Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157847
|
| Title: | 漢語與韓語進行體標記「在」與「고₁ 있다」 對比研究在教學實務上的啟發
A Comparative Study of Mandarin and Korean Progressive Markers ";在";and ";고₁ 있다";and its pedagogical approach to teaching |
| Authors: | 朴主靈
JOOYEONG, PARK |
| Contributors: | 方瑾
Fang, Chin
朴主靈
PARK JOOYEONG |
| Keywords: | 進行體
語義特徵
-고 있다
在
華語文教學
progressive aspect
semantic features
-ko issda
Zài
Mandarin language teaching |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-07-01 15:25:37 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 在漢語和韓語中，進行體「在」和「-고₁ 있다」是使用頻率較高的語法，而「在」也是學習漢語時的初級語法點。由於其在日常交流中的高頻率使用，吸引了許多學者對其進行深入研究。然而，目前針對這兩種語言進行對比研究的相關文獻並不多。故本研究旨在探討漢語和韓語中的進行體，對比漢語的「在」和韓語的「-고₁ 있다」分別與何種動詞連用，以及連用時所呈現的形態特徵，對比分析兩者之間的共同及差異點。並為針對母語為韓語的漢語學習者，在進行體教學上提供更有效的教學策略，幫助學習者能更準確地掌握漢語進行體的用法，提升語言學習的效果。
在漢語部分，本研究根據Peck、Lin & Sun（2013）的四個面向分析漢語動詞的性質與特徵；而在韓語部分，則依據朴德裕（1998）所描述的四種韓語動詞類型，分析韓語動詞的性質與特徵。根據Peck、Lin & Sun（2013）的理論，本研究將動詞分類為六種類型，並以此為基礎進行漢語及韓語進行體的對比分析。
韓語進行體標記主要有「-고 있다（-go issda）、-어 가다（-eo gada）、-어 오다（-eooda）、-는 중이다(-neun jungida)」等，但「-어 가다、-어 오다」與其說對應於漢語的進行體標記「在」，更自然的表達方式應為持續體標記「著」或「一直」。能與漢語進行體標記「在」對應的韓語表達僅限於「-고 있다」與「-는 중이다」。然而，「-는 중이다」對應的漢語表達不僅僅是「在」，還包含「中」，因此，可以認為「在」與「-고₁ 있다」相對應。對「在」與韓語「-고 있다」情狀特徵之對比時，將重點關注在進行體標記與動詞類型之間的結合關係。研究發現韓語進行體標記「-고₁ 있다」相比漢語進行體標記「在」的動詞類型限制更少。「在」無法與任何狀態動詞結合。而「-고₁ 있다」雖然無法與不及物狀態動詞（形容詞）結合，但可以與進行狀態動詞（及物）、起點狀態動詞（及物）以及能願動詞結合。這是因為，韓語的心理動詞與狀態動詞皆含有[＋終結性]。 此外，韓語的進行體標記「-고₁있다」可以與兩點閉合量度變化動詞結合 ， 這是因為韓語的履行動詞具有[＋接近性]的特徵。 至於漢語進行體標記「在」無法與兩點閉合量度變化動詞結合，主要是因為漢語的兩點閉合量度變化動詞本身不具備[＋接近性]的特徵，而「在」要與兩點閉合量度變化動詞結合要求動詞具有[＋接近性]，能夠表示動作的持續進行。 因此，可以認為韓語進行體標記「-고₁ 있다」相比漢語進行體標記「在」，受到的動詞類型限制更少。
換言之，韓語的「-고₁ 있다」的用法對應於漢語的「在」屬於「一對多」型態，也就是說韓語的「-고₁ 있다」一個型態所標記的進行體，在漢語裡須視動詞類型分化為「在」、「著」或「正/正在」，這也就昭示了教學上的難點所在，既分析出難點所在，教學上就能針對韓國籍學習者給予適當的學習引導，避免偏誤一再發生。
最後根據韓國籍學習者的學習偏誤，了解學習上的難點，研討教學的對策， 提出適合初級韓國籍學習者的漢語進行體標記「在」的教學與學習方案。包括語法教學，語法練習與活動，利用Wordwall的布置非同步作業。
The progressive aspect markers “zài” and “-ko iss-da” are commonly used grammatical constructions in both Chinese and Korean. In Chinese, “zài” is one of the core grammatical elements introduced at the elementary level of Chinese language instruction. While the high frequency of “zài” and “-ko iss-da” in everyday communication has made them subjects of considerable academic interest, comparative studies examining these constructions in parallel remain relatively scarce. Therefore, this study aims to explore the progressive constructions in Chinese and Korean by analyzing the similarities and differences between the Chinese marker“zài” and the Korean construction “-ko iss-da,” focusing on the types of verbs these markers typically accompany as well as the morphological characteristics of such pairings. The findings aim to inform more effective instructional strategies for teaching Chinese to Korean native speakers, to help learners more accurately grasp the use of Chinese progressive aspect and improve language acquisition outcomes.
This study analyzes the properties and features of Chinese verbs based on the four
orientations introduced by Peck, Lin, and Sun (2013), while the analysis of Korean verbs follows the four verb types identified by Park Deok-Yoo (1998). Drawing on the framework proposed by Peck, Lin, and Sun (2013), this study classifies verbs into six distinct types and uses this classification as the foundation for comparing Chinese and Korean progressive aspect markers.
In Korean, the progressive aspect is expressed through several constructions, including “-ko iss-da,” “-eo-gada,” “-eo-oda,” and “-neun jung-ida.” Of these, “-eo-oda” and “-eo-gada” align more naturally with the Chinese durative markers “zhe ” or “yìzhí” rather than the progressive marker “zài.” Therefore, the Korean expressions that most directly correspond to“zài” are “-ko iss-da” and “-neun-jung-ida.” However, since “-neun-jung-ida” also maps to “zhōng,” “-ko-iss-da” is considered the closest Korean equivalent to the Chinese progressive marker “zài.” In comparing the situational characteristics of the Chinese marker “zài” and the Korean marker “-ko-iss-da,” this study focuses on their combinatory relationships with different verb types. The findings suggest that the Korean progressive marker “-ko iss-da” places fewer restrictions on the types of verbs it can co-occur with compared to the Chinese progressive marker “zài.” The Chinese marker “zài” cannot co-occur with any stative verbs. In contrast, while Korean progressive marker “-ko iss-da” also cannot combine with intransitive stative verbs (such as adjectives), it can co-occur with transitive progressive stative verbs, inchoative stative verbs (transitive), and modal verbs. This is because psychological and stative verbs in Korean generally carry the [+telic] feature. Furthermore, the Korean progressive marker “-ko iss-da” can co-occur with two-point closed scale change verbs, as Korean accomplishment verbs tend to exhibit the [+proximity] feature. On the other hand, the Chinese progressive marker “zài” cannot be used with two-point closed scale change verbs, mainly because these verbs in Chinese do not inherently possess the [+proximity] feature, which is required for “zài” to express an ongoing action. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Korean progressive marker “ -ko iss-da” is subject to fewer verb type restrictions compared to the Chinese progressive marker “zài.”
This suggests a one-to-many correspondence, where a single Korean form maps onto
multiple Chinese progressive constructions. That is, depending on the verb type, Chinese may use “zài,” “zhe,” and “zhèng/zhèngzài,” to convey what Korean expresses uniformly through“-ko iss-da.” This structural difference can create instructional difficulties and contribute to recurring learner errors. Therefore, analyzing the sources of such errors can support the development of more effective instructional strategies for Korean-speaking learners of Chinese.
This study concludes by examining learner difficulties through the lens of common error patterns among Korean-speaking students and outlining effective instructional strategies to address them. It further presents a pedagogical plan for teaching the Chinese progressive marker “zài,” specifically designed for beginning-level Korean learners. The proposed approach incorporates grammar instructions, practice activities, and asynchronous assignments using Wordwall. |
| Reference: | 一、外文文獻
1. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Longman.
2. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese, A Functional Reference Grammar. 박정구 외(1989), 標準漢語語法. 한울아카데미.
4. Peck, J., Lin, J., & Sun, C. (2013). Aspectual classification of Mandarin Chinese verbs: A perspective of scale structure. Language and Linguistics, 14(4), 663–700.
5. Smith, C. S. (1991). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
6. Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. Teng, S.-h. (1974). Verb Classification and its Pedagogical Extensions. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association (JCLTA), Vol.9:2, 84-92.
8. Teng, S.-h. (1975). A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9. Vendler, Z.(1957).Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66.143-160.
10. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.
11. Xiao, R., & McEnery, T. (2004). Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
12. 고영근（2004）.한국어의 시제 서법 동작상.태학사[高英根（2004）.韓語時態與書法動作相.首爾:太學士].
13. 김성화（2003）.국어의 상 연구.한신문화사.[金成花（2003）.韓文相研究.首爾:H.S MEDIA].
14. 노성（2014）.한국어와 중국어 진행상（進行體） 표지 '-고 있다'와 '在'의 대조 연구(석사학위논문).한양대학교대학원 국어교육학과. [Lu Cheng（2014）.A Comparative Study on Progressive Expression '-ko issta' and 'zai' in Korean and Chinese.Hanyang University Master's Thesis].
15. 박덕유（1998）.국어의 동사상 연구. 한국문화사.[朴德裕（1998）.國語的動詞相研究.首爾:韓國文化史]。
16. 박덕유（2007）.한국어의 相이해. 제이앤씨[朴德裕（2007）.理解韓語的相.首爾:jnc印書館].
17. 박신순（2020）.현대중국어 ‘在’, ‘著’, ‘正’의 상적 기능 연구. 한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집,3-8.[박신순（2020）.現代漢語‘在’, ‘著’, ‘正’的體功能研究.韓國中語中文學會春季學術大會,3-8] .
18. 손세모돌(1996).국어 보조용언 연구.한국문화사.[孫三角石(1996).國語補助用言研究.首爾:韓國文化史].
19. 이명화（2010）.한국어 ‘-고₁ 있-’과 중국어 ‘在’의 대조 연구.인문학연구.14집, 67~90.[Li，Ming-Hua（2010）.韓語‘-고₁있-’和漢語 在의 對比硏究.人文學研究.14輯,頁67~90] .
20. 정문수（1984）.상적 특성에 따른 한국어 풀이씨의 분류.문법연구5. 51~85.[Jeong, Moon-Su(1984). Classification of Korean predicates by aspectual characters. A Study of Grammar5, 51~85].
21. 王惠敬(2004)。現代漢語「V+着[ㆍzhe]」在句中表示持續的條件(博士論文)。高麗大學。
22. 鄭素英(2015)。韓中兩國學生對"進行式"的認知體系研究。韓國中語中文學， 第59期，169-192。
二、中文文獻
1. 王力(1985) 。中國現代語法。北京:商務印書館。新1版。
2. 朱德熙(1982)。語法講義。北京:商務印書館。
3. 李臨定（1990）。現代漢語動詞。北京:中國社會科學出版社。
4. 房玉清(1998)。實用漢語語法。北京:北京語言文化大學出版社。
5. 石毓智（2006）。論漢語的進行體範疇。漢語學習，第3期，14-24。
6. 呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞(增訂本)。北京:商務印書館。
7. 鄧守信（1985）。漢語動詞的時間結構。語言教學與研究，第4期，7-17。
8. 厲亞敏(2016)。時貌標記「著」在漢語動詞時貌分類體系中的句法語意表現(碩士論文)。國立政治大學語言學研究所。
9. 徐昌火(2004)。HSK漢語語法。北京:北京大學出版社。
10. 高名凱(1986)。漢語語法論。北京:商務印書館。
11. 陳平（1988）。論現代漢語時間系統的三元結構。中國語文，第6期，401~421。
12. 陳月明(1999)。時間副詞「在」與「着1」。漢語學習，第4期，11-15。
13. 楊素英（1995）。當代動貌理論與漢語。北京:商務印書館。
14. 溫曉芳（2011）。對外漢語教學中的「正」、「在」、「著」探析。文教资料， 第18期，49-51。
15. 劉德馨、郭庭安、大槻和也、葉姵妤&劉儀君（2021）。日籍漢語學習者的體標記習得偏誤。Chinese as a second language research，第10期，291-318。
16. 戴耀晶（1997）。現代漢語時體系統研究。杭州: 浙江教育出版社。
17. 龔千炎（1995）。漢語的時相時制時態。北京:商務印書館。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
112161010 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112161010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [華語文教學博／碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101001.pdf | | 3689Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
