HSK10组不含相同语素的单双音同义动词考察

发布时间：2018-05-18 19:58

本文选题：HSK + 单双音同义动词　；参考：《北京语言大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 本文运用计量统计与定性研究相结合的方法,对《汉语水平词汇与汉字等级大纲》中10组不包含相同语素的单双音同义动词进行了考察。首先以CCL语料库为基础,考察二者的使用频率,继而从意义和语法功能方面考察其差异;随后,本文在HSK动态作文语料库中,考察留学生使用这些词语时的偏误情况,分析其偏误类型和形成原因。通过以上考察,力图揭示这10组单双音同义动词的内在差异,从而探索汉语同义词辨析的新角度和新方法,辅助对外汉语词汇教学。考察的结论为: 1)使用频率上,无论是母语使用人群,还是汉语作为第二语言的学习者,在同一个义项上,双音动词的使用频率都远远大于单音动词。 2)意义方面,所考察的十组单双音同义动词,均在意义上有着或多或少的差别。表现为三种类型:第一种是语义上基本没有差别,二者的差别主要体现在因音节制约因素而产生的搭配上,以“休息-歇”“节约-省”两组为代表;第二种是语义上的差别很大,具体表现为行为主体和关系对象的不同、语义范围的不同和语义程度的不同,以“懂-知道”“担任-当”等六组为代表;第三种是语义上的差别不大,只是在某些情况下二者不可以互换,以“爱-喜欢”“比如-像”两组为代表。 3)语法功能方面,单双音同义动词除了共性以外,也存在着一定的差异,主要表现为三种类型:第一种类型是,做谓语时,二者的语法功能相同或相似,但是双音动词可做除谓语以外的其他语法成分,语法功能强于单音动词,以“节约-省”为等五组为代表。第二组类型是,二者的语法功能相同或相似,但是单音动词具有某些特别的用法,而双音动词没有,以“懂-理解”“懂-知道”两组为代表;第三种类型是,二者都做谓语时,宾语搭配受音节制约的因素较大,差别明显,以“节约-省”“休息-歇”“爱-喜欢”三组为代表。 4)使用偏误方面,在学生所出现的偏误中,“误代”的偏误占了绝大比例,具体表现为同义或者近义词语的混淆;对词语语义的不明确和使用语境的不了解,是学生产生偏误的重要原因。此外,一个很重要的发现是,在考察学生偏误的时候,本体研究中我们确定的同义词,学生并不一定产生混淆;而学生的混淆词,也并不一定是我们以往认为的同义词。
[Abstract]:Using the method of econometric statistics and qualitative research, this paper investigates 10 groups of single and double syllable synonymous verbs without the same morpheme in the outline of Chinese level Vocabulary and Chinese characters. Based on the CCL corpus, this paper investigates the frequency of use of the two words, and then investigates their differences in meaning and grammatical functions. Then, in the HSK dynamic composition corpus, the author investigates the errors in the use of these words by foreign students. The types and causes of errors are analyzed. Through the above investigation, the author tries to reveal the internal differences of the 10 groups of mono-double syllable and synonymous verbs, and thus to explore new angles and methods of Chinese synonym discrimination and to assist the teaching of Chinese vocabulary as a foreign language. The mission concluded that: 1) in terms of frequency, both native speakers and learners of Chinese as a second language, disyllabic verbs are used more frequently than monosyllabic verbs in the same sense. 2) in the aspect of meaning, the ten groups of mono-double syllable and synonymous verbs are more or less different in meaning. There are three types: the first is that there is no difference in semantics, the difference between them is mainly reflected in the collocation caused by syllable constraints, represented by the two groups of "rest-rest" and "economy-province"; The second is the great difference in semantics, which is represented by six groups, such as "understand-know" and "act-when", which are represented by the difference of behavior subject and relation object, the difference of semantic scope and semantic degree; The third is semantic differences, but in some cases they are not interchangeable, as represented by "love-like" and "like" groups. 3) in the aspect of grammatical function, there are also some differences in synonyms of single and double syllable verbs, which are mainly manifested in three types: the first type is that the grammatical functions of the two verbs are the same or similar when they are predicates. But disyllabic verbs can be used as other grammatical elements except predicates, and their grammatical functions are stronger than monosyllabic verbs, represented by five groups of "economy-province". The second group is that they have the same or similar grammatical functions, but monosyllabic verbs have some special usage, while the disyllabic verbs do not, as represented by the two groups of "understand-understand" and "understand-know"; the third type is, When both do predicate, the collocation of object is restricted by syllable, and the difference is obvious, as represented by three groups of "saving-saving", "rest-rest" and "love-like". 4) in the aspect of usage error, the error of "wrong generation" accounts for most of the errors in the students, which are manifested in the confusion of synonyms or synonyms, the ambiguity of the semantic meaning of words and the lack of understanding of the context in which they are used. It is an important reason for students' errors. In addition, a very important finding is that in examining students' errors, the synonyms identified by us in ontological research do not necessarily produce confusion, and students' confused words are not necessarily synonyms that we used to think.
【学位授予单位】：北京语言大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：H146

【相似文献】