, example (9) dalishi-diban ‘marble-floor’ is the floor made of marble. In addition to the three classes mentioned, there are 11 more classes. However, examples of these 11 classes can also be categorized into Classes (iii), (vii) or (xi). For example, (10) yu-mao ‘rain-hat’ can be Class (vi), but it can also be reclassified as “a hat used for rain,” which is Class (iii):. 1. Examples listed in Tables 2-1 to 2-3 are all taken from Li & Thompson (1981, pp. 45-53). 7.

(17) Table 2-2 N2-Relations Class. Example. (iii) N2 is used for N1. (7) qiang-dan gun bullet ‘bullet’. (vii) N2 is caused by N1. (8) you-ji oil stain ‘oil stain’. (xi) N2 is made of N1. (9) dalishi-diban marble floor ‘marble floor’. (vi) N2 denotes a protective device against N1 (v) N2 denotes a piece of equipment used in a sport, N1. (10) yu-mao rain hat ‘rain hat’ (11) pingpang-qiu ping-pong ball ‘table tennis’. (viii) N2 denotes a container for N1. (12) shu-bao book. container. ‘satchel’ (xiii) N2 denotes a disease of N1. (13) fei-bing lung disease ‘tuberculosis’. (xii) N2 denotes a place where (14) fan-guan N1 is sold. food tavern ‘restaurant’. (xix) N2 is an employee or an officer of N1. (15) daxue-xiaozhang university principal ‘university president’. 8.

(18) (xxi) N2 denotes a person who sells or delivers N1. (16) yan-shang salt merchant ‘salt-merchant’. (x) N2 denotes a product of N1. (17) feng-mi bee honey ‘honey’. (xviii) N2 is a source of N1. (18) you-jing oil. well. ‘oil well’ (iv) N2 denotes a unit of N1. (19) tie-yuanzi iron atom ‘iron atom’. (xvii) N2 is a component of N1. (20) qiche-lunzi car wheel ‘automobile wheel’. Table 2-3 shows N1 and N2 in a noun-noun compound can be parallel, as in Class (ix). As (21) shows, there is no interaction between hua ‘lower’ and mu ‘tree,’ since the whole meaning of ‘vegetation’ comes from both nouns, which are of equal importance.. 9.

(19) Table 2-3 N1 & N2-Relation Class. Example. (ix) N1 and N2 are parallel. (21) hua-mu flower tree ‘vegetation’. The important thing to note here is that the compounding process of linking the two nouns together is productive and creative. These twenty-one semantic relations between the two components of the compound help us understand the noun-noun compounds more commonly used in daily life. However, there are still some shortcomings of this theoretical study. Firstly, as Li & Thompson (1981) point out by themselves, the 21 classes of relations can by no means constitute an exhaustive categorization. Secondly, the functions of these 21 classes may overlap one another. For example, as listed in Table 2-2, examples of these 11 classes can also be categorized into Classes (iii), (vii) or (xi), as mentioned earlier. In this way, (10)~(16) can also be put under Class (iii). On the other hand, (17)~(18) can be put under Class (vii) and (19)~(20) under Class (xi), too. Finally, as pointed out by Li & Thompson (1981), some compounds are highly idiomatic in the sense that the meanings of the compounds are not closely related to the meanings of the component nouns. However, their classification does not include these idiomatic compounds, hence failing to provide a complete explanation for Mandarin noun-noun compounds.. 2.1.2 Xiong (1998) Xiong (1998) investigated the strategies native speakers used to create and to. 10.

(20) interpret novel noun-noun compounds2. In her experiment, Xiong examined 100 subjects’ responses to 20 Chinese noun-noun compounds in the questionnaire to see how they interpreted them. The subjects of her study were randomly selected college students and they were asked to define the novel compounds. For each compound, one question and four options were provided: (a), (b), (c), and (d), as illustrated below in Table 2-4.. Table 2-4 An Example of a Question in Xiong’s Questionnaire ( ) 1. gangtie che ‘iron car’ (a) yunsong gangtie de chezi ‘a car used for carrying iron’ (b) yi gangtie wei tsailiao zhizhao er cheng de chezi ‘a car made of iron’ (c) yi gangtie zuowei ranliao de chezi ‘a car that uses iron as its fuel’. (d) other_____________________. In order to avoid being interfered by the possible options3, of each compound, the subjects were asked to cover up the possible options with a piece of paper when they answered each question. After they had a definition in mind, they examined the possible options and chose the option closest in meaning to what they thought. If they could not choose an appropriate answer from options (a)~(c), they must choose option (d), and write down their own definition. Xiong (1998: 144-151) concluded the following four major strategies used by the subjects when they interpreted noun-noun compounds: 2. In fact, there are two research questions in Xiong’s study: (i) to analyze the semantic relations. between the two nouns in noun-noun compounds, and (ii) to discover what strategies a native speaker uses to create and to interpret novel noun-noun compounds. I will not discuss the first research question since it is not directly related to the present study. 3. The term “possible options” is named “candidate choices” in Xiong’s study. 11.

(21) First, they tended to use linguistic templates and semantic information to connect two constituents on the basis of relational modes found in other common compounds, as in (22), which is an example corresponding to the existing compound, mugua-niunai “papaya-milk= papaya milk.” (22) yiezi-ya coconut duck ‘coconut duck’ Second, they might use accommodation to convey the concept that either of the two constituents is accommodated to reach a plausible explanation. An example of this is (23), where the compound noun “music box,” as Xiong claimed, tends to be interpreted as “a box that contains a certain substance”. (23) yinyue-he music box ‘music box’ Third, they might also use a metaphor to transfer one salient property of the modifier to the head noun. (24) koudai-shu pocket book ‘small book’ As for (24), one of the modifier’s traits “small” is mapped to the head noun and thus the modifier noun functions as an adjective. This strategy is similar to “partial concept shift,” which we have mentioned earlier. Last, they might infer an existing object to associate a novel compound with a similar and relevant referent that has already been known. (25) shizhong-deng clock lamp 12.

(22) ‘clock lamp’ This example is explained as “a clock on which there is a light,” which is not aroused by linguistic templates. Xiong (1998) attributed this interpretation to the recalling of another object used in daily life – a luminous watch, and classified this example under the fourth strategy. However, not all four strategies Xiong mentioned are satisfactory. For example, with regard to yinyue he ‘a music box,’ an example of the second strategy, her definition that “a substance-like thing that can be put in a box” differs from most people’s intuition. Normally most people will consider “a music box” to be “a box that plays music.” Furthermore, only one questionnaire was used in her study, which might not be able to elicit all the information needed; no interview or any production tasks were included; consequently, with the shortcomings above, it may not be possible to find more than four strategies.. 2.1.3 Huang (2008) Huang (2008) tried to find out the major strategies in comprehending Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds. Her research goals were (i) to analyze the plausibility of the CARIN Theory and the Dual-process Theory, (ii) to investigate the preferable strategy in figuring out Mandarin Chinese compounds with the same category as constituents, (iii) to explore the preferable strategy in interpreting left-headed compounds, and (iv) to examine whether there is a correlation between the preferable comprehending strategy and the structure of compounds. Huang collected the data through a noun-noun compound interpretation task and recruited 232 high school students from the same school as subjects. In her experiment, Huang asked her subjects to interpret test items composed of novel noun-noun compounds containing animals, plants, and artifacts as constituents. 13.

(23) Compounds of the following nine types served as test items: animal-animal, animal-artifact, animal-plant, plant-animal, plant-artifact, plant-plant, artifact-animal, artifact-artifact, and artifact-plant. Twelve test items were designed for each compounding type. Thus, there were 108 test items in total. In order to prevent her subjects from being unable to complete the 108 test items within one hour, Huang evenly distributed these 108 items in 4 questionnaires. Each questionnaire had 27 items, which included nine types, each of which had 3 examples. The 232 subjects were also randomly divided into 4 groups. Consequently, every questionnaire with 27 items was distributed to 58 subjects.. Table 2-5 Huang’s (2008) Test Items Formed by the Nine Combination Types Combination Types. Examples of Test Items. Animal-animal. (26) xiangshe ‘elephant-snake’. Animal-artifact. (27) xiangciou ‘elephant-ball’. Animal-plant. (28) xianghua ‘elephant-flower’. Plant-animal. (29) mushe ‘wood-snake’. Plant-artifact. (30) mudeng ‘wood-light’. Plant-plant. (31) muhua ‘wood-flower’. Artifact-animal. (32) beishe ‘cup-snake’. Artifact-artifact. (33) beideng ‘cup-light’. Artifact-plant. (34) beimu ‘cup-wood’. The results were examined by comparing the proportion of the application of the comprehending strategies to find out the major strategies. To verify whether there was a significant difference in the frequency of use of comprehending strategies among 14.

(24) the compounds of different types, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to further compare the variation.. Table 2-6 Frequency of Use of Property-Mapping and Relation-linking among Compounds with Different Structures Combination Types. Property Mapping. Relation Linking. (Right head). (Right head). Animal-animal. 12.3%. 4.7%. Animal-artifact. 13.7%. 14%. Animal-plant. 10.7%. 11.4%. Plant-animal. 11.4%. 13.5%. Plant-artifact. 9.2%. 16.5%. Plant-plant. 9.0%. 10.6%. Artifact-animal. 11.8%. 8.8%. Artifact-artifact. 10.7%. 11.5%. Artifact-plant. 11.2%. 9.0%. Total. 100%. 100%. Some findings of Huang (2008) are as follows: (i) Both relation linking (whole concept shift) and property mapping (partial concept shift) were of importance in the comprehension of Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds. (ii) There was no correlation between the application of property-mapping strategies and the types of compounds. However, there was a correlation between the application of relation-linking strategies and the types of compounds. All of the examinations supported the Dual-process Theory and rejected the CARIN Theory. That is, relation 15.

(25) linking was not the only major strategy in comprehending compounds. Instead, both relation linking and property mapping were of significance in the perception of Mandarin Chinese noun-noun compounds for the subjects. However, there are still some shortcomings of Huang’s (2008) research. For example, nouns are composed of a wide range of entries, but she did not explain why only three categories---animals, plants, and artifacts--- were chosen in her study. In addition, her data were collected from a noun-noun compound comprehension task. Since no production task was conducted, whether Chinese children know how to use noun-noun compounds remains unknown.. 2.1.4 Summary The studies on Chinese noun-noun compounds reviewed in this section have provided some interesting findings. The previous researchers have classified noun-noun compound comprehending strategies in Mandarin Chinese. Li & Thompson (1981) proposed a list of 21 common semantic relations between the modifier and the head of a noun-noun compound. Xiong (1998), instead of listing the noun-noun compound types, provided four general strategies to interpret the compounds. Unlike the two previous studies, Huang (2008) divided all these relations into two major parts: the relation-linking strategy and the property-mapping strategy. Both Xiong (1998) and Huang (2008) provided three types of constituents in a compound: animal, plant, and artifact. However, their classification is too narrow to demonstrate a general rule governing the interpretation or use of novel noun-noun compounds. Therefore, in the present study, we will reclassify the types into two (i.e., [+animate] and [- animate]). Since animals are apt to move and be active, we regard it as [+animate], while the rest are considered [-animate]. The reason for this is to see whether animacy will affect the way Chinese children comprehend novel compounds. 16.

(26) 2.2 Previous Empirical Studies of Noun-noun Compounds in L1 Acquisition This section reviews some previous studies on the comprehension of noun-noun compounds in L1 acquisition in English. Although no study has been found to investigate Chinese children's compound comprehension, how children learn and produce compounds in other languages may be a good reference for the present study.. 2.2.1 Nicoladis (2003) Nicoladis (2003) tried to find the time when children start to know that compound nouns refer to two objects, one ideally interacting with the other. The purpose of this study is to ask whether children know that noun-noun compounds are likely to denote interacting things. To assess children’s knowledge, both a production task and a comprehension task were employed. Thirty-five English-speaking three- and four-year-old children participated in this study. The participants were all monolingual English-speaking children who lived in the area of Edm onton, Alberta, Canada. They were further divided into two groups according to their ages. The first group (the three-year-olds) included 17 children with an average age of 42.9 months (SD = 3.7, range = 37–48). The second group (the four-year-olds) consisted of 18 children with an average age of 54.9 months (SD = 3.1, range = 49–59). In the production task, children were asked to provide novel names for interacting objects. The production task was administered on a portable computer. The children were asked to look at one picture of multiple things, then another picture of multiple things, and finally to name the third picture (a combination of the previous two pictures). For example, they were shown a picture of cherries and then a picture of bowls and asked to name a picture of cherries in a bowl. The 10 test items were 17.

(27) chosen on the basis of a pilot test with English-speaking adults; the adults always named all the items with compound nouns. To encourage the participants to create compounds, three practice items were given; they were named by the testers. The practice items were guitar bow (a bow on a guitar), present horse (a present on a horse), and clock balloon (a clock on a balloon). The target test items were mice houses, teeth cups, feet rings, cherry bowls, dog stores, animal truck, eye plants, flower chairs, butterfly pillows, and fish shoes. The three practice items were presented in random order, although always before the test items. The test items were also presented in random order. For each test item, the two named pictures were presented in random order. In the comprehension task, the children were required to pick between two non-interacting objects and two interacting objects as the referent for novel compounds (as well as two distractor items). This was a test for whether the children understood that compounds usually refer to interacting objects. The compound production task contained only semi-inherently related objects, that is interacting objects, such as flowers decorating chairs. The compound comprehension task was also administered on a portable computer. The children were shown an array of the different pictures, separated by lines. All the pictures included in the comprehension task were different from those in the production task. The pictures depicted each thing alone, the things combined in some way and the things next to each other. For example, for the target item ‘‘a rabbit car,’’ the pictures were of a rabbit, a car, a car next to rabbit, and a car with rabbit ears and tail. For each array, every effort was made to equate the pictures on size and color. The results showed that the three-year-olds and the four-year-olds were equally likely to produce compounds to name two interacting objects. However, the three-year-olds were less likely than the four-year olds to understand that a compound 18.

(28) referred necessarily to two objects. These results demonstrate that children’s knowledge of the meaning of compound nouns is still developing in the preschool years. There is some evidence pointing to development in production of novel compounds between the ages of three and four years. While three- and four-year-old children were equally likely to produce compound nouns for interacting objects, there were age differences in comprehension. The present results indicate that the children’s production reflected a better knowledge of what compounds mean in English than their comprehension.. 2.2.2 Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback (2005) Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback (2005) investigated issues in early school children’s use of the similarity between a head and a modifier in deriving interpretations for novel noun–noun compounds. The subjects were divided into three groups: 30 kindergartners (mean age = 6 years 3 months, SD = 3 months, range = 5 years 9 months to 7 years 0 months), 27 second graders (mean age = 9 years 1 month, SD = 4 months, range = 8 years 7 months to 9 years 10 months), and 26 adult undergraduate college students. Another 13 adults from introductory psychology classes rated the similarity of the head and the modifier used as conceptual combination stimuli in this study. All stimuli used in this study were sampled from compounds used by the Gagné and Shoben (1997) and Wisniewski (1996) studies of adult noun–noun compounds. Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback (2005) examined the stimuli used in these two studies and selected noun–noun compounds with relatively simple vocabulary that were likely to require novel interpretations. A total of 35 conceptual combinations were used, 31 of which were the focus of the study. Another 4 nonsense combinations 19.

(29) viewed as uninterpretable by Gagné and Shoben were also included. These nonsense items served merely to provide an opportunity for all the participants to deem some items as uninterpretable. A group of 13 college students were asked to rate the conceptual combinations presented as word pairs according to the similarity of the combinations on a 7-point scale. We wanted to focus on the situation where the combination did not directly point to specific, previously known exemplars in the child’s knowledge base. In a few cases, the vocabulary used in the earlier studies was modified slightly by substituting a semantically similar but simpler head noun. This was meant only to simplify the vocabulary for the child participants. The constituent words from the targeted combinations could be found in a second-grade child language corpus (Zeno, Ivens, Millard, & Duvvuri 1995). Furthermore, a pilot study with seven children who were one year younger than the kindergartners used in this study suggested that the children would generally have little difficulty in understanding the words used in the combinations. A total of 35 conceptual combinations were used, 31 of which were the focus of the study. Of these 35 combinations, 16 were selected from Wisniewski (1996) to serve as similar combinations and 15 were selected from Gagné and Shoben (1997) to serve as dissimilar. combinations.. Another. four. nonsense. combinations. viewed. as. uninterpretable by Gagné and Shoben were also included. These nonsense items served merely to provide an opportunity for all the participants to deem some items as uninterpretable. The items selected for this experiment were as follows:. 20.

(30) Table 2-7 Conceptual Combinations Used by Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback (Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback 2005, p.85) Similar. Dissimilar. Nonsense. Apartment hotel. Chocolate bird. Cardboard lotion. Apple pear. Flu pills. Pudding lamp. Bed couch. Mountain cloud. Vacuum butter. Book magazine. Party dance. Vegetable pains. Bus truck. Plastic ladder. Coat shirt. Water money. Coffee tea. Winter town. Cow horse. Nose sound. Cup bowl. Air power. Dancer musician. Birth rash. Fork spoon. College headache. Igloo tent. Home light. Motorcycle bicycle. Honey soup. Mouse squirrel. Lemon plant. Painter photographer. Milk germ. Stool chair. The children were interviewed in quiet spaces in their schools, and their interpretations were tape-recorded. Each combination was presented in the following series of frame prompts.. 21.

(31) (35) “What’s a __________?” (36) “What would it be like?” The compounds were presented to the children in random order. The entire session lasted approximately 20 minutes. The three authors coded all the participants’ interpretations independently into one of the following five types: (i). Relational interpretations These involved a relational linking between the two constituent objects in. which the meaning of each word was left relatively intact. In their study, an interpretation was coded as relational if the participant set up a temporary relation between the head and the modifier or set up a relation between words via a predicate phrase or a hidden link between concepts. (ii) Property interpretations These involved a property or part of the modifier being carried over onto the head. In their study, an interpretation was coded as property if the participant set up a “looks like” or “made of” relation between the head and the modifier, the head was said to be “like” the modifier or vice versa, the interpretation presented parts of the modifier stuck onto the head or vice versa, or the interpretation brought an emergent meaning to mind. (iii) Hybrid interpretations These involved a combination of the two constituent nouns in which the properties of neither object were dominant. In their study, an interpretation was coded as hybrid if the participant’s interpretation described a conjunction of both words (e.g., “half head and half modifier,” “both head and modifier”), or the unique properties of the head and modifier were mentioned but properties of neither were dominant. These three expected interpretation codes, however, did not capture all of the interpretations the researchers received, particularly from child participants. 22.

(32) Because of this, they added two other interpretation codes to the coding scheme. (iv) Exemplar naming In these cases, the participants’ interpretation explicitly mentioned a non-novel exemplar that captured the combination. The following were two examples used in the task: (37)Coat shirt: “jacket” (38)Fork spoon: “spork” (v)Noncombination In these cases, the participants’ interpretation did not represent a conceptual combination of the two words. This interpretation type included instances where the participants described only one of the two terms or described both terms independently, described only attributes that both words have in common, connected each term only through “and” or a side-by-side unconnected status, stating that he or she did not know what the combination of the two constituent words would be like, or provided a completely anomalous and nonsensical interpretation for the combination. The following were two examples used in the task: (39)Book magazine: “a big magazine and a little book” (40)Apple pear: “red” After observing the results, the children seemed to be able to make both property and relational interpretations for noun–noun conceptual combinations. The children, like the adults, appeared to be sensitive to similarity as a cue in the formation of interpretations for conceptual combinations. The children, like the adults, were more likely to provide relational interpretations for dissimilar combinations than for similar ones. Furthermore, the children were more likely to provide property interpretations for similar combinations than for dissimilar ones. The children did differ from the adults, however, in that they made fewer property interpretations and failed to actually 23.

(33) combine the meanings of words more often, producing more non-combinations than the adults did. The children seemed to have some difficulty in formulating the property. interpretations. for. similar. combinations,. differentially. supplying. noncombinational interpretations.. 2.2.3 Krott & Nicoladis (2005) In this paper, Krott & Nicoladis (2005) examined whether family size would affect children’s segmentation of compounds. Twenty-five English-speaking children between 3;7 and 5;9 were asked to explain the meaning of existing compounds with constituents of varying family size to an alien puppet. As just mentioned, twenty-five English-speaking children took part in this study. Two children were excluded from the sample because they were bilingual and another one had to be left out because information about her knowledge of compounds was not available. Therefore, the analyses were based on 22 children aged 3;7 to 5;9. In the experiment, the children were introduced to a puppet named Mork by a native speaker of English. The researcher told the children that Mork came from another planet, who did not speak English very well and was interested in why some words were used. She provided the example of ‘blueberries,’ saying‘We say blueberries because they are berries that are blue.’ Krott & Nicoladis (2005) decided not to use a noun–noun compound as an example so that it was not possible for the children to repeat the semantic relation of the example compound for all experimental compounds. The purpose of the example was rather to show that a compound could be split up into two parts that were related to each other. The experimenter asked the children to explain to Mork 25 noun–noun compound words, the components of which had either high family size or low family size (see Table 2-8).. 24.

(34) Table 2-8 Stimuli by Family Size (High or Low) of Modifiers and Heads (Krott & Nicoladis 2005, p. 144) High-High. High-Low. Low-High. Low-Low. Baby book. Apple core. Cardboard box. Apron strings. Car door. Bookshelf. Crayon box. Breakfast cereal. Cheese sandwich. Paper napkin. Grapefruit juice. Duck rash. Chocolate cake. Snow fort. Hospital bed. Peanut butter. Cornbread. Water pistol. Popsicle stick. Power tools. Fruit basket. Waterslide. Roof rack. Stepladder. The experimenter elicited the children’s explanations by having Mork ask ‘Why do we say ——? ’ about each item in Table 2-8. The children’s responses were tape-recorded and all speech relevant to the task was transcribed. Because the number of compounds that the preschool children knew was rather small and most of the compounds they knew did not have a large family, the set of possible experimental items was restricted. Furthermore, Krott & Nicoladis (2005) wanted to restrict the compounds they selected to those in which each constituent played a transparent role in the meaning and each constituent was a concrete word the children might know. Note that there were equal numbers for each category except for the low-family-size modifier category and the low-family-size head category. Krott & Nicoladis (2005) included an extra item here because they were concerned that the children might not know the constituents of these compounds. Four items contained a 25.

(35) compound word as the modifier (e.g. breakfast cereal and grapefruit juice). All of these compounds, though, were semantically opaque. Krott & Nicoladis (2005) included them because even the adults did not always see the underlying structure of opaque compounds (Elliot 1997). To determine the modifier families and head families of the target compounds, Krott & Nicoladis (2005) first gathered all noun–noun compounds available in the CELEX lexical database (Baayen, Piepenbrock & Gulikers, 1995). The database was constructed from adult language, so Krott & Nicoladis (2005) modified the compound list only to include compounds children were likely to hear. Two native English speakers, both trained in psycholinguistics and with extensive experience with children, went through the database, adding and deleting words according to what they thought children might know. The analyses of Krott & Nicoladis’ (2005) experiment showed that their subjects were more likely to mention modifiers of compounds with large family sizes than small family sizes. This was true, independent of whether or not the children knew the compounds. There was no difference between the four-year-olds and the five-year-olds, implying that the modifier families were active as soon as they existed. In contrast to modifiers, the scores for heads showed a less robust effect on the family size. That is, the family size effect was more evident for unknown compounds than for known compounds. The results showed that the children were more likely to mention the modifier of compounds if they came from large constituent families than from small constituent families. Other variables were also shown to have some, but smaller effects on the children’s parsing, including the frequency of the constituent words and the compounds, whether the compounds were already known, and age. Taken together, these studies rather showed an effect of the modifier than of the head. This might be 26.

(36) due to the way compounds are processed, with the modifier playing a relatively more important role than the head. 2.2.4 Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis (2009) Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis (2009) investigated various ways in which frequency might affect children’s selection of thematic relations for novel noun–noun compounds. Twenty-seven monolingual British-English-speaking children (age range 4;9 to 5;8, mean 5;4, SD 0;3) took part in the experiment. Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis (2009) constructed thirty novel noun–noun compounds using constituents that they expected children to know. Novel compounds can be interpreted in various ways and constituent families support these interpretations to different degrees. In order to investigate whether the family support has an effect, they made one likely interpretation for each compound against which they could compare the participants’ (both adults’ and children’s) responses. They determined likely interpretations for the compounds by presenting the adult participants with a randomized list of thirty compounds and asking them to write down their interpretations. The relations that dominated their responses were selected as the most likely interpretation. Choosing the adults’ preferred relations as the comparison relations also allowed them to directly compare the children’s and adults’ interpretations. The next step was to determine the support that the dominant relations receive from the modifier and head families. The experimental compounds were constructed with varying head family and modifier family support in the child compound list because they were interested in the effect of modifier and head families on children’s interpretations. One third of the compounds had a dominant modifier–head relation that was supported by both a bias of the modifier family in the database (mean number of supporting family members 6.0, SD 1.6) and a bias of the head family in the database (mean number of 27.

(37) supporting family members 8.5, SD 5.4) (condition High–High). Another third (condition Low–High) had a dominant relation that was supported by only a bias of the head family (modifier family: 1.0, SD 1.7; head family: 10.0, SD 4.0) and the remaining third (condition High–Low) had a dominant relation that was supported only by a bias of the modifier family (modifier family: 6.6, SD 1.4; head family: 0.4, SD 0.7). Note that there was no condition like Low–Low because it was very difficult to construct easily interpretable compounds that did not have any support of the modifier or head families. The subjects were tested individually and the experimenter asked them to explain the meaning of the experimental compound words. The children were asked what bear trousers were and corrected the child if he/she did not give a response that explained the relation between the head and the modifier (e.g. ‘trousers for bears’). The experimental compounds were presented to each child in random order. For each compound, the experimenter asked ‘What does X mean?’ If a child did not respond with an explanation for the meaning of the compound, the same question was repeated later. As mentioned, the adults were tested with a written version of the task, i.e, they were given instructions and the two examples above in writing and asked to write down their interpretations. Both the children’s and adults’ interpretations were coded by two native English speakers and one fluent English speaker. The agreement among the three coders for the children’s responses was 71% (Fleiss’ K=0.68, p<0.001), for the adults’ responses it was 86% (Fleiss’ K=87.1, p<0.001). The codes for the remaining responses were decided by taking the majority code (15% of all the child responses and 13% of all the adult responses) or by discussion. Of all the child responses, 39.7% were dominant interpretations, i.e., interpretations that were preferred by the adults in the adult pretest of the materials. In 28.

(38) 18.5% of the responses the children reversed the roles of the modifier and head in their explanations (e.g. ‘an animal what has got a helmet on’ for an animal helmet or ‘it’s cheese and I think it is made out of fish’ for cheese fish), showing that even the five-year-olds still had some difficulties distinguishing between the head and the modifier when exposed to novel compounds. Some of their findings are as follows: (1) when interpreting novel compounds, both the children and the adults responded with highly frequent relations within compound families; (2) the children and the adults relied on families related to different constituents; (3) in addition to using the most frequent thematic relation of a family, the children had a strong tendency for HAS or LOCATED.. 2.2.5 Summary The related issues in children’s comprehension and production of noun-noun compounds have been reviewed in this section. Table 2-9 is a brief summary of these previous studies.. 29.

(39) Table 2-9 Major Findings and Limitations of the Previous Studies Major Findings Nicoladis (2003). 1. The younger children were less. Limitations Subjects: only two age. likely to understand that a. groups with no native. compound referred to two. controls. objects. 2. There were age differences in comprehending and producing compound nouns. Parault,. The children had difficulty in. 1. Subjects: subjects not. Schwanenflugel. selecting and integrating. grouped by specific age. & Haverback. properties of the modifier onto the. but roughly grouped into. (2005). head, a process required by. kindergarten children,. property interpretations.. second-graders, and adults 2. Task: only a novel conceptual combination interpretation task. Krott &. The children were more likely to. 1. Subjects: only two age. Nicoladis. mention the modifier of a. groups with a group of. (2005). noun-noun compound with large. native controls. than with small family sizes.. 2. Task: only a production task. 30.

(40) Krott, Gagné &. 1. The children and the adults used. 1. Subjects: only two age. Nicoladis. similar but different strategies to. groups with a group of. (2009). interpret compounds.. native controls. 2. Only the children’s interpretations revealed an overuse of visually. 2. Task: only a production task. perceivable relations.. In the above studies, we can see that there were age differences in the production of noun-noun compounds. On the other hand, we have also found the inadequacy of the subject numbers (Nicoladis 2003, Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback 2005, Krott & Nicoladis 2005, Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis 2009). In addition, almost all the studies employed only a production task. To supplement this, we will include a comprehension task in our experiment.. 2.3 Summary of Chapter Two Several issues in Chinese noun-noun compound interpretation, L1 acquisition of noun-noun compounds in other languages, and types of noun-noun compound relations in Mandarin have been reviewed in this chapter. The three studies on Chinese noun-noun compounds reviewed have demonstrated that adults’ interpretation of noun-noun compounds may depend on certain and existing relations. Furthermore, studies on L1 acquisition of noun-noun compounds have indicated that children to some degree were more likely to mention the modifier of a noun-noun compound with large family sizes than with small family sizes. In addition, studies have shown that the three-year-olds and the four-year-olds were equally likely to produce compounds to name two interacting objects. However, the three-year-olds 31.

(41) were less likely than the four-year-olds to understand that a compound referred necessarily to two objects.. 32.

(42) CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN. This chapter presents the research design of the present study. Section 3.1 describes the participating subjects. Section 3.2 introduces the methods and materials adopted in the present study. The experimental procedures are exemplified in Section 3.3. In the end, this chapter is summarized in Section 3.4.. 3.1 Subjects One hundred and twenty subjects participated in the present study. They were further divided into 6 age groups. Each group consisted of twenty subjects (10 males, 10 females). We started from Age 4 since the previous L1 literature (Nicoladis 2003, Parault, Schwanenflugel & Haverback 2005, Krott & Nicoladis 2005, Krott, Gagné & Nicoladis 2009) have reported Age 4 or older a good start to acquire noun-noun compounds. The children of Groups 1-2 were preschoolers of one kindergarten in Da-an District of Taipei City, and those in Groups 3-5 were first, second, and third graders of an elementary school in Wenshan District of Taipei City. In addition, a group of native Chinese controls participated in the experiment. The control group consisted of twenty adults. A summary of the subjects is shown in Table 3-1:. 33.

(43) Table 3-1 A Summary of the Subjects Group. Number. Age range. 1 (4-year-olds). 20 (10 males, 10 females). 3;6~4;5. 2 (5-year-olds). 20 (10 males, 10 females). 4;7~5;4. 3 (6-year-olds). 20 (10 males, 10 females). 5;6~6;3. 4 (7-year-olds). 20 (10 males, 10 females). 6;6~7;5. 5 (8-year-olds). 20 (10 males, 10 females). 7;8~8;4. Control. 20 (10 males, 10 females). 20;5~28;7. Total. 120. The children were randomly selected by the teachers of the kindergarten and the elementary school to participate in the experiment. The control group were mostly undergraduate or graduate students of National Taiwan Normal University in Taipei. The preschoolers attending the kindergartens spent five days a week in school. They usually participated in indoor activities, such as reading, drawing pictures, and playing with building blocks in the morning and outdoor activities in the afternoon. English and Taiwanese Southern Min classes were offered one hour per week. They use Mandarin to communicate with each other in the kindergarten. The children in the elementary school also attended school from Monday to Friday. All of them arrived at school around 7:45 a.m. every weekday, and they usually left school at 12:00 p.m., except that some of them may attend extra classes and left in the afternoon on some of the weekdays. Although they speak Mandarin in school, they had two periods of English and one period of Taiwanese Southern Min per week. They also offered various courses such as mathematics, social science, and Mandarin Chinese. 34.