L3 for English Acquisition I B k and II B i , 2011 URL - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

L3 for English Acquisition I B k and II B i , 2011 このスライドは次の URL から入手できます : http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/lectures/11B-KIT/KIT-2011B-L03- slides.pdf 黒田 航 ( 非常勤 ) 2011-10-25 ( 火 ) Tuesday, October 25, 2011

連絡 参加 ✤ 休講のお知らせ ✤ 2012 年 1 月 10 日 ( 火 ) は休講 ✤ 2012 月 1 月 9 日から 13 日まで松江で開催される Global WordNet Association に ✤ 1 月 31 日が最終日 = ボーナス試験 (L14 に相当 ) ✤ 欠席の扱い ✤ 欠席は 3 回まで， 4 回以上の欠席は無条件落第 ( らしい ) ✤ けど，成績が十分なら出席は問題視しません Tuesday, October 25, 2011

講義資料 夫します ✤ 聴き取り用の教材は次の Web ページから入手可能 ✤ http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/lectures/KIT-11B.html ✤ 授業時間外での予習や復習に利用して下さい ✤ 速読に関して完全に同じことはできませんが，工 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

本日の予定 ✤ 前半 60 分 ( 休憩 5 分を含む ) ✤ L2 の結果の報告 ✤ L2 の正解の解説 ✤ 後半 30 分 ✤ TED を使った聴き取り訓練 ✤ Cynthia Breazeal: The Rise of Personal Robots (14 分 30 秒 ) を通して視聴 ✤ 前半 4 分 30 秒の聴き取り Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の正解 Date Tuesday, October 25, 2011

採点法 ✤ 点数 ✤ 完全正解 1.0 ( ◯で表示 ) と 不完全解 0.5 ( △で表示 ) ✤ 評価基準 ✤ 素得点 S = ◯の数 + ( △の数 )/2 ✤ 正答率 P = ◯の数 / S ✤ 成績評価用の得点 : S * = 100 × S / 問題の総数 (e.g., 30) ✤ 採点誤りがあるかも知れません ✤ 数え間違いや足り算間違をしますので，該当者は報告して下さい Tuesday, October 25, 2011

出題への評価 問題の難しさ 問題の数量 問題の数量 問題の難しさ お願い : アンケートは表に書いて下さい Q1: 問題の数量 Q1: 問題の数量 Q2: 問題の難しさ Q2: 問題の難しさ Av. Stdev Max Min Av. Stdev Max Min 1B k 2.90 0.49 4 1 2.07 0.59 3 1 2B i 2.77 0.44 3 2 1.85 0.69 3 1 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の得点分布 1B k と 2B i ✤ 参加者 : 45 人 ✤ 平均点 : 65.89; 標準偏差 : 8.84 ✤ 最高点 : 86.67; 最低点 : 43.33 ✤ 得点グループ ✤ 60 点が中心のグループ ✤ 70 点が中心のグループ Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の得点分布 1B k ✤ 受講者数 : 31 人 ✤ 平均点 : 19.71/ n [65.70] 点 ✤ 標準偏差 : 2.28/ n [10.10] 点 ✤ 最高点 : 24.50/ n [81.67] 点 ✤ 最低点 : 14.50/ n [48.33] 点 ✤ n = 30 ✤ 得点グループ Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の得点分布 2B i ✤ 受講者数 : 14 人 ✤ 平均点 : 19.89/ n [66.31] 点 ✤ 標準偏差 : 3.77/ n [11.42] 点 ✤ 最高点 : 26.00/ n [86.67] 点 ✤ 最低点 : 13.00/ n [43.33] 点 ✤ n = 30 ✤ 得点グループ Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の正解率分布 1B k と 2B i ✤ 参加者 : 45 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.73; 標準偏差 : 0.09 ✤ 最高 : 0.88; 最低 : 0.44 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.75 辺りが中心のグループ Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の正答率分布 1B k ✤ 参加者 : 31 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.73; 標準偏差 : 0.10 ✤ 最高 : 0.87; 最低 : 0.44 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.75 が中心のグループ Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の正答率分布 2B i ✤ 参加者 : 14 人 ✤ 平均 : 0.73; 標準偏差 : 0.08 ✤ 最高 : 0.88; 最低 : 0.62 ✤ 正答率のグループ ✤ 0.65 辺りと 0.8 後半が中心 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

平均得点の履歴 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

平均正解率の履歴 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

L2 の正解 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

TED の日本語訳 ✤ Paul Bloom の講演では ✤ Subtitles Available in: ✤ で “Japanese” を選ぶと，日本語訳が見れます ✤ 全部の講演で日本語訳が利用できるわけではないです Tuesday, October 25, 2011

誤りの傾向 ✤ 1. consumer ⇒ consume, consumed ✤ 16. inviting ⇒ buying ✤ 2. owned ⇒ used, joined ✤ 17. When ✤ 18. violinist ✤ 3. food ✤ 19. if ✤ 4. attraction ⇒ trade ✤ 20. clip ⇒ quick ✤ 5. couldn’t ⇒ could ✤ 21. Joshua ✤ 6. what ⇒ what’s ✤ 22. stunned ⇒ stand(ing) ✤ 7. would ⇒ do ✤ 23. from ✤ 8. adore ⇒ door, dollar ✤ 24. silence ✤ 9. drops ⇒ traps, drop ✤ 25. pain ⇒ paint ✤ 10. thoroughly ⇒ throughly ✤ 26. electric ⇒ lecture ✤ 11. conference ⇒ conferrence ✤ 27. button ⇒ botton ✤ 12. history ✤ 28. hell ⇒ help ✤ 13. original ✤ 29. property ⇒ properly, proparty ✤ 14. here ✤ 30. that ✤ 15. who ⇒ to Tuesday, October 25, 2011

聞き取りの心得その 2 ✤ bottle ⇒ [ b ʌɔɗ l ] ✤ 例 ✤ atoms = Adums ⇒ [ æb ɗ ə mz ] ✤ it is hoped that の発音は ✤ 子音の前の語末子音の脱落 ✤ [ ɨɗɨ z h o ʊ p ð ə ] ✤ hoped ⇒ hope [ h o ʊ p ] ✤ 母音前の有声化 ✤ that ⇒ tha [ ð ə ] ✤ it is ⇒ [ ɨɗɨ z ] ✤ th 音の変化 ✤ look at the ⇒ [ l ʊɡ æ ð ə ] ✤ that ⇒ nat [ n æ(t) ] ✤ アメリカ英語の t の発音 Tuesday, October 25, 2011

01/13 ✤ As a third example, consider [1. consumer] products. So one reason why you might like something is its utility. You can put shoes on your feet; you, you can play golf with golf clubs; and chewed up bubble gum doesn’t do anything at all for you. But each of these three objects has value above and beyond what it can do for you based on its history. The golf clubs were [2. owned] by John F. Kennedy and sold for three- quarters of a million dollars at auction. The bubble gum was chewed up by pop star Britney Spears and sold for several hundreds of dollars. And in fact, there’s a thriving market in the partially eaten [3. food] of beloved people. (Laughter) Tuesday, October 25, 2011

02/13 ✤ The shoes are perhaps the most valuable of all. According to an unconfirmed report, a Saudi millionaire offered 10 million dollars for this pair of shoes. They were the ones thrown at George Bush at an Iraqi press conference several years ago. (Laughter) Now this [4. attraction] to objects doesn’t just work for celebrity objects. Each one of us, most people, have something in our life that's literally irreplaceable, in that it has value because of its history— maybe your wedding ring, maybe your child's baby shoes— um, so that if it was lost, you [5. couldn’t] get it back. You could get something that looked like it or felt like it, but you couldn't get the same object back. Tuesday, October 25, 2011

03/13 ✤ With my colleagues George Newman and Gil Diesendruck, we’ve looked to see [6. what] sort of factors, what sort of history, matters for the objects that people like. So in one of our experiments, we asked people to name a famous person who um, who they adored, a living person they adored. So one answer was George Clooney. Then we asked them, “How much [7. would] you pay for George Clooney’s sweater?” And the answer is a fair amount — more than you would pay for a brand new sweater or a sweater owned by somebody who you didn’t [8. adore]. Tuesday, October 25, 2011

04/13 ✤ Then we asked other groups of subjects —we gave them different restrictions and different conditions. So for instance, we told some people, “Look, you can buy the sweater, but you can’t tell anybody you own it, and you can’t resell it.” That [9. drops] the value of it, suggesting that that’s one reason why we like it. But what really causes an effect is you tell people, “Look, you could resell it, you could boast about it, but before it gets to you, it’s [10. thoroughly] washed.” That causes a huge drop in the value. As my wife put it, “You’ve washed away the Clooney cooties.” (Laughter) Tuesday, October 25, 2011

05/13 ✤ So let’s go back to art. I would love a Chagall. I love the work of Chagall. If people want to get me something at the end of the [11. conference], you could buy me a Chagall. But I don’t wanna duplicate, even if I can’t tell the difference. That’s not because, or it’s not simply because, I’m a snob and wanna boast about having an original. Rather, it’s because I want something that has a specific [12. history]. In the case of artwork, the history is special indeed. The philosopher Denis Dutton in his wonderful book The Art Instinct makes the case that, “The value of an artwork is rooted in assumptions about the human performance underlying its creation.” Tuesday, October 25, 2011

06/13 ✤ And that could explain the difference between an [13. original] and a forgery. They may look alike, but they have a different history. The original is typically the product of a creative act, the forgery isn’t. I think this approach can explain differences in— in people’s taste in art. This is a work by Jackson Pollock. Who [14. here] likes the work of Jackson Pollock? Okay. Who here, it does nothing for them? They just don’t like it. I’m not going to make a claim about— about who’s right, but I will make an empirical claim about people’s intuitions, which is that, if you like the work of Jackson Pollock, you’ll tend more so than the people who don’t like it to believe that these works are difficult to create, that they require a lot of time and energy and creative energy. Tuesday, October 25, 2011