Posts
LB351-353郁文
Type and later translate the legend for Fig. 8.6
打字
P.351
I V . Naming and cognitive processes 351
The Brown and Lenneberg experiment need not be reported here in any great detail. Subjects were screened for color-blindness and had to be native born American-English speakers. Their task consisted of correctly recognizing certain colors. The colors were one color (or in some experimental conditions four colors) at a time for a short period: these were the stimulus colors.
After a timed interval they viewed a large color chart (to wich we shall refer as the color context) from which they chose the colors they had been shown before the colors were identified by pointing so that no descriptive words were used either by the experimenter or the subject.
In earlier investigations the foci and borders of English name maps had been determined through Approach A; basing ourselves on this information we selected a small sample of colors (the stimulus colors) consisting of all foci and an example of each border. A few additional colors were added (only the region of high saturation was included). This yielded a sample of 24 colors. Next we used Approach B in order to obtain lists of words and descriptive phrases actually used by English speakers in order to refer to the colors in our particular sample and contex. Approach A and B together provided us with background knoeledge of the language habits that English-speaking subjects might hypothesized that there would be a relationship between the two.
The measure of name-determinacy, obtained through Approach B, was found to be highly correlated with response latency and shortness of response (as confirmed by Beare, 1963) and was called by Brown and Lenneberg codability. Codability is essentially a measure of how well people agree in giving a name to a stimulus, in our case a color. Good agreement (that is, high codability) maybe due to two independent factors: the language of the speakers may provide, through its vocabulary, a highly characteristic. Unique. And unambiguous word for a highly specific stimulus (for example, the physical color of blood): or the stimulus may in fact bequite nondescript in the language, but it is given special salience in a physical context (for instance, red hair). Codability does not distinguish these two factors.
We found codability of a color did not predict its recognizability when the recognition task was easy (one color to be identified after a seven second waiting period); however, as the task was made more difficult codability began to correlate with recognizability and the relashionship was most clearly seen in the most difficult of the tasks (four colors had to be recognized after a three minute waiting period
P.352
352 Language and cognition
At first these result looked like experimental proof that under certain conditions a person’s native language may facilitate or handicap a memory-function. However, it became apparent later that the role of physical context needed to be studied further (see also Krauss and Weinheimer, 1965). Burnham and Clark (1955) conducted a color recognition experiment employing essentially the same procedure as Brown and Lenneberg but using a different sample of colors (namely the Farnsworth-Munsell Test Colors instead of the high saturation colors from the Munsell Book of colors). They found that colors differed in their recognizability as shown in Fig. 8.6 with mistakes occurring in specific directions, clearly pointing to some systematic bias in the subject’s performance. Lenneberg (1957) obtained naming data on the same stimulus material and a comparison of these data with those of Burnham and Clark (Fig. 8.4) seemed to show that the bias may be related to the semantic structure “built into” the subjects by virtue of their native English. The only difficulty with this interpretation is this. In the Brown and Lenneberg experiment appositive correlation was found between codability and recognizability, whereas the recognizability of the Burnham and
There are strong reasons to attribute the difference in outcome of the two experiments to the peculiarities of the stimulus arrays and the physical context of the individual colors.
Burnham and Clark had hoped to eliminate by using a circular stimulus array. But Ss’ naming habits restructured the material so as to furnish certain anchoring points: namely, the boundaries between name maps. Thus a few colors acquired a distinctive feature. Whereas most of the colors, all that fell within a name region, tended to be assimilated in memory. To remember the word “green” in this task was of no help since there were so many greens: but to remember that the color was on the border of “green” and “not-green” enabled the subject to localize the stimulus color with great accuracy in the color context.
The Brown and Lenneberg study did not provide subject with any two or three outstanding landmarks for recognition, since there was no more than one color within individual name categories. The possibility of assimilating colors (or of grouping colors into classes of stimulus equivalence) was drastically reduced if not eliminated
P.353
Type and later translate the legend for Fig. 8.6 here.
On the other hand, so many colors marked boundaries, that betwixtness as such was no longer a distinctive feature.
摘要
Brown和Lenneberg的實驗不需要在此作較詳細的說明報告。題材是經過色盲檢查並且必須在當地出生的美式英語發言者。他們的任務是正確地辨識某些顏色組成。 顏色的提供是一次在短期提供一種顏色(或是實驗性質的四種顏色)：這些顏色是刺激顏色。
在一段時間間隔之後，給他們觀看一張大的顏色圖表(在此我們將指稱為顏色目錄)， 從圖表中受試者須以手指的方式，選出他們剛剛在試驗中看過的顏色，因此不會有描述性的字辭使用在受試者或題材上。
在英語有名的地圖的聚光點和邊緣，在較早的調查過程中透過Approach A確定； 藉由這個訊息，把我們自己建立在我們選擇的一個小的樣品顏色(刺激顏色)上組成全部的聚光點和每個邊緣的樣品。一些額外的顏色被增加(只有高飽和部分被包括)。這產生一個24種顏色的樣品。下一步我們使用Approach B去得到英語發言者實際上真正使用的的字辭與描述性片語列表，用以參照顏色在我們的特別的樣本與上下文內的關聯。Approach A 與 B同為我們提供了用英文說的題材被假定與在兩者之間有關聯這樣的語言習慣的背景知識。
透過Approach B測量姓名決定因素名字被發現與淺在反應與較短的回應有高度關聯(已經由Beare證實，1963)，並且被Brown與Lenneberg稱之為編碼能力。編碼能力基本上是人們如何認可給一個刺激一個名字的程度，在此刺激為色彩。同意性高(亦即，高的編碼能力)或許是由於兩個獨立的因素︰發言者的語言可能透過它的詞彙提供一個高度的特徵。以及不含糊的詞對一個非常特別的刺激(例如，血液的物理顏色)；或者刺激可能實際上相當難以語言形容，但是它被用物理上下文(例如，紅頭髮)給特別的突顯了。編碼能力不區分這兩個因素。
工具書
英漢漢英漢漢英醫學分科辭典(網路版)
No comments:
Post a Comment