本研究旨在探討以中文為母語之兒童詮釋新奇複合名詞(novel noun-noun compound)之發展。本研究包含兩個控制變因，第一為名詞之動物性(animacy)/非動物性(inanimacy)，第二為修飾詞(modifier)/中心詞(head)之特性。本研究採用兩種實驗類型：看圖回答測驗與理解選擇測驗。研究對象包括實驗組的一百位兒童，依平均年齡四至八歲分成五組，每組二十人，以及對照組的二十位成人。
實驗結果顯示，五歲之兒童對於新奇複合名詞解讀之偏好已經類似於成人之偏好，亦即以第一名詞為導向(N1-preference)之解讀。至於在動物性與否對於複合名詞使用之影響方面，當修飾詞或中心詞為動物性時，所有年齡受試者之表現類似。反之，當修飾詞或中心詞為非動物性時，受試者之表現則無明顯之趨勢。關於不同之測驗對於受試者表現之影響，僅在修飾詞為非動物性時，所有年齡層表現一致：看圖回答測驗傾向於引導以修飾詞為導向之解讀，而理解選擇測驗則傾向於引導以中心詞為導向之解讀。然而，當修飾詞為動物性時，此種結果之一致性則不存在。最後，我們提出兒童新奇複合名詞之習得有三階段：四歲兒童屬第一階段，五、六歲兒童在第二階段，七、八歲兒童則在第三階段。其中，第三階段兒童新奇複合名詞之使用幾乎已與成人相似。

The present study aims to analyze the developmental patterns of Chinese children’s noun-noun compound uses by investigating their production and comprehension of novel noun-noun compounds under the manipulations of the animacy/inanimacy and modifier/head. A production task and a comprehension task were assigned to 100 Chinese children (aged 4-8) and a control group of 20 Chinese-speaking adults. The 100 children subjects were further divided into five age groups, each of which consisted of 20 subjects.
The results showed that Chinese children as young as five were able to choose the N1-preference reading, which was adult-like. With regard to the animacy effect, all the children were found to perform similarly to the adult controls when either the modifier or the head was [+animate]. In contrast, when either the modifier or the head was [-animate], no clear trend was found. With regard to the task effect, it was found that only when the modifier was [-animate] would all the group results be consistent: the production tended to receive the N1-preference readings while the comprehension task tended to trigger the N2-preference reading. In contrast, when the modifier was [+animate], there was no such consistency. Finally, there was a three-stage development pattern of our children’s uses of noun-noun compounds: the four-year-olds were at the first stage, the five-and six-year-olds at the second stage, and the seven- and eight-year-olds at the third stage, the use of the sub-strategies at the last stage being almost similar to the adults’ pattern.

Allen, S. E. M. & Crago, M. B. (1996). Early passive acquisition in Inuktitut. Journal of Child Language 23, 129–55.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gullikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CDROM). University of Pennsylvania : Philadelphia, PA: Linguistics Data Consortium.
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Berko, S. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.
Berman, R. A. (1987). A developmental route : learning about the form and use of complex nominals in Hebrew. Linguistics 25, 1057–85.
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form.
Philadelphia : John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chao, Yuen-ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chang, Shu-min. (1996). A study on Mandarin compounds. National Tsing Hua University Ph.D. dissertation.
Clark, E. V. (1981). Lexical innovations : How children learn to create new words. In W. Deutsch (eds), The child’s construction of language, 299–328. London: Academic Press.
Clark, E. V. (1983). Meaning and concepts. In P. H. Mussen, L. H. Flavell & E.M.
Markman (eds), Handbook of child psychology : Vol. 3 Cognitive development, 787–840. New York: Wiley.
Clark, E. V. (1998). Lexical creativity in French-speaking children. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 17, 513–30.
Clark, E. V. & Berman, R. A. (1987). Types of linguistic knowledge: Interpreting and producing compound nouns. Journal of Child Language 14, 547–67.
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A. & Lane, N. M. (1985). Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56, 84–94.
Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. B. Flores d’Arcais & R. J. Jarvella (eds), The process of language understanding, 297–331. New York: Wiley.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 255-271.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Jong, N. H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M. & Baayen, R. H. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language 81, 555–67.
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53(4), 810–42.
Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology – Learning, Memory and Cognition 27(1), 236–54.
Gagné, C. L. & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology – Learning, Memory and Cognition 23(1), 71–87.
Gagné, C. L. & Shoben, E. J. (2002). Priming relations in ambiguous noun–noun combinations. Memory and Cognition 30(4), 637–46.
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2004a). Effect of discourse context and modifier
relation frequency on conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 50(4), 444–55.
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2004b). Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun–noun compounds. Brain and Language 90, 478–86.
Gentner, D. (1982). A study of early word meaning using artificial objects : What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo? In J. Gardner (ed.), Readings in developmental psychology, 137–42. Boston: Little Brown.
Gerrig, R. J. & Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of
complex concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes 7(3–4), 205–230.
Gleitman, L. & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. New York: Norton.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M. & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3), 289–316.
Harris, M., Barrett, M., Jones, D. & Brookes, S. (1988). Linguistic input and early word meaning. Journal of Child Language 15(1), 77–94.
Huang, Hsiu-jan. (2008). Strategies in Comprehending Mandarin Chinese Noun-Noun Compounds with Animals, Plants, and Artifacts as Constituents. MA Thesis, National Cheng Kung University.
Kay, P. & Zimmer, K. (1976). On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. In Sixth California Linguistics Association Proceedings, 29–35. San Diego, CA: Campile Press.
Klibanoff, R. S. & Waxman, S. R. (2000). Basic level object categories support the acquisition of novel adjectives : Evidence from preschool-aged children. Child Development 71 (3), 649–59.
Krott, A., Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R. (2001). Analogy in morphology : Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39(1), 51–93.
Krott, A. & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Large constituent families help children parse compounds. Journal of Child Language 32(1), 139–58.
Krott, A., Gagné, C. & Nicoladis, E. (2009). How the parts relate to the whole: Frequency effects on children's interpretations of novel compounds. Journal of Child Language 36(1), 85–112.
Kuczaj, S. A. (1977). The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 589–600.
Landau, B., Smith, L. B. & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development 3(3), 299–321.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
Li, C., N., & Thompson, S., A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. University of California Press.
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2), 251–86.
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity : A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30(2), 333–70.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project : Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marchman, V. (1997). Children’s productivity in the English past tense : The role of frequency, phonology, and neighbourhood structure. Cognitive Science 21, 283–304.
Mellenius, I. (1997). The acquisition of nominal compounding in Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.
Neijt, A., Krebbers, L. & Fikkert, P. (2002). Rythm and semantics in the selection of linking elements. In H. Broekhuis & P. Fikkert (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002, Vol. 19, 117–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : AVT Publications.
Nelson, D. G. K., Russell, R., Duke, N. & Jones, K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name
artifacts by their functions. Child Development 71(5), 1271–88.
Nicoladis, E. (2002). What’s the difference between ‘ toilet paper’ and ‘paper toilet ’?
French–English bilingual children’s crosslinguistic transfer in compound nouns. Journal of Child Language 29, 843–63.
Nicoladis, E. (2003). What compound nouns mean to preschool children. Brain and
Language 84, 38–49.
Nicoladis, E. & Krott, A. (2007). Family size and French-speaking children’s segmentation of existing compounds. Language Learning 57(2), 201–28.
Parault, S. J., Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Haverback, H. R. (2005). The development of interpretations for novel noun–noun conceptual combinations during the early school years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 91(1), 67–87.
Pinheiro, J. C. & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
Plag, I. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics 10, 143–72.
Roeper, T. & Siegel, M. E. A. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2), 199–260.
Shoben, E. J. (1991). Predicating and nonpredicating combinations. In P. J. Schwanenflugal (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 117-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485-527.
Stekauer, P. (2005). Meaning predictability in word formation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1989). Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax: 2. Taipei: Student Book.
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2), 61–82.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language : A Usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warren, B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun–noun compounds. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434-453.
Wisnniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.
Xiong, Hui-ru. (1998). A Semantic Study of Material Noun-Noun Compounds in Mandarin Chinese. MA Thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University.