基于汉泰对比和中介语语料库的汉语对象介词的类型学特征考察

发布时间：2018-07-02 20:01

本文选题：汉语对象介词 + 偏误分析　；参考：《云南师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：汉语和泰语都是孤立语,没有形态变化,语序和虚词是主要的语法手段。介词作为虚词中重要的一类,语义、功能错综复杂,一直是对外汉语虚词教学的重点和难点。汉语对象介词“对、对于、关于、跟、和、同、给、向”使用频率较高,在意义和用法上既有交叉又有区别。因此,泰国学生在学习和使用过程中会遇到很多困难,出现偏误。本文在前人研究的基础上,通过考察中介语语料库中不同阶段泰国学生汉语对象介词的使用情况,分析、归纳出泰国学生习得汉语对象介词时出现的偏误类型和数量。为了探究偏误产生的原因与汉泰语言内部规律的联系,本文从语言类型学角度出发,结合汉泰双语语料中对象介词的使用情况,对汉泰对象介词进行了多方面的比较,总结归纳了汉语对象介词及其介词短语的类型学特征,并分析了这些特征与偏误之间的关系。最后,根据泰国学生汉语对象介词的习得情况和汉语对象介词的类型学特征提出了相应的教学建议。本文研究结论如下:1.在汉语母语者语料和泰国学生中介语语料中,汉语对象介词“对”的使用频率最高,“同”的使用频率最低。“对”的四种用法中,引进动作行为对待对象的义项使用频率最高;“跟”的六种用法中,表示协同对象的义项使用频率最高;“给”的五种用法中,介引给予对象的义项使用频率最高;“向”的三种用法中,介引动作指向对象的义项使用频率最高。一般来说,使用频率高的介词偏误数量也较多,而且随着泰国学生汉语水平的提高,偏误率在逐渐降低。2.汉泰对象介词的语义特征都非常丰富,都可以介引协同、共同、关联对象等,而且各对象介词在语义类型上有交叉重合,即不同的对象介词可以介引相同的题元。但是,汉泰对象介词在数量和用法上并不是一一对应的关系。如,汉语对象介词“对”在泰语中可以用七个对象介词表达,而且不同用法对应的泰语介词不完全相同。“跟”的每一个义项都能对应于泰语对象介词“???[kab21]”,但“???[kab21]”还有一些与“跟”不对称的对方,如可以引进动作对待、针对的对象等。3.汉语对象介词“对、对于、跟、和、同”能与后置词组成框式介词,如“对/对于……来说”、“跟/和/同……一起”等。泰语中没有框式介词,所以泰国学生在使用“对/对于……来说/而言”、“跟/和/同……一样”等介词框架时容易出现遗漏偏误。4.在泰语表达中,当谓语动词是“认错、道歉”时,对象介词必须隐含。汉语对象介词“跟、向、和、同”介引“道歉、认错”等礼仪性动作指向的对象时,它们必须显现。汉泰对象介词隐现特征的差异是造成误加、遗漏偏误的主要原因。5.汉语对象介词短语在句中作定语时,一般放在中心语前,而且必须加上定语标记“的”,而泰语对象介词短语作定语时放在所修饰的中心语后且不用加定语标记。
[Abstract]:Both Chinese and Thai are isolated languages with no morphological changes. Word order and function words are the main grammatical means. As an important class of function words, prepositions have complicated semantics and functions, which have always been the key and difficult points in the teaching of function words in TCFL. The Chinese object preposition "right, for, about, with, and, same, to, to" is used frequently, and there are both overlapping and differences in meaning and usage. Therefore, Thai students will encounter a lot of difficulties and errors in the process of learning and using. On the basis of previous studies, this paper analyzes the usage of Chinese object prepositions among Thai students at different stages in the interlanguage corpus, and concludes the types and quantities of errors that occur in the acquisition of Chinese object prepositions by Thai students. In order to explore the relationship between the causes of errors and the internal laws of Chinese and Thai languages, this paper makes a comparison between Chinese and Thai object prepositions from the perspective of linguistic typology and the use of object prepositions in Chinese and Thai bilingual corpus. This paper summarizes the typological characteristics of Chinese object prepositions and prepositional phrases, and analyzes the relationship between these features and errors. Finally, according to the acquisition of Chinese object prepositions and the typological characteristics of Chinese object prepositions, some teaching suggestions are put forward. The conclusions of this paper are as follows: 1. In the Chinese native language corpus and the Thai student interlanguage corpus, the Chinese object preposition "right" is used most frequently, and "Tong" is the least frequently used. Of the four usages of "right", the most frequently used meaning is to introduce action behavior to the object; among the six uses of "follow", the meaning of the cooperative object is used most frequently; and of the five uses of "give", Among the three usages of "Xiang", the meaning of the object is the most frequently used. Generally speaking, the number of preposition errors with high frequency is also higher, and with the improvement of Thai students' Chinese level, the error rate is decreasing gradually. The semantic features of Chinese and Thai object prepositions are very rich, which can be used to introduce cooperative, common and related objects. Moreover, the semantic types of each object preposition are overlapping, that is, different object prepositions can introduce the same subject elements. However, Chinese-Thai object prepositions do not correspond to one-to-one relationship in terms of quantity and usage. For example, Chinese object preposition "du" can be expressed with seven object prepositions in Thai, and the corresponding Thai prepositions in different usage are not exactly the same. Each meaning of "heel" can correspond to the Thai object preposition "[kab21]", but "[kab21]" also has some asymmetrical opponents with "heel", such as can introduce action treatment, target object, etc. Chinese object prepositions "pair, for, follow, and, same" can form frame prepositions with postpositions, such as "pair / yes". To say "," with / and / or with. Wait together. There are no box prepositions in Thai, so Thai students use "pair / for". With / with The preposition frame such as the same "is prone to omissions. 4." In Thai expression, the object preposition must be implied when the predicate verb is "admit wrong, apologize". Chinese object prepositions such as "follow, go, and" point to the object of ceremonial actions such as "introduction", apology and admission of error, they must appear. The difference of occult features of Chinese and Thai object prepositions is the main cause of adding errors and omitting errors. When Chinese object prepositional phrases are attributive in sentences, they are usually placed in front of the central word and must be marked ", while the Thai object prepositional phrases are placed after the modified central words without attributive markers.
【学位授予单位】：云南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H195.3

【相似文献】