对外汉语教学中两类全称量化词研究

发布时间：2018-06-25 12:38

本文选题：全称量化词 + 句法成分　；参考：《安徽大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：人类语言既有共性,也存在差异,差异主要表现在三个方面:一、库藏不同;二、可能存在不同的移动,也就是是否移位;三、不同语言的功能语类在显性实现还是隐性实现方面可能存在不同。本文研究的是汉语全称量化词,主要将其分为两类,即统指类全称量化词和分指类全称量化词,对这两类全称量化词进行探讨,并用语言类型学的视角和方法将汉语的全称量化词和英语的全称量化词进行比较,从语言库藏和是否移位的角度阐述它们之间的差异,在此基础上,考察母语为英语的留学生汉语全称量化词的习得情况。第一章为绪论。第二章主要探讨汉语全称量化词的相关特点,包括三个方面:全称量化词所充当的句法成分、全称量化词与"都"共现的特点、全称量化词的辖域特点。根据对现代汉语语料的调查和统计,研究发现,除了统指类全称量化词"凡"只能做主语,出现在主语位置上,其他的全称量化词都是可以做主语(主语中心)、宾语(宾语中心)、定语的,还有一些全称量化词可以做状语,比如统指类全称量化词"全部"、分指类全称量化词"每""和"各"。但是英语全称量化词与汉语并不完全对应,一个英语全称量化词对应的汉语全称量化词通常不止一个,而"every"对应的两个汉语全称量化词在语义上属于不同类别,在句法成分上,汉英全称量化词也存在不一致的地方。在与"都"共现的问题上,全称量化词及全称量化名词词组只有在充当以下三种句法成分时才会与"都"共现:第一,主语、主语中心;第二,宾语、宾语中心,以"…动词/介词+全称量化词/全称量化名词词组+…+(都)+谓词性成分"的形式出现;第三,位于主语之前、主语之后的状语或省略主语的状语。根据对现代汉语语料的统计,全称量化词及全称量化名词词组做主语与"都"共现的频次要明显高于全称量化词及全称量化名词词组做宾语和状语与"都"共现的频次,而做宾语与"都"共现的频次则要高于做状语与"都"共现的频次。此外,当句子在语义上选择了别的词时,"都"不出现,这些词主要有"也(就/总)、就、皆、俱、即"。但是英语中没有与"都"对应的词,所以英语的全称量化词没有这一句法特点。辖域方面,全称量化词在主语位置上与否定词共现时没有歧义,表达的是全部否定的意思。全称量化词与存在量化词、WH-词共现时的辖域问题存在争论。根据调查问卷中的统计数据,我们发现:当统指类全称量化词"所有"与存在量化词"一""、WH-词共现时,句子倾向于"统指解";当分指类全称量化词"每"与存在量化词"一"、WH-词共现时,句子倾向于分指解;当这两个全称量化词与存在量化词"某"共现时,句子都倾向于统指解。但是在英语中,全称量化词与否定词、存在量化词、WH-词共现的句子是典型的辖域歧义句。第三章通过对HSK动态作文语料库中语料的整理和统计,了解留学生对汉语全称量化词的掌握情况。我们发现留学生能很好的掌握汉语各种句法位置上的全称量化词,但是对于与"都"共现的问题,留学生则会出现偏误,偏误主要是"都"的遗漏和"都"的混用。我们分析了偏误产生的原因,主要有两点:第一,母语负迁移,全称量化词与"都"共现这一句法特点是汉语特有的,英语中没有这一句法特点,也就是没有这一语言库藏。第二,汉语全称量化词除了可以与"都"共现,还可以与别的词共现,而这些词与"都"的区别不甚明显。对于汉语全称量化词与"都"共现的特点,从句法成分的角度来说,留学生的习得顺序是:主语(主语中心)宾语(宾语中心)状语。我们认为这是因为全称量化词及全称量化词名词词组做主语与"都"共现比较普遍,而做宾语与"都"共现需要出现在特定的结构中,做状语与"都"共现仅限于"全部"和"每"。第四章通过问卷调查的方式讨论留学生汉语全称量化词相关辖域特点的习得情况。根据问卷调查统计的结果,我们发现,随着留学生汉语水平的升高,留学生的掌握情况也越来越好。根据SPSS统计的结果,我们发现,留学生在习得汉语全称量化词与否定词共现时的辖域特点上,与母语者没有显著差异,但是在另外两类辖域问题上则有显著差异,不能完全习得。这是因为汉语全称量化词与否定词共现时没有辖域歧义,而英语全称量化词与否定词共现时是有辖域歧义的,这种差别是泾渭分明的,反而比较容易掌握。但汉语全称量化词与存在量化词、WH-词共现时是有辖域歧义的,并且这种歧义不像英语中那样典型,而是有某种倾向性。对于母语不是汉语的留学生来说,要理解这一点是非常困难的。第五章是对教材的调查,从而对教材的编写和教师的教学提出一些建议。
[Abstract]:Human language has both commonness and differences. The difference is mainly manifested in three aspects: first, the reservoir is different; two, there may be different movements, that is, whether or not it is displaced; three, the functional languages of different languages are different in explicit or recessive realization. That is to discuss the two types of total quantifiers, and to compare the total quantifiers in Chinese with the total quantifiers in English with the perspective and method of language typology. On the basis of this, the mother tongue is examined. The first chapter is the introduction. The second chapter mainly discusses the related characteristics of the Chinese full name quantifier, including three aspects: the syntactic components of the full name quantifier, the characteristics of the total quantifier and the "capital", the scope characteristics of the full weighing words, and the adjustment of the modern Chinese Corpus. According to the investigation and statistics, it is found that, in addition to the word "fan", which can only be the subject and appear on the subject position, all the other quantifier words can be the subject (the center of the subject), the object (object center), the attributive, and some full quantifier words can be used as adverbials. "Every" and "" each "" and "" each "," but the total number of English quantifiers in English is not completely corresponding to the Chinese, a total quantifier of a total number of English quantifiers in English is usually more than one, and "every" corresponding to the two Chinese full quantifiers in the semantic category, in the syntactic points, the Chinese and English total quantifiers are also inconsistencies. On the issue of "co - occurrence", the total quantifier word and the total quantifier noun phrase can be shared with "all" only when it acts as the following three syntactic components: first, subject, center of subject; second, object, object center,... Verb / preposition + universal quantifier / universal quantifier noun phrase +... Third, the adverbials after the subject, the adverbials after the subject, or the adverbials of the omission subject. According to the statistics of the modern Chinese corpus, the frequency of the co occurrence of the total quantifier and the full quantified noun phrase as the subject and the "all" is obviously higher than the total quantifier and the full quantified noun phrase as the object and adverbial. The frequency of co occurrence with the "capital", and the frequency of co occurrence of the object and the "capital" is higher than the frequency of co occurrence of adverbials and "all". In addition, when the sentence is semantically selected other words, the word "all" does not appear, and these words mainly have "(it)" and "all, all, that is". But there is no word corresponding to the "capital" in English, so the full quantifier of the English is not this There is no ambiguity in the position of the total quantifier in the subject position and the negative word, and the expression is all negative. The total quantifier and the existence of the quantifier and the WH- word are debated. In the quantifier word "one", "WH- word" is present, the sentence tends to "point out". When the total quantifier of the class refers to the word "one" and "there is a Quantifier" and "WH- word" is present, the sentence tends to be partial solution; when the two full quantifier words and the existence of Quantifier "one" co present, the sentences are inclined to the unified solution. But in English, the full name quantifier and the negative word, deposit. In quantitative words, the sentences shared by WH- words are typical domain ambiguity sentences. In the third chapter, through the arrangement and statistics of the corpus in the HSK dynamic composition corpus, we know that the foreign students' mastery of the total nominal quantifiers in Chinese. We find that the foreign students can well master the full quantified words in various syntactic positions in Chinese, but they are shared with the "capital". The foreign students will be mistaken, and the error is mainly the misuse of the "all" omission and the "capital". We have analyzed the reasons for the error. The first, the negative transfer of the mother tongue, the syntactic characteristic of the total name of the quantifier and the "capital", is unique in Chinese. There is no such syntactic feature in English, that is, there is no reservoir in the language. Two, in addition to the concurrence with the "capital", the Chinese full name quantifier can be co existing with other words, and the difference between these words and the "capital" is not very obvious. For the characteristics of the co-occurrence of the total quantifier and the "capital" in Chinese, from the point of view of the syntactic component, the acquisition order of the foreign students is the subject (the center of the subject) object (the object center) adverbial. Because the full name quantifier and the full name quantifier noun phrase are common to the subject and the "capital", the co occurrence of the object and the "capital" needs to appear in the specific structure. The co occurrence of adverbials and "all" is limited to "all" and "every". The fourth chapter discusses the acquisition of the related domain characteristics of the total Chinese word quantifier of the foreign students through the questionnaire survey. According to the results of the questionnaire survey, we found that with the increase of the Chinese level of the foreign students, the mastery of foreign students is getting better and better. According to the results of SPSS statistics, we find that there is no significant difference between the foreign students and the native speakers on the acquisition of the universally quantified and negative words in the Chinese language, but in the other two categories. There are significant differences in the area of jurisdiction, which can not be completely learned. This is because there is no jurisdiction ambiguity in the total quantifier and negative word in Chinese, but the total quantifier and the negative word are ambiguous, but the difference is quite distinct, but it is easier to grasp. However, the Chinese word quantifier and the quantifier and WH- word exist. There is a sense of ambiguity, and the ambiguity is not as typical as in English, but a tendency. It is very difficult for foreign students who are not Chinese to understand this. The fifth chapter is the investigation of the teaching materials, so as to make some suggestions for the compilation of the textbooks and the teaching of teachers.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H195.3

【相似文献】