政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/136469

政大典藏 > College of Liberal Arts > Doctor`s / Master`s Program in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language > Theses > Item 140.119/136469

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136469

Title:	基於語料庫之近義詞與中介語分析—— 以「改變」、「轉變」、「轉換」為例 Syntactic and Semantic Analyses of gaibian, zhuanbian and zhuanhuan in Native Language and Interlanguage Corpora
Authors:	李美慧 Lee, Mei-Hui
Contributors:	賴惠玲 Lai, Huei-Ling 李美慧 Lee, Mei-Hui
Keywords:	近義詞改變轉變轉換中介語語料庫 Synonyms Gaibian Zhuanbian Zhuanhuan Interlanguage Corpus
Date:	2021
Issue Date:	2021-08-04 15:35:36 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	近義詞教學需奠基於語言本體上的辨析。在本論文中，先歸納前人針對不同詞類的近義詞所採用的分析方式，之後針對目標詞「改變」、「轉變」與「轉換」透過國教院語料庫隨機各取1111筆語料，由字源探究、句法結構、共現名詞與副詞、語意角色、路徑概念與意象圖示多面向分析，並由中介語語料庫觀察學習者的表現。　　透過語料歸納發現，「改變」傾向使動用法，最高頻句式為「NP1＋改變＋NP2」，「轉變」傾向起動用法，最高頻句式為「NP2＋轉變」，「轉換」上述兩句式比例接近，不過「AB轉換」結構為其獨有。在共現名詞與語意角色上，這三個動詞的NP1皆以有生命體居多，語意角色多為施事；NP2的語意角色以〈終點類〉之下的〈內容〉居首，〈主體類〉次之，三者皆可與抽象名詞搭配，另外「改變」以活動類名詞、具體有生命體，「轉變」以心理狀態類與有生命體，「轉換」以具體無生命體為相對高頻共現名詞。在高頻共現副詞上，「改變」較常與態度副詞共現，「轉變」較常與時間副詞共現，與「轉換」共現的「互相」、「相互」則未見於另兩個動詞。路徑上，三者皆極少呈現完整路徑，僅呈現部分視窗，在意象圖示上，「改變」、「轉變」為單一範疇內部有所變化，「轉換」則有兩個以上不同範疇的預設，「改變」的主事者最常共現，「轉變」的外部力量最常隱現。　　在中介語表現上，學習者能夠主動使用這三個動詞，但是「改變」有詞類與用法上的系統性偏誤，也有語意搭配上的錯誤，建議教師可給予學習者這三個動詞的共現句式與由語料庫篩選而出的高頻搭配詞，補充若要與「結果」共現的必備語法成份，並適時採用意象圖示說明語意內涵，由認知角度減少共現名詞搭配錯誤。 A solid investigation and analysis into the linguistic ontologies is the basis of effective instruction of synonyms. In this dissertation, we have, first of all, reviewed the various methods adopted by researchers in conducting their analyses into synonyms across parts of speech. We then have selected randomly 1111 data for each of our target items, namely, gaibian, zhuanbian and zhuanhuan, from the corpus compiled by the National Academy for Educational Research. The said data have then been examined from the perspective of etymology, before we have drawn their respective syntactic structures, sorted out the nouns and adverbs which they most-commonly collocate with. We have also defined their semantic roles, mapped out their conceptual pathways as well as their image schemas. Learners’ performances have also been observed by looking into the interlanguage corpora. Investigation into the corpora has found that gaibian is very often used in the sense of causative verbs, with “NP1 + gaibian + NP2” as its most commonly-used syntactic pattern. zhuanbian tends to be used in an inchoative sense, and appears most frequently in the structure “NP2 + zhuanbian”. While zhuanhuan has shown up in the two syntactic structures at nearly equal ratio, it has also been used in “AB zhuanhuan” structure, which is unique among the three target items. As to their collocated nouns and semantic roles, these three verbs are the same, in that their NP1 are mostly animate, and, in most cases, agents of the events. Nouns playing the “content” role, a sub-category under the semantic label “goal” rank at the top among the nouns occupying the NP2 spot in terms of frequency, while those playing the role “theme” follow. All of the three target items can collocate with abstract nouns. gaibian co-occurs very often with concrete, animate nouns as well as activities nouns. The nouns which co-occur with zhuanbian are mostly descriptions of mental states, and are animate, too. zhuanhuan, however, is a verb frequently associated with concrete, inanimate nouns. As regard to their co-occurring adverbs, gaibian collocates mostly with attitudinal adverbs, while pairings between adverbs of time and zhuanbian are common. huxiang or xianghu, which are combined frequently with zhuanhuan, never collocate with gaibian or zhuanbian. And when it comes to their conceptual pathways, all of the three present partial windows; they seldom complete a pathway. Image schemas of the three verbs show that gaibian and zhuanbian are used to indicate changes within one single domain, while zhuanhuan presupposes the involvement of two or more than two domains. The agents of gaibian are explicit most of the time; the external forces of zhuanbian are normally implicit. The examination of learners’ interlanguage corpus has indicated that learners are capable of active use of all the three verbs. However, systematic errors in parts of speech and semantic collocations have been found in learners’ data of gaibian. Pedagogical advices include: 1. teachers map out the relevant syntactic patterns and give a list of the frequently-co-occurred words based on the findings sorted out from corpus; 2. teachers enumerate the grammatical elements integral to the presentation of the “results” of the events; and, last but not the least, 3. whenever appropriate, teachers can illustrate the semantic contents of the verbs with image schemas. The application of cognitive approach to instruction help learners reduce errors in their choice of co-occurring nouns.
Reference:	中文參考書目王寅（2007）。認知語言學。上海：上海外語教育出版社。安可思（2009）。概念隱喻。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），語言與認知（55-82頁）。臺北市：台大出版中心。何萬順（2010）。漢語動賓結構中的互動與變化。臺北市：文鶴。宋如瑜（2013）。華語教學新手指南：實境點評。臺北市：新學林。李子瑄、曹逢甫（2009）。漢語語言學（初版）。臺北縣：正中。李福印（2008）。認知語言學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。林俊宏、李延輝、羅云廷、賴慈芸（譯）（2007）。第二語教學最高指導原則（第五版）（原作者：道格拉斯.布朗）。臺北市：臺灣培生教育。林慶隆、柯華葳、張俊盛、陳浩然、高照明、蔡雅薰、張鬱雯、陳柏熹、張莉萍（2017）。華語文八年計畫建置應用語料庫及標準體系106年工作計畫期末報告。臺北：國家教育研究院。洪千惠（2011）。從語料庫統計的觀點分析美國之音新聞英文被動句中文譯文。編譯論叢，（4）2，25-53。洪瑋（2012）。面向漢語二語教學的近義詞研究綜述。華文教學與研究（4），44-51。袁毓林（2002）。論元角色的層級關系和語義特征。世界漢語教學（3），10-22。doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5804.2002.03.002 袁毓林（2003）。一套漢語動詞論元角色的語法指標。世界漢語教學（3），24-36。doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-5804.2003.03.005 馬燕華、莊瑩（2002）。漢語近義詞詞典。北京：北京大學出版社。高樹藩、王修明（1971）。正中形音義綜合大字典。臺北市：正中。高照明（2017）。2012年至2014年出現的中文新詞調查研究報告。國家教育研究院。菲爾墨（2002）。「格」辨（胡明揚譯）。北京：商務印書館。張伯江（2000）。論「把」字句的句式語義。語言研究，1（6），28-39。張伯江（2001）。被字句和把字句的對稱與不對稱。中國語文，6，519-524。張博（2007）。同義詞、近義詞、易混淆詞:從漢語到仲介語的視角轉移。世界漢語教學，3，98-107。張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁（2000）。漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法。中文計算語言學期刊，5（1），1-18。張麗麗（2003）。動詞複合與象似性。語言暨語言學，4（1），1-27。崔希亮（2016）。語言理解與認知（修訂版）。上海市：學林出版社。敖桂華（2008）。對外漢語近義詞辨析教學對策。漢語學習（3），106-109。doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-7365.2008.03.015 曹煒（2010）。現代漢語詞彙硏究（修訂本，第1版）。廣州：曁南大學出版社。梁豔麗（2013）。對外漢語教材近義詞處理考察分析。吉林：吉林大學。陸慶和（2008）。基礎漢語教學（一）：語音、文字、詞彙、句子。臺北市：新學林出版社。湯廷池（2014）談「動搖」、「搖動」、「生產」、「產生」與「看錯」、「錯看」。載於湯廷池（主編），華語詞法研究入門（中）（163-186頁）。臺北：致良。湯廷池（2002）。漢語複合動詞的「使動與起動交替」。Language and Linguistics，3（3），615-644。黃居仁、張莉萍、安可思、陳超然（1999）。詞彙語意和句式語意的互動關係。中央研究院語言學研究所籌備處會議論文集之二，2（5），1-22。黃居仁（2005）。漢字知識表達的幾個層面：字，詞，與詞義關係概論。漢字與全球化國際學術研討會。臺北。黃居仁（2009）。從詞彙看認知：詞彙語意學研究的趣味。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），語言與認知。（203-228頁）。臺北市：國立臺灣大學出版中心。靳洪剛（2004）。語言定式教學法在中文習得和中文教學中的作用。Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association，39（1），45-62。楊寄洲（2005）。1700對近義詞語用法對比。北京：北京語言大學出版社。趙元任（1980）。中國話的文法（丁邦新譯）。香港：香港中文大學出版社。遠藤雅裕（2016）。臺灣海陸客語處置式的主語特性。臺灣語文研究，11（2），169-198。劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（1996）。實用現代漢語語法。臺北：師大書苑。劉叔新（1992）。同義詞語和反義詞語（第1版）。北京：商務印書館。劉座箐（2013）。國際漢語詞彙與詞彙教學。北京市：高等教育出版社。鄧守信（2009）。漢語近義詞用法詞典。臺北市：書林。蔡美智（2011）。過程方便，結果便利─狀態動詞事件結構與近義詞教學。華語文教學研究，8（3），1-22。doi:10.6393/jclt.201112.0002 賴惠玲（2017）。語意學。臺北：五南。謝佳玲（2006a）。華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析。華語文教學研究，3（1），1-25。謝佳玲（2006b）。漢語情態詞的語意界定：語料庫為本的研究。中國語文研究，1（21），45-63。碩博士論文丁國雲（2009）。由近義詞「認識」、「知道」語內和語際對比看日、泰中、高級學習者母語遷移現象。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所，臺北市。王智儀（2012）。基於語料庫之近義詞辨析─以動作及物動詞「建立、成立、設立」為例。文藻外語學院華語文教學研究所，高雄市。江鬱瑩（2017）。臺灣華語「給」之句式與教學研究。國立新竹教育大學中國語文學系碩士班，新竹市。吳欣達（2003）。漢語中的上移動詞。國立交通大學語言與文化研究所，新竹市。宋千儀（2016）。華語人物分類詞之社會文化意涵。國立政治大學華語文教學博士學位學程，臺北市。林春霞（2007）。「向」、「朝」、「往」之語義分析與教學語法。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所，臺北市。林羿伶（2010）。近義詞辨析—以名詞為例。臺東大學語文教育學系碩士班，臺東市。俞慎昀（2012）。華語連詞「不然」/「要不然」/「否則」的言談語用探析─以口語語料庫為本。國立高雄師範大學華語文教學研究所，高雄市。洪宛儀（2014）。漢語他動動詞「推」與「拉」詞彙語意研究。交通大學語言學，新竹市。張齡方（2016）。近義詞「大多」與「多半」的句法、語義和語用分析。中國文化大學華語文教學碩士學位學程，臺北市。郭碧雲（2003）。中文動詞近義詞組「搬、遷、移」之詞彙語意研究。國立交通大學語言與文化研究所，新竹市。陳怡婷（2014）。近義詞「買賣」、「交易」、「貿易」的共現與語意韻律研究。國立政治大學語言學研究所，臺北市。陳怡蓁（2011）。隱喻及轉喻對英語為外語學習者之教學成效：以情緒語言為例。國立政治大學英國語文學研究所，臺北市。陳姿吟（2014）。近義詞之教學設計研究—以華語八千詞中的「瞭解/理解」、「節省/節約」、「損失/喪失」、「舒展/舒暢」、「仔細/詳細」為例。文藻外語大學華語文教學研究所，高雄市。陳彥齊（2017）。介詞「在」與「當」時間類框架的句法分析與教學建議。中國文化大學華語文教學碩士學位學程，臺北市。彭貴暄（2013）。華語近義詞教學研究。中原大學應用華語文研究所，桃園縣。楊小慧（2012）。基於語料庫的動詞學習困難之研究:及物性、語意韻、近義詞。國立臺灣師範大學英語學系，臺北市。廖小婷（2003）。中文施力動詞『拉、拖、扯』之語意初探--以語料庫為本的近義詞研究。國立交通大學語言與文化研究所，新竹市。臧國玫（2011）。漢語時態動詞研究。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所，臺北市。蔡貴琳（2016）。近義量詞「間、家、所」、「部、台、輛」之搭配分析及教學應用--以語料庫為本。國立臺中教育大學語文教育學系華語文教學碩士班，台中市。蕭妤珍（2016）。臺灣華語「塞」和「堵」的詞彙語意研究。國立交通大學外國語文學系外國文學與語言學碩士班，新竹市。英文參考書目 Beavers, J. (2008). Scalar complexity and the structure of events. Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 245-265. Biq, Y.-O., & Huang, C.-R. (2016). Adverbs. In C.-R. Huang & D. Shi (Eds.), A reference Grammar of Chinese (pp. 315-352). UK: Cambridge University Press. Chappell, H., & Shi, D. (2016). Major non-canonical clause types: ba and bei. In C.-R. Huang & D. Shi (Eds.), A reference grammar of Chinese (pp. 451-483). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Chung, S.-F. (2017). A Corpus-Based Approach to Distinguishing the Near-Synonyms Listen and Hear. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 8(1), 33-54. Chung, S.-F., & Chen, L.-Y. (2015). A Corpus-based Comparison of Near-Synonymous Adjectives in General English and in Academic Writing. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 7(2), 1-23. doi:10.6706/tiespj.2015.7.2.1 Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (2015). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Dixon, R. M. (2005). A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford University Press. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619. Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Form and Meaning in Language (Vol. 1). CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information. Fleischhauer, J., & Gamerschlag, T. (2014). We’re going through changes: How change of state verbs and arguments combine in scale composition. Lingua, 141, 30-47. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.006 Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths : applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gan, Y. (2017, May 18–20). A Study on Chinese Synonyms: From the Perspective of Collocations [Paper presentation]. 18th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop, Leshan, China. https://bit.ly/3hN9DRP (pp. 558-572). Glynn, D. (2014). Polysemy and synonymy : cognitive theory and corpus method. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics : quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 7-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gong, S.-P., & Wu, P.-Y. (2012). Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and Near- synonymy: The HELP Verbs in Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 24(01), 3-15. doi:10.1142/S1793840612400016 Gries, S. T., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 34, 121-150. Hsiao, S. H. C. (2015). The Role of Force in Mandarin Verbs of Cutting. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 13(2), 1-30. Huang, C.-R., & Shi, D. (2016). A reference grammar of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. Huang, S.-L., Lin, S.-C., Ma, W.-Y., & Chen, K.-J. (2015). Semantic Roles and Semantic Role Labeling. (Technical Report no. 15-01).Retrieved from https://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/papers/ma/19255-F.pdf Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind : the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2017). Semantic Role Labeling and Argument Structure. Speech and Language Processing (3rd ed. draft). https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/ Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, B. (2019). On Dowty`s `Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/dowty19fin.pdf Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2010, April 8-10). Lexicalized scales and verbs of scalar change [Paper presentation]. 46th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, IL, United States. https://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/cls10change.pdf Li, Y.-H. A. (2016). Verbs and verb phrases. In C.-R. Huang & D. Shi (Eds.), A reference Grammar of Chinese (pp. 81-115). UK: Cambridge University Press. Liao, W.-W. R. (2014). Morphology. In Huang, C. J., Li, Y. A., & Simpson, A. (Eds.),. The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (pp. 3-25). New Jersey, United States: Wiley-Blackwell. Littlemore, J., Chen, P., Tang, P. L., Koester, A., & Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy in EAP and ESP. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A. (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 189-211). Walter de Gruyter. Liu, D., & Zhong, S. (2016). L2 vs. L1 Use of Synonymy: An Empirical Study of Synonym Use/Acquisition. Applied linguistics, 37(2), 239-261. Liu, M.-C. (1997). Conceptual basis and categorial structure: a study of Mandarin V-R compounds as a radial category. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, 425-451. Liu, M., & Chang, C.-W. (2015). A Lexical-Constructional Approach to Verbal Semantics: The Case of Mandarin ‘Hang’ Verbs. International Journal of Knowledge and Language Processing, 6(4), 1-20. Packard, J. (2016). Lexical word formation. In C.-R. Huang & D. Shi (Eds.), A reference Grammar of Chinese (pp. 67-80). UK: Cambridge University Press. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (2007). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335-359). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Rothstein, S. D. (Ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (pp. 13-42). John Benjamins Publishing. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 21-38). Oxford university press. Riemer, N. (2010). Meaning and cognition I: categorisation and cognitive semantics. In N. Riemer (Ed.), Introducing semantics (pp. 224-260). Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Shi, D. (2016). Nouns and nominal phrases. In C.-R. Huang & D. Shi (Eds.), A reference grammar of Chinese (pp. 199-255). UK: Cambridge University Press. Shi, D., & Huang, C.-R. (2016). Syntactic overview. In C.-R. Huang & D. Shi (Eds.), A reference Grammar of Chinese (pp. 14-66). UK: Cambridge University Press. Sinha, A. C. (1973). Fillmore’s case notions. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 33(1/4), 265-276. Tai, James H.-Y. (2003). Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and linguistics, 4(2), 301-316. Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, Mass. MIT press. Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Talmy, L. (2010). Ten lectures on cognitive semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press UK. Taylor, J. R. (2003). Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: ‘high’ and ‘tall’ revisited. Language sciences, 25(3), 263-284. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(02)00018-9 Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning : theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge. Wang, S., & Huang, C.-R. (2017). Word sketch lexicography: new perspectives on lexicographic studies of Chinese near synonyms. Lingua Sinica, 3(1), 1-22. doi:10.1186/s40655-017-0025-4
Description:	博士國立政治大學華語文教學碩博士學位學程 100160503
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100160503
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202101047
Appears in Collections:	[Doctor`s / Master`s Program in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
050301.pdf		13068Kb	Adobe PDF2	525	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...