|
在语法部分，人良好的外观证明不一致的限定词的，无论数量，对于他们的学习影响不大。接下来判测试，我们不难发现，频繁模具的帮助下在嘈杂的环境下的人更有可能比正规化从控制那些输入。那么对于判断部分，其中有确定错位置的句子被所有限制，而那些从来没有听说过的参与者被评为比通常少的人低。在一般情况下，一个当时的现象是，随着越来越多的嘈杂限定词引起的，参加者将更有可能享受主要限定词份比小于通常的。
总而言之，试验清楚地表明，正规化，可以指导和成年人实现。然而，显著结果仅发生在那里的情况很多不安嘈杂的限定词，它激励着我们要强调另外两个因素显著。
首先，显著正规化可以是较不频繁的嘈杂限定词不为特色的自然语言现象不一致的人的结果。要解决这个问题，我们设计了实验2.其次，同样的现象是否也会发生儿童。更准确的说，什么孩子的程度和趋势，以规范不同于成人的投入。所有上述问题将在实验3进行调查。
主体：
为了获得有关这种正规化的解释和结论，三进行了实验。一些明确定义的目标提出了实验前，包括学生如何学习语言下的不一致或概率潮流的干扰，在什么时间，并为学习者获得异常的语言，经常和自然的，因为他们所学的那些，在再现的过程中什么原因，大人都完成regularizations之前实现不一致的复杂性和人物的倾向，相反，孩子们都没有。
在下文中，我将采取具体一眼就实验1，总结了详细的方法和主要结论，并尝试尽可能清楚地介绍了调查结果越好。
在实验1中，重点是，如果输入充满了复杂性比简单的人更正规化也被描述为成年人没有输入。调查的目的，一种人工语言的范例应用，然后参与者暴露于不一致异常输入不能预测，设有多替代，这种输入被识别为大于前者的更为复杂。
     As for grammar parts, persons’ good appearance demonstrate that no matter quantity of inconsistent determiners , there is little influence for their learning. Next to sentence tests, we can easily find that with the help of frequent molds, persons from noisy circumstances are more likely to regularize the input than that from control ones. Then for judgments parts, sentences which have wrong positions for determiner are hated by all, and those participants never heard are rated lower than the less usually ones. In general, a prevailing phenomenon is that with more and more noisy determiners arising, participants will be more likely to enjoy the main determiners parts than the less usually ones.
All in all, the experiment clearly indicated that regularization could be guided and achieved by adults. However , significant results only occurred in the circumstance where many noisy determiners disturbed, it inspired us to emphasize another two significant factors.
Firstly, the significant regularization may be the result of less frequent noisy determiners not for inconsistent ones featured natural language phenomenon. To resolve this ,we designed experiment 2. Secondly , whether the same phenomenon will also happened for children. More accurately, what the extent and trend for children to regularize the input different from adults. All the questions above will be investigated in experiment 3.
Body:
In order to get the explanation and conclusion about this kind of regularization, three experiments were carried out. Some clearly, defined targets are put forward before experiments, including how learners learn languages under disturbance of inconsistency or probabilistic trend, at what time and for what reasons learners get the abnormal language as regular and natural as their learned ones, in the process of reproducing, adults are tendency to realize the complexity and characters of inconsistence before accomplishing regularizations, contrary, children are not.
In the followings, I will take a specific glance on experiment 1, to summarize the methodology and main findings in detail and try to introduce the findings as clearly as possible.
In experiment 1, the focus is that if input filled with complexity is regularized more than the simple ones also described as absence input by adults. For the sake of investigation, an artificial language paradigm is applied, and then participants are exposed to abnormal input with inconsistency cannot be predicted, provided with much more alternatives, this kind of input is identified as more complex than former ones. e
The methodology is designed aimed for five different parts: participants, the language, presentation, experimental manipulation, tests. In the first place, participants are all adults and attendants from the same university, of course, they are paied for their devotion to the experiment. Secondly, what presented before the participants was languages formed by small basic words, combined with videotapes describing things and performence. Under the premise that, the sentences are able to meet the basic application for the realistic world, although the combination will be limited to the group of small words. Thirdly, there are 9 videotapes (including 1 for testing) provides languages that showed for participants. They are required to report again the sentence which are showed on the videotape. In order to ensure they accomplish the sentences on their own, they are informed it is only a test for pronunciation. Subsequently, there are many measures applied to make sure the equality of the experiment, such as match quantity of subjects, the same conditions designed for persons. Under these circumstances, the only difference is the appearance of determiners. Besides, there are 4 various tests for evaluation their actions. 2 vocabulary tests were given but few persons realized the second performance and record are equivalent to the first. One of the most interesting portions is completing the sentence. By the way, we could estimate the inconsistent portions like determiners. There is another assistant test to evaluate what a person knows about the use of determiners, called judgment task. Be careful to notice the difference between judgment and production. When it comes to the remains of the input, there is also a judgment test for the sake of general grammar.
After the scientific methods, we reached the primary results. According to vocabulary results, it is a little disappointed that we do not find difference significantly. As for grammar parts, persons’ good appearance demonstrate that no matter quantity of inconsistent determiners , there is little influence for their learning. Next to sentence tests, we can easily find that with the help of frequent molds, persons from noisy circumstances are more likely to regularize the input than that from control ones. Then for judgments parts, sentences which have wrong positions for determiner are hated by all, and those participants never heard are rated lower than the less usually ones. In general, a prevailing phenomenon is that with more and more noisy determiners arising, participants will be more likely to enjoy the main determiners parts than the less usually ones.
Discussion:
All in all, the experiment clearly indicated that regularization could be guided and achieved by adults. However,significant results only occurred in the circumstance where many noisy determiners disturbed, it inspired us to emphasize another two significant factors.
Firstly, the significant regularization may be the result of less frequent noisy determiners not for inconsistent ones featured natural language phenomenon. To resolve this ,we designed experiment 2. Secondly , whether the same phenomenon will also happened for children. More accurately, what the extent and trend for children to regularize the input different from adults. All the questions above will be investigated in experiment 3.
Despite all the scientific and systematic experiment methods , there is one thing in experiment 1 that is sort of weak. From my perspective, the foundation theory of the experiment is Universal Grammar. There are still remain lots of controversy for the theory ,whether human ability of language is born,or acquired; the evolution of language is the result of human genes, or historical and cultural influence. Recursion plays an crucial role in acquiring language, if there is no similar expression in a nation's existing language system, then regularization will absolutely not happen .These factors were missed when choosing the participants, the balance of gender, the background of culture and other things varies in nations. Therefore, the controversial and debatable theory of Universal Grammar lead to lack of consideration and rigorous application.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
