Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/155423
|
| Title: | 中日泛化量詞對比研究
The Contrastive Study of General Classifiers between Mandarin and Japanese |
| Authors: | 黃彥程
Huang, Yen-Cheng |
| Contributors: | 陳奕勳
黃彥程
Huang, Yen-Cheng |
| Keywords: | 泛化量詞
對比研究
語料庫
問卷調查
華語教學
General Classifier
Contrastive Study
Corpus
Questionnaire
Teaching Mandarin as a Second Language |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-02-04 15:35:56 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 泛化量詞 (general classifier) 是量詞領域中被眾多學者提及的一門研究類別。Tai (1994) 宣稱中文泛化量詞「個」能於口語部分語境中代替其他量詞，以達到數量上的相等；日文方面的研究中，Zubin & Shimojo (1993) 也透過實驗說明「つ」可以兼容廣泛特徵的名詞。然而，名詞語意特徵大不相同，在中日文中泛化量詞究竟能與具備何性質的名詞子類別共現，母語者具體依據的判斷標準，是本論文欲研究的議題。
為了調查中日文泛化量詞及其搭配的名詞子類別，本論文採用語料庫調查法及問卷調查法為研究方法。首先以 Chao (1968) 所劃分的名詞子類別，輔以其他中日學者的文獻，決定中日文欲調查的名詞類別，透過中日文複數語料庫調查詞彙的共現率，找到排名前三的高頻詞彙。為證明這些高頻詞彙不受年代、語料庫性質、調查方式影響，而無法反映當代母語者的實際與用情形，同時以問卷調查法的形式向母語者確認語感，確保調查結果為真實的語言現象。
研究結果顯示，學者文獻、語料庫、母語者的語感呈現一致性。在中日文兩種語言中，母語者首先判定名詞能否接續的依據為「個別化」，重視數量上的一致性；再者判定泛化量詞是否涵蓋名詞語意特徵，能夠「個別化」且語意特徵不顯著的名詞，其量詞便能被泛化量詞所取代。
日文泛化量詞所展現的語意特徵兼容能力要高於中文，中日文中搭配名詞子類別最大的差異在於「有生性」與否。量詞是學習中文必經的階段，中日文泛化量詞轉換上，二語學習者可能會有過度類化的傾向，透過本論文的研究結果，教學者可了解偏誤所發生的原因，做為二語習得、華語教學、社會語言學的參考資料，亦可據此提前制定教學策略以改善。
General classifier is a research category frequently discussed by scholars in the
study of classifiers. Tai pointed out that the Chinese general classifier "ge" can replace
other classifiers in certain spoken contexts to achieve numerical equivalence.
Similarly, in Japanese studies, Zubin & Shimojo demonstrated through experiments
that "tsu" can accommodate nouns with diverse characteristics. However, given the
significant differences in semantic features among nouns, this study seeks to explore
which types of noun subclasses in Chinese and Japanese can co-occur with general
classifiers, as well as the specific criteria used by native speakers for such judgments.
To investigate the relationship between general classifiers and noun subclasses in
Chinese and Japanese, this study employs corpus analysis and survey methods. First,
the noun subclasses to be investigated in Chinese and Japanese are determined based
on Chao’s classification, supplemented by literature from other Chinese and Japanese
scholars. By analyzing the co-occurrence frequency of words in multiple Chinese and
Japanese corpora, the top three high-frequency words are identified. To ensure that
these high-frequency words are not influenced by factors such as time, corpus nature,
or research methods, and to reflect the actual usage of contemporary native speakers,
questionnaires are also distributed to native speakers to confirm linguistic intuition,
ensuring that the findings represent genuine linguistic phenomena.
The study reveals a consistency among scholarly literature, corpora, and native
speakers’ linguistic intuition. In both Chinese and Japanese, native speakers primarily
determine whether a noun can pair with a general classifier based on "individuation,"
emphasizing numerical consistency. Subsequently, they evaluate whether the general
classifier can encompass the noun’s semantic features. Nouns that can be individuated
and have less prominent semantic features are generally compatible with general
10
classifiers.
Additionally, Japanese general classifiers exhibit greater compatibility with
semantic features than their Chinese counterparts. The primary difference in noun
subclasses between Chinese and Japanese lies in the distinction of " animacy ".
Classifiers are an essential aspect of learning Chinese, and second-language learners
may exhibit tendencies toward overgeneralization in the conversion of general
classifiers between Chinese and Japanese. This study’s findings provide insights into
the causes of errors, serving as references for second-language acquisition, Chinese
language teaching, and sociolinguistics. They can also assist educators in developing
teaching strategies to address such issues in advance. |
| Reference: | 【中文】
王力(1958)。漢語史稿。北京：科學出版社。
王力(1959)。中國現代語法。香港：中華書局。
王文中、呂金燮 (2015)。教育測驗與評量—教室學習觀點（第二版）。臺北
市：五南圖書公司。
王文科、王智弘 (2019)。教育研究法（增訂第十八版）。臺北市：五南圖書公
司。
朱德熙(1982)。語法講義。上海：商務印書館。
呂叔湘(1980)。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
何杰(2000)。現代漢語量詞研究。北京：民族出版社。
周法高(1959)。中國古代語法 (稱代篇)。台北：中研院史語所。
林生傳 (2003)。教育研究法:全方位的統整與分析。臺北市：心理出版社。
林慶隆、白明弘(2021)。台灣華語文語料庫ˇˇ華語文教與學的必備工具。
新北市：國家教育研究院。
張郇慧（2014）。華語句法新論(上)。新北市：正中書局股份有限公司。
黃居仁，陳克健，賴慶雄（1997）。國語日報量詞典。台北市：國語日報社。
趙艷芳（2001）。認知語言學概論。上海：上海教育出版社。
潘中道、胡龍騰（譯）（2010）。研究方法：步驟化學習指南（原作者：Ranjit
Kumar）。臺北市：學富文化。
何萬順、林昆翰（2015）。分類詞與量詞的區分：以台灣華語為例。漢語學
報，第 4 期，56-68。
高蓉蓉、井上奈良彥（2006）。從原型理論來看分類詞「一本」--母語者與學習
書籍
期刊論文
者對原型性判定的異同--。台大日本語言究，2006 年 12 月，第 12 期。頁
75-106
陳欣徽（2009）。漢語量詞的隱喻使用。
盧隆德（2009）。日文量詞之研究。
賴宛君（2011）。準確界定漢語中的分類詞。
蘇欣敏（2009）。現代漢語口語分類詞研究。
【英文】
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA：University
of California Press.
Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson(黃宣範譯).2014.Mandarin Chinese: A
Functional Reference Grammar P92-99.
Allen, Keith.1977. Classifiers. Language, Vol. 53, No. 2.（Jun., 1977）, pp.285-
231
Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Bach, Emmon.1986. The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy · February
1986.
Barner, D., & J. Snedeker. 2005, ‘Quantity Judgements and Individuation:
Evidence That Mass Nouns Count’. Cognition 97:41–66.
David A. Zubin and Mitsuaki Shimojo. 1993. How “General” are General
碩博士學位論文
書籍
期刊論文
Classifiers? With Special Reference to ko and tsu in Japanese. Proceedings
of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and
Semantic Universals (1993), pp. 490-502.
Gao, M. Y. and Malt, B. 2009. Mental representation and cognitive consequences
of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24
（7/8）,1124-1179.
Greenberg, Joseph. 1990 [1972]. Numerical classifiers and substantial
number:problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. In on language.
Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, eds. K. Denning and S.
Kemmer,166-193. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press. [First published 1972 in Working Papers on
Language Universals 9: 1-39. Stanford, CA: Department of Linguistics,
StanfordUniversity.]
Grochocka, Marta. 2008. The usefulness of the definitions of abstract nouns in
OALD7 and NODE. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 44(4),
2008, pp. 469–501.
Her, One-soon. 2012. Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A
mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua 122.14:1668-1991
Her, One-Soon & Lai, Wan-Jun. 2012. Classifiers: The many ways to profile
‘one’, a case study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer
Processing of Oriental Languages 24.1:79-94.
Huang, Han-Chun. 2023. On the general classifiers ge and zàg in Hakka A corpusbased collostructional analysis. National Tsing Hua University.
Husic, Halima. 2020. On Abstract Nouns and Countability: An Empirical
Investigation into the Countability of Eventuality Denoting Nominals.
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsbibliothek.
Lakoff, George&Mark Johnson.1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George.1986. Classifiers as a reflection of mind. In C. Craig（Ed.）,
Noun classes and categorization（pp.13-51）. Philadelphia：John
Benjamins.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Cognitive models and prototype theory. In U. Neisser (Ed.),
Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors
in Categorization (pp. 63-100) (c) Cambridge University Press, reprinted
with permission.
Landman, Fred. 1989. Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1989.
Lakoff, George&Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to
poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loke, Kit-Ken. 1994. “Is ge merely a “general classifier?”, Journal of the Chinese
Language Teachers Association 29/3, 1994, 35-50.
Lakoff, George&Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied
mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1976. Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive psycology
8, 382-439 .University of California, Berkeley Press.
Rothstein, Susan. 2010. Counting and the Mass/Count Distinction. Journal of
Semantics 27: 343–397
Tai, James H-Y.1994. Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In
Honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang：Interdisciplinary Studies on
Language and Language Change, ed. by Matthew Chen&Ovid Tseng,
479-494. Pyramid Publishing Company.
Takashi, Iida. 2015. Mass/Count Distinction and Japanese Semantics. College of
Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University.
Takahashi, Toshiaki. 2014. Teaching the countability of abstract nouns : a practical
approach. English and English-American literature Volume 49 Page 73-88.
Wiebusch, Thekla. 1995. Quantification and Qualification：Two Competing
Functions of Numeral Classifiers in The Light of The Radical System of the
Chinese Script. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 23.2：1-41.
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2011. The constituency of classifiers constructions in
Mandarin Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics Vol. 9.1, 1-50, 2011
Zhong, Yu-Cheng. 2013. Mandarin abstract nouns with Delimitive adjectives and
classifiers. National Chong Cheng University.
【日文】
三保忠夫，「木簡と正倉院文書における助数詞の研究」，風間書房，2004 年 1
月。
三保忠夫，「尺牘資料における助数詞の研究」，武蔵野書院，2019 年 3 月。
安田尙道，「日本語数詞の歷史的硏究」，武蔵野書院，2015 年 5 月。
益岡隆志、田窪行則共著『基礎日本與文法-改訂版-』くろしお出版，
1992 年 P34-35。
梅棹忠夫，『日本與大辭典-改訂版-』，講談社，1989 年 11 月 6 日。
飯田朝子，「日本の助数詞に親しむ 数える言葉の奧深さ」，東邦出版株式会
社，2016 年 11 月。
飯田朝子，「数え方の辞典」，小学館株式会社，2022 年 11 月。
書籍
期刊論文
柴宝華，趙海誠，「コーパスに基づいた類義語分析」，明星大学研究紀要―人
文学部 3： 27-46 頁，2017 年。
【工具】
〈教育部重編國語辭典〉教育部重編國語辭典修訂本 (moe.edu.tw)
〈大辞林第三篇〉大辞林 特別ページ 言葉の世界 1-6 助数詞 (duald.net)
「中央研究院漢語平衡語料庫」中央研究院 平衡語料庫 (sinica.edu.tw)
「COCT 口語語料庫 2021」COCT 口語語語料庫 2021 (naer.edu.tw)
「日本語話し言葉コーパス CSJ」CSJ 中納言 (ninjal.ac.jp)
「NINJAL-LWP for TWC」トップ ┃ NINJAL-LWP for TWC (NLT)
(tsukubawebcorpus.jp) |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
107161008 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107161008 |
| 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 | |
|---|
| 100801.pdf | | 3907Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
