心理语言学论文模板.docx

学号：xxxxxxxx 姓名：XXX 班级：英111 课程：心理语言学 任务类型：1/2. （教师：邵俊宗）
2014-12-12

Semantic framing in children language production: differentiating the “abstract structures” in syntactic priming
（因变量属于我们课堂讲过的话题性认知过程的表征数据且自变量为认知心理和语言模块因素以及context的各种语言成分因素的研究均属心理语言学研究，否则如果缺乏关联能力就可能偏离课程性质和范围。另外推荐在重要部位如下使用颜色字体）

Abstract【自己写的同学把摘要和关键词拷贝在此。摘要大致可以由正文的引入句、综述结果、方法描述主旨句、发现和结论组成】
Key words[自己写的同学的关键词列于此处，关键词大致可以是主要变量，含因变量和（一个或者几个）自变量因素]

1. Introduction

【切入句，连同其他语句清楚表明认识现状和拟达成的新的认识状态】A critical question concerning verb processing is whether abstract structures would typically exert a repetitive influence in an otherwise lexical-frequency-dominated functional context. As during syntactic priming (Schenkein, 1980; Bock, 1986; Branigan, Pickering, Liversedge, Stewart, & Urbach, 1995; see Branigan, 2007; Pickering & Ferreira, 2008, for reviews), adults and children above a certain age more readily use the word order “gave sth to sb” rather than “gave sb sth” after they have heard, read or produced the former once or twice. Prior research has shown that such effects can, to varied extents of generality and magnitude, emerge across specific word combinations (Branigan et al., 1995; Pickering & Branigan, 1998; Francka, Lassib, Frauenfeldera & Rizzia, 2005), modalities (Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000; Branigan, Pickering, & McLean, 2005), languages (Bernolet, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007; 2013; Desmet & Declercq, 2006; Kantola & Van Gompel, 2011; Loebell & Bock, 2003; Salamoura & Williams, 2006; Salamoura & Williams, 2007; Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007), and time periods (Bock & Griffin, 2000; Kaschak, 2007; Kaschak, Kutta, & Coyle, 2012; Kaschak, Kutta, & Schatschneider, 2011; Kutta & Kaschak, 2012). However, prior research has not been conclusive about the presence (e.g. Fernandes, Marcus, DiNubila, & Vouloumanos, 2006; Fisher, Hall, Rakowitz, & Gleitman, 1994; Naigles, 1990) or absence (Goldberg, 2006; Ninio, 1999; Tomasello, 1992, 2000; Shimpi, Gámez, Huttenlocher, & Vasilyeva, 2007) of abstraction for early syntactic representation, simultaneity (Maratsos & Abramovitch, 1975) or delay (Tomasello, 2000) for the acquisition of full passives in relation with short passives, and even simultaneity or delay for the acquisition of passives in relation with actives (Messenger, Branigan, & Sorace, 2012). ). Thus, whether and how children aged differently would use abstract structures for the processing of verbs with respect to those mounting effects is still open to further demonstration and interpretation. What follows describes a whole series of experiments for identifying a typical set of conditions that would help differentiate the relevant structural information or associating them in functional and developmental coordination.
【文献综述的主旨句，连同其后的扼要综述并清晰表明自己打算如何进一步拓展文献综述，引用每一块文献综述的主要研究】We see in the large body of literature age-specificity or –generality, verb-specificity or –generality, syntactic-pattern-specificity or –generality as important issues underlying the current uncertain complexity. Verbs seriously complicate the case of sentence processing due to their lexical properties, syntactic properties and the semantic-syntactic mapping through argument structures. Tomasello’s (1992) noted that a new structure produced by a child with a verb showed a close relation to the structure previously produced with that verb. This and other studies (e.g. Childers & Tomasello, 2001; Lieven, Pine, & Baldwin, 1997; Olguin & Tomasello, 1993; Tomasello, 2000a, 2000b) supported the view that children’s early sentence representations are concrete and organized around specific lexical items. However, still other studies have exerted a strong view of abstract syntactic knowledge detached from specific lexical items from an early age. One study found that 25- and 21-month-olds used the word order to process new verbs (Gertner, Fisher, & Eisengart, 2006). To build on a series of findings about children’s repetition of agent-patient passive structure across sentences (e.g., Bencini & Valian, 2008; Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Shimpi,2004; Shimpi, Gámez, Huttenlocher, & Vasilyeva, 2007), Messenger, Branigan, McLean, and Sorace, 2012) used thematically and lexically unrelated active and short passive prime descriptions, and found that three- and four-year-old were, just like adults, more likely to produce full passive descriptions following short passive primes than active primes. 【文献综述分析结果】Such results suggested that abstract syntactic representation may be working under all the alternative structures. Although Fisher (2002) insightfully proposed (给出文献综合的结果时也可以采用别人或者权威人士的话)that the interactions of lexical and more abstract syntactic knowledge may account much for language acquisition, we would like to extend the debate to a competence-versus-abstracted-syntax scope so as to incorporate the specific and general contributions of ages, verb properties and sentence patterns to the above discrepancy in findings and interpretations aroused by syntactic priming. Thus, whether and how children aged differently would use abstract structures for the processing of verbs with respect to those mounting effects is still open to further demonstration and interpretations. 【清楚并且逐条表明需要检验什么假设，回答什么问题，判断什么具有理论意义的关系】Particularly, we will examine semantic framing from conceptualization as a super-control factor in addition to those explored by previous studies. We will discuss previous results and ours in a cognitive-functional framework concerning the developmental nature of syntactic priming and the plausibility of the observed variables as developmentally-structured and functionally-coordinated predictors for the acquisition of some difficult verbs. Specifically，[逐条表述上文说的功能条件 a typical set of conditions 变量关系，包括在新条件下确认别人检验过的假设是否成立，需要检验的新假设，新认识条件下预期会存在的变量或者数据变化关系等】

2. Experiment 1（后文个实验还可以分Experiment 1a、Experiment 1b等，比如按照这个模板中的说法，在确立典型条件的同时需要给出其他条件缺乏典型性的依据。实验一般情况下都可以采用别人的设计或者由之修改而来。）
[检验什么假设或者变量关系、回答什么问题等目的被试；实验材料和程序；采集什么数据；分析方法(一般采用单元或者多元方差分析，尽量避免相关性分析方法)；发现（作业条件下默认假设获得数据检验）；结果表明什么。一般不超三个自然段]

3. Experiment 2
【同上】

4. General discussion
【在新的发现的基础上，即假定我们的假设可以获得检验，具体的既有发现可以什么解释，既有认识需要如何调整。如此一来，加上我们的研究结果，可以统一表明什么或者支持对于有关问题的什么结论。三个自然段左右】

全篇到此，要求吃透问题，拿准理论要害，熟悉认识现状或者至少是最要紧的两三种发现、结论或者观点，表述连贯清晰，方可达到评分标准的要求。正文字数3000左右。

Reference

【浓缩他人研究的同学把摘要和关键词拷贝在此处】

4