IB 1A5 (=E1R86), 1L1 (=E1R05) , IIB E2R40 , 2011 L3 URL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2011-10-27 (木)

英語 IB 1A5 (=E1R86), 1L1 (=E1R05), 英語 IIB E2R40, 2011 L3

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-KU/KU-2011B-L03- slides.pdf

黒田 航 (非常勤) substituting for 出口雅也 (非常勤)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

連絡 1/2

✤ 日程

✤ 2011年11月24日(木)の講義を12月27日(火)に振替え ✤ 2012年1月12日(木)は休講

✤ 2012月1月9日(月)から13日(金)まで松江で開催される Global WordNet Associationに参加

✤ 2012年2月2日が最終日=ボーナス試験 (L=13に相当)

✤ 日程の変更があるかも知れない

✤ 欠席の扱い

✤ 明示的な上限はないですけど，欠席が多い方は不利です ✤ 今期に関しては最後のボーナス試験での挽回は不可能です

Thursday, October 27, 2011

連絡 2/2

✤ Fast Readingのため

✤ 12月8日,15日,22日,27日は ✤ 共同東棟 22教室

✤ その後の二回は元の教室に戻る

Thursday, October 27, 2011

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/KU-11B.html

✤ 授業時間外での予習や復習に利用して下さい

✤ 特にボーナス試験対策には有効でしょう

✤ 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

Thursday, October 27, 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 (13分30秒)を通して視聴 ✤ 前半4分30秒の聴き取り

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Date

L2の聴き取り課題の結果

Thursday, October 27, 2011

採点法

✤ 点数

✤ 完全正解 1.0 (◯で表示) ✤ 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

✤ たし算を時々間違うので，該当者は報告して下さい

Thursday, October 27, 2011

出題への評価

Q1: Quant 1: Quantity uantity Q2: Diffic 2: Difficulty ulty Av. Stdev Max Min Av. Stdev Max Min 1A5 2.89 0.31 3 2 2.21 0.69 3 1 2R 2.90 0.32 3 2 2.12 0.57 3 1 1L1 2.97 0.31 4 2 2.25 0.67 4 1

調査の回答は表に書いて下さい

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の得点分布 1A5, 2R, 1L1

✤ 参加者: 94人

✤ 平均: 71.57; 標準偏差: 10.20 ✤ 最高: 96.97; 最低: 45.45

✤ 得点グループ数=2

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の得点分布 1A5

✤ 受講者数: 29人

✤ 平均: 74.76 [24.67/n] 点

✤ 標準偏差: 10.01 [ 3.80] 点

✤ 最高: 96.97/n [31.00] 点 ✤ 最低: 57.58/n [15.00] 点

✤ n = 33

✤ 得点グループ数=2

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の得点分布 2R

✤ 受講者数: 32人

✤ 平均: 67.09 [22.14/n] 点

✤ 標準偏差: 8.75 [ 2.89] 点

✤ 最高: 87.88 [29.00/n] 点 ✤ 最低: 51.52 [17.00/n] 点

✤ n = 33

✤ 得点グループ数=1

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の得点分布 1L1

✤ 受講者数: 33人

✤ 平均: 73.74 [20.45/n] 点

✤ 標準偏差: 10.81 [ 4.04] 点

✤ 最高: 92.42/n [30.50/n] 点 ✤ 最低: 45.45/n [15.00/n] 点

✤ n = 33

✤ 得点グループ数=2

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の正解率分布 1A5, 2R, 1L1

✤ 参加者: 94人

✤ 平均値: 0.82 ✤ 最高値: 0.98; 最低値: 0.63 ✤ 標準偏差: 0.08

✤ 正答率のグループ数=2

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の正答率分布 1A5

✤ 参加者: 29人

✤ 平均: 0.84; 標準偏差: 0.07 ✤ 最高: 0.97; 最低: 0.67

✤ 正答率のグループ数=2

✤ 0.7, 0.8後半が中心 Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の正答率分布 2R

✤ 参加者: 32人

✤ 平均: 0.77; 標準偏差: 0.08 ✤ 最高: 0.90; 最低: 0.63

✤ 正答率のグループ数=2

✤ 0.7, 0.8が中心 Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の正答率分布 1L1

✤ 参加者: 33人

✤ 平均: 0.84; 標準偏差: 0.07 ✤ 最高: 0.98; 最低: 0.63

✤ 正答率のグループ数=2

Thursday, October 27, 2011

平均得点の変遷 (L2まで)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

平均正答率の変遷 (L2まで)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

L2の正解

Thursday, October 27, 2011

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. Look ✤ 10. drops ⇒ traps, drop ✤ 11. thoroughly ⇒

throughly

✤ 12. conference ⇒

conferrence

✤ 13. history ✤ 14. original ✤ 15. here ✤ 16. claim ⇒ clame ✤ 17. who ⇒ to ✤ 18. inviting ⇒ buying ✤ 19. When ✤ 20. art ✤ 21. violinist ✤ 22. if ✤ 23. clip ⇒ crip, quick ✤ 24. Joshua ✤ 25. stunned ⇒ stand(ing) ✤ 26. from ✤ 27. silence ✤ 28. pain ⇒ paint ✤ 29. electric ⇒ lecture ✤ 30. button ⇒ botton ✤ 31. hell ⇒ help ✤ 32. property ⇒ properly,

proparty

✤ 33. that

Thursday, October 27, 2011

聞き取りの心得その1

✤ 実際の発音はローマ字読みと

別物

✤ 話し言葉は“正しい”とは限らず

✤ 母語話者も言いマチガイをする ✤ 母語話者も文法マチガイをする

✤ tastier, awesomer

✤ 唯一の正しい発音はない

✤ 話し言葉特有の表現への対応

が必要

✤ gonna ⇐ going to ✤ wanna ⇐ want to ✤ kinda ⇐ kind of

✤ kind of は副詞に使う

✤ 言いよどみや言いさしにも対

応できないとダメ

✤ ah, uh, um / えーと, うーん,あのー

Thursday, October 27, 2011

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)] Thursday, October 27, 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)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

02/13

✤ The shoes are perhaps the most valuable of all. According to uh

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

• bjects. 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.

Thursday, October 27, 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

• ur 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].

Thursday, October 27, 2011

04/13

✤ Then we asked other groups of subjects —we gave them

different restrictions, uh and different conditions. So for instance, we told some people, “[9. Look], you can buy the sweater, but you can’t tell anybody you own it, and you can’t resell it.” That [10. drops] the value of it, suggesting that that’s

• ne 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 [11. thoroughly] washed.” That causes a huge drop in the

• value. As my wife put it, “You’ve washed away the Clooney

cooties.” (Laughter)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

05/13

✤ So let’s go back to art. I would love a Chagall. I love the work

• f Chagall. If people want to get me something at the end of

the [12. 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 [13. history]. In the case

• f 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.”

Thursday, October 27, 2011

06/13

✤ And that could explain the difference between an [14. 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— in people’s taste in art. This is a work by Jackson Pollock. Who [15. here] likes the work of Jackson Pollock? Okay. Who here, it does nothing for them? They just don’t like it. Okay. I’m not gonna make a [16. 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.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

07/13

✤ I use Jackson Pollock on purpose as an example because there’s a

young American artist [17. who] paints very much in the style of Jackson Pollock, and her work was worth many tens of thousands

• f 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 [18. inviting] the television program 60 Minutes II into their house to film her painting. And they then reported that her father was coaching her. [19. When] this came

• ut on television, the value of her [20. art] dropped to nothing. It

was the same art, physically, but the history had changed.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

08/13

✤ I’ve been focusing now on the visual arts, but I wanna give

two examples from music. This is Joshua Bell, a very famous [21. 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, [22. 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 [23. clip]

• f this.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

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 [24. Joshua] Bell. He actually made $20 more than that, but he didn’t count it. Um, 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 [25. stunned] that he’s standing in a subway station. And so she’s struck with

• pity. She reaches into her purse and hands him a 20.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

10/13

✤ The second example from music is [26. 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,

• pens up the piano and sits and does nothing for four

minutes and 33 seconds— that period of [27. 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)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

11/13

✤ Now I’ve been talking so far about pleasure, but what I want to

suggest is the same as everything I’ve said applies as well to [28. 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 [29. 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.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

12/13

✤ There’s no malevolence, they’re just pressing a [30. 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. They’re just— 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 [31. 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.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

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 [32.

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 [33. that]. Thank you. (Applause)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Date

TEDを使った聴き取り訓練

Thursday, October 27, 2011

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 は女性の米語の母語話者? ✤ 2000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

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Thursday, October 27, 2011