藏—汉双语者跨语言错误记忆及其遗忘效应研究

发布时间：2018-03-23 16:30

本文选题：双语者　切入点：跨语言　出处：《青海师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着多文化交流日益频繁,双语已成为一个普遍的现象。在我国这个多民族国家,少数民族学生不但学习和掌握自己的民族语言,同时也在学习和掌握汉语。为了更加深入的了解少数民族双语者记忆的本质以及双语记忆表征方式,本研究以30名藏族双语大学生为研究被试,采用DRM范式,对其藏汉双语的跨语言错误记忆及其遗忘规律进行深入探讨。本研究设计两个实验,实验一采用2(加工方式:字面加工、语义加工)×2(学习-测验语言一致性:一致、不一致)×3(项目类型:学过词语、关键诱词、无关词)三因素混合实验设计,探讨在强调不同加工方式(字面加工、语义加工)条件下,藏-汉双语者语言内及跨语言错误记忆现象。其中,加工方式为被试间变量,其余两个自变量为被试内变量,因变量为对学过词的正确再认率、对无关词的错误再认率及对关键诱词的错误再认率;实验二采用3(间隔时间:0小时、0.5小时、1小时)×3(项目类型:学过词语、关键诱词、无关词)×2(加工方式:字面加工、语义加工)三因素混合实验设计,探讨在强调不同加工方式(字面加工、语义加工)条件下,藏-汉双语者语言内及跨语言错误记忆的遗忘规律。其中加工方式为被试间变量,其余变量为被试内变量,因变量为对学过词的正确再认率、对无关词的错误再认率以及对关键诱词的错误再认率。本研究得出以下结论:(1)藏-汉双语者存在跨语言错误记忆,即学习与测验语言不一致时出现了关键诱词的错误记忆。(2)语言内(藏-藏、汉-汉)比跨语言(藏-汉、汉-藏)发生更多关键诱词错误再认。(3)学习与测验语言相同时,汉语比藏语发生更多关键诱词错误再认和学过词正确再认;学习与测验语言不同时,藏-汉比汉-藏发生更多学过词正确再认和更少的关键诱词错误再认。藏-汉双语者双语记忆表征符合修正分级模型。(4)无论是语言内还是跨语言,语义加工条件下的关键诱词错误再认率都显著高于字面加工条件下的关键诱词错误再认率。(5)随着时间间隔的增加(0小时、0.5小时、1小时),被试对学过词的正确再认率呈下降趋势,但并不显著,而对关键诱词的错误再认率显著上升。(6)不同加工方式(字面加工、语义加工)对错误记忆的遗忘效应无显著影响。
[Abstract]:With the increasing frequency of multicultural exchanges, bilingualism has become a common phenomenon. In this multi-ethnic country, ethnic minority students not only learn and master their own national languages, Also learning and mastering Chinese. In order to better understand the essence of bilingual memory and the representation of bilingual memory, 30 Tibetan bilingual college students were used in this study, using DRM paradigm. In this study, two experiments were designed. Experiment 1: 2 (processing: literal processing, semantic processing) 脳 2 (Learning-Tests language consistency: consistent). (item type: learned words, key inducements, irrelevant words), a three-factor mixed experimental design was designed to explore the conditions of emphasizing different processing methods (literal processing, semantic processing), In Tibetan and Chinese bilinguals, the phenomenon of intra-language and cross-language false memory was found. Among them, the processing mode was inter-subjects, the other two independent variables were inter-subjects, and the dependent variables were the correct recognition rate of the learned words. The error recognition rate of irrelevant words and the error recognition rate of key words were used in experiment 2: 3 (interval of 0: 0 hours / 0.5 hours / 1 hour) 脳 3 (item type: learned words, key words, irrelevant words) 脳 2 (processing method: literal processing, processing method: literal processing), The three-factor mixed experimental design of semantic processing was designed to explore the forgetting rules of Tibetan / Chinese bilingual language and cross-language false memory under different processing modes (literal processing and semantic processing), in which the processing mode was a variable between subjects. The other variables are internal variables, dependent variables are correct recognition rate for learned words, false recognition rate for irrelevant words, and false recognition rate for key words. That is, when learning and testing language is inconsistent, there is a mis-memory of key inducements.) when the language (Tibetan-Tibetan, Chinese-Chinese) occurs more key inductive errors than cross-language (Tibetan-Chinese, Chinese-Tibetan), it is recognized as the same language as the test language. There are more key inducements in Chinese than in Tibetan, and there are more mistakes in recognizing and correct recognition of words in Chinese than in Tibetan; the language of learning and testing is not the same as that of Chinese. There are more correct recognition of words and fewer key mis-recognition of words in Tibetan-Chinese than in Chinese-Tibetan. The bilingual memory representation of Tibetan-Chinese bilinguals accords with the modified grading model .4) whether within or across languages, The error recognition rate of key words in semantic processing was significantly higher than that in literal processing. 5) with the increase of time interval, the recognition rate of key words was 0.5 hours or 1 hour, and the correct recognition rate of learned words showed a downward trend. However, the false recognition rate of key words increased significantly. 6) different processing methods (literal processing and semantic processing) had no significant effect on the forgetting effect of false memory.
【学位授予单位】：青海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B842.3

【相似文献】