L3 for English Acquisition I Bk and II Bi,...

2011-10-25 (火)

L3 for English AcquisitionI Bk and II Bi, 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)

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/data/kit-2010-guidance.pdf




連絡

✤ 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に参加

✤ 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


講義資料

✤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，工夫します


http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/lectures/KIT-11B/

http://clsl.hi.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kkuroda/lectures/KIT-11B/

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


Date

L2の正解


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


出題への評価

Q1: 問題の数量Q1: 問題の数量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Q2: 問題の難しさQ2: 問題の難しさ

Av. Stdev Max Min Av. Stdev Max Min

1Bk 2.90 0.49 4 1 2.07 0.59 3 1

2Bi 2.77 0.44 3 2 1.85 0.69 3 1

お願い: アンケートは表に書いて下さい


L2の得点分布 1Bkと2Bi

✤ 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


L2の得点分布 1Bk

✤ 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



L2の得点分布 2Bi

✤ 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



L2の正解率分布 1Bkと2Bi


✤ 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


L2の正答率分布 1Bk


✤ 平均: 0.73; 標準偏差: 0.10

✤ 最高: 0.87; 最低: 0.44


✤ 0.75が中心のグループ


L2の正答率分布 2Bi


✤ 平均: 0.73; 標準偏差: 0.08

✤ 最高: 0.88; 最低: 0.62


✤ 0.65辺りと0.8後半が中心


平均得点の履歴


平均正解率の履歴


L2の正解


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


誤りの傾向

✤ 1. consumer ⇒ consume, consumed✤ 2. owned ⇒ used, joined✤ 3. food✤ 4. attraction ⇒ trade✤ 5. couldn’t ⇒ could✤ 6. what ⇒ what’s✤ 7. would ⇒ do✤ 8. adore ⇒ door, dollar✤ 9. drops ⇒ traps, drop✤ 10. thoroughly ⇒ throughly✤ 11. conference ⇒ conferrence✤ 12. history✤ 13. original✤ 14. here✤ 15. who ⇒ to

✤ 16. inviting ⇒ buying✤ 17. When✤ 18. violinist✤ 19. if✤ 20. clip ⇒ quick✤ 21. Joshua✤ 22. stunned ⇒ stand(ing)✤ 23. from✤ 24. silence✤ 25. pain ⇒ paint✤ 26. electric ⇒ lecture✤ 27. button ⇒ botton✤ 28. hell ⇒ help✤ 29. property ⇒ properly, proparty✤ 30. that


聞き取りの心得その2

✤ 例

✤ it is hoped that の発音は

✤ [ɨɗɨz hoʊp ðə]

✤ 母音前の有声化

✤ it is ⇒ [ɨɗɨz]

✤ look at the ⇒[lʊɡæðə]

✤ アメリカ英語の t の発音

✤ bottle ⇒ [bʌɔɗl]

✤ atoms = Adums ⇒ [æbɗəmz]

✤ 子音の前の語末子音の脱落

✤ hoped ⇒ hope [hoʊp]

✤ that ⇒ tha [ðə]

✤ th 音の変化

✤ that ⇒ nat [næ(t)]


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)


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.


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].


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)


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.”


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.


07/13

✤ I use Jackson Pollock on purpose as an example because there’s a young American artist [15. who] paints very much in the style of Jackson Pollock, and her work was worth many tens of thousands of dollars— in large part because she’s a very young artist. This is Marla Olmstead who did most of her work when she was three years old. The interesting thing point about Marla Olmstead is her family made the mistake of [16. inviting] the television program 60 Minutes II into their house to film her painting. And they then reported that her father was coaching her. [17. When] this came out on television, the value of her art dropped to nothing. It was the same art, physically, but the history had changed.


08/13

✤ I’ve been focusing now on the visual arts, but I want to give two examples from music. This is Joshua Bell, a very famous [18. violinist]. And the Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten decided to enlist him for an audacious experiment. The question is: How much would people like Joshua Bell, the music of Joshua Bell, [19. if] they didn’t know they were listening to Joshua Bell? So he got Joshua Bell to take his million dollar violin down to a Washington D.C. subway station and stand in the corner and see how much money he would make. And here’s a brief [20. clip] of this.


09/13

✤ After being there for three-quarters of an hour, he made $32. Not bad. It’s also not good. Apparently to really enjoy the music of Joshua Bell, you have to know you’re listening to [21. Joshua] Bell. He actually made $20 more than that, but he didn’t count it. Because this woman comes up— you see at the end of the video— she comes up. She had heard him at the Library of Congress a few weeks before at this extravagant black-tie affair. So she’s [22. stunned] that he’s standing in a subway station. So she’s struck with pity. She reaches into her purse and hands him a 20.


10/13

✤ The second example from music is [23. from] John Cage’s modernist composition, 4ʹ′33ʺ″. As many of you know, this is the composition where, uh, the pianist sits at a bench, opens up the piano and sits and does nothing for four minutes and 33 seconds— that period of [24. silence].

✤ And people have different views on this. But what I want to point out is you can buy this from iTunes. (Laughter) For a dollar ninety-nine, you can listen to that silence, which is different than other forms of silence. (Laughter)


11/13

✤ Now I’ve been talking so far about pleasure, but what I want to suggest is that everything I’ve said applies as well to [25. pain]. And how you think about what you’re experiencing, your beliefs about the essence of it, affect how it hurts. One lovely experiment was done by Kurt Gray and Dan Wegner. What they did was they hooked up Harvard undergraduates to an electric shock machine. And they gave them a series of painful [26. electric] shocks. So it was a series of five painful shocks.

✤ Half of them are told that they’re being given the shocks by somebody in another room, but the person in the other room doesn't know they’re giving them shocks.


12/13

✤ There’s no malevolence, they’re just pressing a [27. button]. The first shock is recorded as very painful. The second shock feels less painful, because you get a bit used to it. The third drops, the fourth, the fifth. The pain gets less.

✤ In the other condition, they’re told that the person in the next room is shocking them on purpose— knows they’re shocking them. The first shock hurts like [28. hell]. The second shock hurts just as much, and the third and the fourth and the fifth. It hurts more if you believe somebody is doing it to you on purpose.


13/13

✤ The most extreme example of this is that in some cases, pain under the right circumstances can transform into pleasure. Humans have this extraordinarily interesting [29. property] that will often seek out low-level doses of pain in controlled circumstances and take pleasure from it— as in the eating of hot chili peppers and roller coaster rides. The point was nicely summarized by the poet John Milton who wrote, “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.”

✤ And I’ll end with [30. that]. Thank you. (Applause)


Date

聴き取り訓練 L3


Cynthia Breazeal: The Rise of Personal Robots✤ TEDの講演

✤ 約13分30秒: 1回目は4分30秒，2回目は9分

✤講演者

✤ Cynthia Breazeal アメリカ英語の女性の母語話者

✤ 2001年に世界初の社交的ロボット Kismet を開発

✤テーマ

✤ 社交的ロボット(social robot)の過去と未来


L3 for English Acquisition I Bk and II Bi,...

Documents

Transcript of L3 for English Acquisition I Bk and II Bi,...