LBT319-321馥榕

LBT319~321馥榕

The reality of grammatical structure is well-illustrated by the following two sentences taken from the sentence test:

(1) Peter likes small cookies and red lollipops.

(2) Peter wants one, and so does Johnny.

These sentences have seven words each and all the words have a common occurrence in the discourse of children. Yet sentence (1) was found to be mush easier for our subject than sentence (2). Even though mistakes are often made in the repetition of sentence (1), the nature of the mistakes clearly shows that the child has understood the original sentence in its basic structure and semantic content. Following are two typical attempts at repeating this sentence:

“Peter like red cookies and red lollipops.”

“Peter like cookies and he like lollipops.”

下列兩個語句測驗所得的句子可清楚地說明句法的真實性。

(1) Peter喜歡小餅乾跟紅色的棒棒糖。

(2) Peter要一個，Johnny也是。

這兩個句子都包含七個字，且每個字都是在兒童的對話中常見的。然而可以發現的是對於我們所研究的對象來說，第一個句子比第二個句子來得容易。即使在覆說第一個句子時也有許多錯誤出現，但錯誤的種類清楚地顯示兒童了解原句的基本結構即語意組成。以下是在覆說這些句子時的兩個典型嘗試：

“Peter喜歡紅色的餅乾和紅色的棒棒糖。”

“Peter喜歡餅乾和他喜歡棒棒糖。”

When sentence (2) as attempted, three times as many parroting responses (for example, “Johnny”, “So does Johnny”) occurred than for sentence (1), and the mistakes showed a lack of insight into the grammatical structure and meaning of the sentence; examples are:

“Peter want—uh—Johnny.”

“Peter does no want one too and so but Jimmy.”

The best explanation for the difference in ease of repeating these two sentences may be found in an analysis of their grammatical structure.

當句子(2)在被嘗試時，比句子(1)多了三倍的鸚鵡式仿說(例如，「Johnny」、「Johnny也是」)且錯誤顯示缺乏對句子的內在文法結構及意義。以下是例子：

「Peter要---uh---Johnny」

“Peter does no want one too and so but Jimmy.”

也許可以藉由分析這兩個不費力的覆說句子之文法結構來找到最好的解釋。

Table 7.8 is a rough sketch (with a number of simplifications) of the grammatical structure of these sentences. It is obvious that they differ enormously in their degrees of complexity and this is clearly the cause of the children’s difficulty with the second one. Familiarity of frequency of occurrence can hardly be used as explanatory factors because the children can repeat sentences they have never heard before, and which are therefore totally unfamiliar, as long as the underlying structure is clear to them. This grammatical explanation appears to be further corroborated by the types of mistakes made on sentence (2) by those children who are in possession of the basic elements of grammar (but with some “higher-order rules” still missing). For instance, one child, after a moment’s reflection, repeated sentence (2) as “Johnny wants one and Peter wants one” which conforms verbatim to our analysis here.

表格7.8是這些句子文法結構的概略(有部分簡化)。很明顯的，這兩個句子在複雜的程度上有顯著的差異，而這就是兒童覆說第二個句子困難的原因。對於這些句子出現頻率的熟悉度很難被用來解釋這些因素，因為小孩可以重複他們從沒聽過的句子，甚至是完全不熟悉的，只要他們了解基本的結構。這些文法上的解釋似乎可藉由對文法具有基本概念(但對於某些高階層規則仍缺乏)的小孩所說的句子(2)之錯誤類型來做進一步的證實。例如，有一個小孩，在思考一下後所覆說的句子(2)如這個依照我們在此分析的句子「Johnny要一個和Peter要一個。」

When very young children (24 to about 30 months) are compared with the mongoloids in terms of their respective performance on the sentence repetition test, we are impressed with the similarity. Unfortunately, there is no reliable method available at present to quantify this impression, but the inaccuracies, mistakes, and occasional forays into parroting-strategies appear to be strikingly alike. Thus, the intellectual limitation does not produce bizarre language behavior; it merely results in arrest at primitive, but “normal,” stages of development.

將非常幼小的孩童(24~30個月左右)在句子覆說測驗的個別表現與自閉症兒童做比較，我們很訝異他們的表現是相似的。不幸的是，還不能提出可信的方法來量化這個模糊的觀念，但在不精確、錯誤、及偶發的鸚鵡是仿說策略上，似乎是顯著地相似。因此，智力的限制不會產生異常的語言行為；只不過會導致早期發展階段限制，而非「常態」。

(3) Language Acquisition in the Congenitally Deaf*

(3)先天性耳聾的語言習得

The last type of handicap to be considered in this chapter is congenital, profound deafness. The following observations apply only to peripheral nerve deafness in children who are otherwise well, particularly from a neuropsychiatric viewpoint.

在這個章節中我們要看的最後一個類型的障礙是先天完全性耳聾。以下的觀點只適用於除了周邊神經性失聰，其他方面都健全的小孩，特別是以神經精神病學的觀點來看。

Language development in these children is of great interest for a language theory, because it can be shown that despite this devastating handicap, it is entirely possible to develop good language skills (though, unfortunately, only a few achieve complete perfection). In order to appreciate fully the magnitude of this achievement, we must realize to what extent the deaf child is quantitatively and qualitatively deprives of language input.

語言學說對於此類而同的語言發展具有高度的興趣，因為其可顯示對於此破壞性極大的障礙的損害，這是絕對有可能發展良好的語言技能的(雖然，不幸的是，只有很少的成功案例。) 為了充分的鑑別這成就，我們必須了解聾兒在語言輸入的數量及質量上的程度為何。

In America it is not until the child is four or five that intensive language training is begun, and during the first year the training is merely preparatory, that is, readiness for the instruction in articulation, lip reading, and reading and writing. When instruction proper beings there is, in many schools, a decided unwillingness to put too much reliance on the graphic medium. Although words and sentences are written in the blackboard and the child himself also learns to write, the emphasis is usually on the production of sounds and lip reading. If communication between pupil and teacher fails, the child is often not allowed either to gesture or to make use of his newly acquired writing skills, and the teachers also hesitate to facilitate their communications by writing (expect for specific classroom instruction) in order to foster what is know as an “oralist attitude” among their charges. Many schools also instruct the parents not to take recourse to writing for communication in the home, for the same reason, and we have had many a teacher of the deaf tell us that it is not desirable for deaf children to make reading for fun a hobby while they are still in school.

在美國，並非直到孩童四或五歲才開始進行精深的語言訓練，且在第一年時，只訓練了預備階段，換言之，也就是已做好構音、讀唇、閱讀及書寫教育的準備。當教育適當的開始，可以明顯的發現許多學校對於繪圖工具並沒有太大的信心。雖然字詞與句子都已被寫在黑板上，且孩童們也已學會書寫，但仍強調聲音的產生及讀唇。如果師生間的溝通不理想，通常這個兒童將不被允許使用手勢或他新習得的寫作技能，而在老師的責任之中，為了促進所為的「口語態度」，老師也不願意藉由書寫(特別是特教課程)來促進彼此的溝通。許多學校也教導父母在家中不要依賴書寫來溝通，為了同樣的理由，有許多聾童的老師告訴我們，當聾童還在就學階段時，並不適合將閱讀當作有趣的嗜好。

*Following comments are based on several years of observation in schools for the deaf throughout the country. I would like to thank the principals and teachers for their cooperation, assistance, and hospitality, and to express my admiration for their devoted and patient efforts to help these children, so underprivileged by nature. If the following remarks are critical (as they are meant to be), they are not intended to belittle the thought, experience, and good will that is the background of present-day education of the deaf. My remarks, despite their sketchiness, are offered here as a possible contribution—not a deprecation.

下述的言論是以多年觀察全國各校的聾童為基礎的。我想要感謝校長及老師們的合作、幫助以及熱情款待，對於他們的無私及對這些孩童的耐心努力，我要表示我的讚賞。如果以下的評論具批判性(也許可能有)，並非有意輕貶這些想法、經驗和當代對聾童的教育。我的言論，儘管粗略，是提供一個可能的貢獻，而非反對。