國小二年級學童雙字詞聯想常模

Second-Graders' Word Association Norms of Two-Character Chinese Words

10.6254/IPRCS.202112_(56).0002

陳修元(Shiou-Yuan Chen)；翁巧涵(Ciao-Han Wong)；劉敏(Min Liu)；周泰立(Tai-Li Chou)

中文 ； 語言發展 ； 聯想 ； 聯想常模 ； association ； association norms ； Chinese ； language development

本土心理學研究

56期（2021 / 12 / 01）

83 - 120

繁體中文

本研究建構華人中文世界中迄今所知的第一個兒童聯想常模，用以探索中文在世界語系中獨特的語言特性，及所對應的發展變化。研究由327位台灣小學二年級學童及272位台灣小學六年級學童，針對150個中文雙字詞進行自由聯想且建立聯想常模，分析每個刺激詞對應的聯想反應類別數、共通性與個別性，每個反應詞的聯想強度，並且計算22種刺激詞與反應詞聯想關係分類的佔比，以及不同分類對應的聯想強度。本研究發現，功能性的聯想關係所佔比例高於類別關係，不同聯想關係類別在佔比以及聯想強度上有不同的分布。研究也發現學童語意網絡的發展變化，隨著年齡的增加，功能聯想關係與類別聯想關係的聯想比例均呈現上升的趨勢，但是類別聯想關係的相對增幅比功能聯想關係來得大，顯示類別關係在10歲之後逐漸躍居於語意網絡的主要角色。本常模資料可增進我們對於兒童語意知識及其發展軌跡的了解，提供未來心理語言學相關研究選擇適當實驗刺激使用，有很高的教育領域應用性，並且凸顯了中文研究的理論重要性。

This is the first longitudinal word association norms of Chinese children from first to sixth grade to our best knowledge. The norms are constructed to explore the unique linguistic characteristics of Chinese. In this study, we demonstrated the norm of 327 second graders (170 boys and 157 girls) in Taiwan answered the Chinese word association task of 150 bi-character words. The participants were recruited from three public elementary schools in Taipei with various socio-economic background. The stimulus words were selected with four steps. First, we chose the 400 highest frequency bi-character words in the corpus built from textbooks, various books and essays of first to fourth graders (Minister of Education [教育部國語推行委員會], 2002). Second, we deleted the functional words, names of persons or places, and words usually appeared in idioms to make a 253 words list. Third, we used the method of Nation and Snowling (1999), asked 7 elementary school teachers and 16 third graders to rate the familiarity of these 253 words. Fourth, we selected the 195 highest familiarity words and randomly picked 150 of them as the stimulus words. The frequency of these 150 words ranged from 3,218 to 123 per million characters. The 150 words were arranged in four different orders, printed on sheets which participants were tested in groups in two 40-minute sessions. In this study, we analyzed the responses of 327 second graders to build the free association norms of these 150 words, along with the corresponding numbers of responses, commonality and idiosyncratic index. The average number of response (by type) is 98.04, ranging from 42 to 144. The average of commonality is 0.38, ranging from 0.10 to 0.75. The average idiosyncratic index is 0.22, ranging from 0.06 to 0.38. About the association relationship between stimulus word and response word, we defined 22 non-exclusive types, including superordinate category, same-level category, subordinate category, thematic-instrument, thematic-script, thematic association, meaning-similar, meaning-opposite, causation, sentence, orthography, phonology, feature, compound word, part of, analogy, orthographical mistake, phonological mistake, adjective, adverb, verb, and other. In order to demonstrate the distribution of different association relationship types, we calculated the percentages of all types among the highest association strength pairs, the highest five association strength pairs, and the highest ten association strength pairs of the 150 stimulus words. The results showed that when adding more stimulus-response association pairs into the pool, the percentages of each type varied in different directions. For example, the percentages of thematic-script type increased from 16% (the highest) to 21% (the highest five) and 21% (the highest ten). On the other hand, the percentages of meaning-similar type decreased from 33% (the highest) to 19% (the highest five) and 16% (the highest ten). The results showed that meaning-similar association type was quite popular among the pairs with highest consensus, but the percentages were decreased when more association pairs were adding into the pool. To investigate the developmental changes of semantic network, we further compared the differences between this second-grader norm and the sixth-grade norms of 272 participants which collected longitudinally 4 years later. In this study, we randomly selected 6 nouns, 6 verbs, and 6 adjectives, to compare the percentages of functional and categorical association types between second and sixth graders. The results showed that there was a greater increase in categorical relations than functional relations, suggesting a prominent role in taxonomic relatedness within semantic network for Taiwanese children older than 10 years. Besides investigating developmental changes, we could also compare this longitudinal association norms of Taiwanese elementary school children with norms of different languages. In this study, we compared the associations of the word ＂school＂ of different languages (English, Portuguese, and Chinese) and different ages (American adults, Portuguese third graders, Taiwanese adults, and Taiwanese second and sixth graders). The results showed clear difference cross ages and languages. In sum, the association norms enhance our understanding of children's semantic knowledge and its developmental course, provide stimuli for psycholinguistic experiments, and could be used in the educational field and build up theoretical framework cross different languages.

1. 胡中凡,陳彥丞,卓淑玲,陳學志,張雨霖,宋曜廷(2017)。1200個中文雙字詞的聯想常模與其被聯想反應參照表。教育心理學報，49(1)，137-160。
   連結：
2. 翁巧涵,陳修元,周泰立(2014)。語意關聯與類別語意關係對兒童中文語意發展影響的縱貫式研究。中華心理學刊，56，65-81。
   連結：
3. 翁巧涵,陳修元,周泰立,李姝慧(2011)。國小三年級兒童識字能力與語意關係對中文語意處理的影響。中華心理學刊，53，293-307。
   連結：
4. 羅珮文,游勝翔,黃博聖,陳學志,施依伶,林緯倫(2017)。兒童封閉式創造力潛能測量：「兒童版中文詞彙遠距聯想測驗」之編製及信、效度研究。測驗學刊，64(3)，237-258。
   連結：
5. Borghi, A. M.,Caramelli, N.(2003).Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: From action to spatial relations.Cognitive Development,18(1),49-60.
6. Bowles, N. L.,Williams, D.,Poon, L. W.(1983).On the use of word association norms in aging research.Experimental Aging Research,9,175-177.
7. Cao, F.,Lee, R.,Shu, H.,Yang, Y.,Xu, G.,Li, K.,Booth, J. R.(2010).Cultural constraints on brain development: Evidence from a developmental study of visual word processing in mandarin Chinese.Cereb Cortex,20(5),1223-1233.
8. Chou, T. L.,Chen, C. W.,Fan, L. Y.,Chen, S. Y.,Booth, J. R.(2009).Testing for a cultural influence on reading for meaning in the developing brain: The neural basis of semantic processing in Chinese children.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,3(27),1-9.
9. Comesana, M.,Fraga, I.,Moreira, A. J.,Frade, C. S.,Soares, A. P.(2014).Free associate norms for 139 European Portuguese words for children from different age groups.Behavior Research Methods,46(2),564-574.
10. Cramer, P.(1974).Idiodynamic sets as determinants of children’s false recognition errors.Developmental Psychology,10,86-92.
11. Cronin, V.,Pratt, M.,Abraham, J.,Howell, D.,Bishop, S.,Manning, A.(1986).Word association and the acquisition of reading.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,15(1),1-11.
12. Deese, J.(1965).The structure of associations in language and thought.Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
13. Entwisle, D. R.(1966).Word associations of young children.Oxford, England:Johns Hopkins Press.
14. Folarin, B. A.(1989).An investigation of children’s word association.Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior,26,60-64.
15. Goldfarb, R.,Halpern, H.(1984).Word association responses in normal adult subjects.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,13(1),37-55.
16. Hayes, A. F.,Krippendorff, K.(2007).Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data.Communication Methods and Measures,1,77-89.
17. Hutchison, K. A.(2003).Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,10,785-813.
18. Ip, K. I.,Hsu, L. S.,Arredondo, M. M.,Tardif, T.,Kovelman, I.(2017).Brain bases of morphological processing in Chinese-English bilingual children.Developmental Science,20(5),1-17.
19. Jeng, C. I.,Lai, M. W.,Liu, I. M.(1973).Category norms in Chinese and English from bilingual subjects.Acta Psychologica Taiwanica,15,81-153.
20. Koff, R. H.(1965).Systematic changes in children’s word-association norms 1916-63.Child Development,36,299-305.
21. Krippendorff, K. (2011). Computing Krippendorff’s alpha-reliability. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43
22. Lee, S. H.,Booth, J. R.,Chou, T. L.(2015).Developmental changes in the neural influence of sublexical information on semantic processing.Neuropsychologia,73,25-34.
23. Nation, K.,Snowling, M. J.(1999).Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming.Cognition,70,1-13.
24. Nelson, D. L.,McEvoy, C. L.,Dennis, S.(2000).What is free association and what does it measure?.Memory & Cognition,28,887-899.
25. Nelson, D. L.,McEvoy, C. L.,Schreiber, T. A.(2004).The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36,402-407.
26. Nelson, K.(1974).Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development.Psychological Review,81,267-285.
27. Nelson, K.(1977).The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift revisited: A review of research and theory.Psychological Bulletin,84,93-116.
28. Nelson, K.(1985).Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning.New York:Academic.
29. Nelson, K.(1973).Structure and strategy in learning to talk.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,38(1/2),1-135.
30. Palermo, D. S.,Jenkins, J. J.(1964).Word association norms: Grade school through college.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
31. Pedraza, O.(Ed.)(2019).Clinical cultural neuroscience: An integrated approach to cross-cultural neuropsychology.New York:Oxford University Press.
32. Ross, B. H.(Ed.)(2011).The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory.New York:Academic Press.
33. Smiley, S. S.,Brown, A. L.(1979).Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,28(2),249-257.
34. Tomasello, M.(2002).Things are what they do: Katherine Nelson’s functional approach to language and cognition.Journal of Cognition and Development,3,5-19.
35. Woodworth, R. S.,Barber, B.,Schlosberg, H.(1954).Experimental psychology.:Oxford.
36. 台北市政府主計處（2011）：台北市家庭收支訪問調查報告。台北：主計處。
37. 台北市政府民政局(2011).100 年教育程度.台北市:民政局.
38. 洪儷瑜,王瓊珠,張郁雯,陳秀芬(2006).識字量評估測驗.台北:教育部.
39. 胡志偉,高千惠,羅明(2005).六百個中文字的自由聯想常模.台北:台灣心理學會.
40. 教育部國語推行委員會(2002).國小學童常用字詞調查報告書（二版）.台北:教育部.
41. 陳學志(1999).認知及認知的自我監控──中文詞聯想常模的建立.台北:中華民國行政院國家科學委員會.
42. 劉英茂,莊仲仁(1971)。一千二百個本國文字有意義度之評定（續）。國立台灣大學理學院心理學系研究報告，13，75-190。