漢語人稱指稱回指使用分析－以韓英學習者為例

本研究旨在探討韓籍學習者在篇章中的人稱指稱回指形式選用，並以英語為母語學習者的語料作為參照，從語言類型與第二語言習得的角度出發，分析母語和漢語一樣都是完全代詞脫落語言的韓籍學習者，以及母語和漢語不同，為非代詞脫落語言的英語為母語學習者，指稱銜接是否如對比分析假設所預設的受母語影響，或是如標記理論所示，第二語言習得不一定受母語遷移影響。　　研究採用語料庫為本的方法，語料來源為TOCFL學習者語料庫中的B1（中級）和B2（中高級）的書信體文本，韓語為母語的學習者語料共有173篇（63847詞），與之參照的英語為母語學習者語料共有60篇（25620詞）。語料標記與分析的標準，是從前人的相關研究中梳理出漢語回指形式選用的制約原則，並按肖奚強（2001）將學習者違反制約原則的語料分為三大類和六小類：代詞多用「名詞回指誤為代詞回指」、「零代詞誤為代詞回指」，零代詞多用「名詞回指誤為零代詞」、「代詞回指誤為零代詞」，以及名詞多用「代詞回指誤為名詞回指」、「零代詞誤為名詞回指」。　　研究結果顯示：第一，韓籍學習者和英語為母語學習者一樣，都有零代詞使用不足的問題，不過這個現象會隨程度提升而減緩，而B2程度的韓語組零代詞用得明顯比英語組多，因此根據心理標記理論，我們推測在B1韓籍學習者的認知心理中，韓語的零代詞可能是相對有標的，因此不容易將母語規則遷移至目標語中。第二，兩組學習者的偏誤率都是以代詞多用為首，不過此類偏誤，會隨程度提升而減少，符合我們的預期，反之，零代詞多用和名詞多用的偏誤，則呈現隨程度提升偏誤率卻不減反增的趨勢，從學習者的兩個主要偏誤類型分別是「零代詞誤為代詞回指」和「代詞回指誤為零代詞」，我們認為漢語代詞和零代詞用與不用的複雜性對學習者而言是學習難點，而從英語組的名詞多用偏誤率比韓語組高，且B2的偏誤比B1多這兩點來看，我們推論英語為母語的學習者需要更多時間才能習得名詞回指。第三，在韓語中指稱對象位階較高者，基於禮貌原則，通常會避免以代詞回指，多用名詞或零代詞回指。不過韓籍學習者對於指稱位階為高階的人物，回指選用和英語為母語學習者一樣，在B1程度時，多以代詞和名詞回指，不過韓語組通常以代詞「您」回指，英語組則多以「你」回指，此外韓語組只在指稱對象為高階時，零代詞的比例明顯比英語組的高，似乎學習者的回指形式選用也受母語的語用遷移的影響。

關鍵字

篇章回指；指稱銜接；零代詞；學習者語料庫；第二語言習得

並列摘要

In this study, we discussed the selection of Chinese personal anaphora by L1 Korean speakers, and L1 English speakers as control. In second language acquisition theory, the contrastive analysis hypothesis assumes that L2 acquisition will be affected by mother language, while the Markedness theory states that learner’s mother language may not necessarily transfer to L2. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether native Korean speakers will be affected by positive transfer and acquire the rule of Chinese pro-drop easier than native English speakers. We assume that will be the case, because Korean and Chinese are both pro-drop languages. 　　The data analyzed in this study is based on the TOCFL learner corpus. We examined the texts of learners whose Chinese level is B1 and B2 in CEFR. In the corpus, there are 173 texts (63947 words) of L1 Korean speaker, and we selected 60 texts (25620 words) of L1 English speaker to compare with. We have developed standards for corpus marking and analysis from previous studies of Chinese anaphora, and we divided learner's error types into pronominal anaphora, zero anaphora and nominal anaphora. 　　The results of the study are: First, both L1 Korean and English speaker have the problem of missing zero anaphora, but the error frequency decreases as their level increases, and B2 Korean speaker used more zero anaphora than English speakers. Korean zero pronouns at the B2 level are obviously used more than the English pronouns. Therefore, according to the psychological markedness, we infer that Since zero anaphora is marked in Korean, unlike Chinese, for native speakers, it’s not as easy to acquire Chinese zero anaphora for Korean speakers. 　　Second, both L1 Korean and English speakers make the most errors in overused pronominal anaphora. However, as we expected, the error frequency decreases as their level increases. On the contrary, the error of overused zero anaphora and nominal anaphora does not decrease as their level increases. We conclude that the complexity of the Chinese anaphora is not easy to acquire. In addition, we found that L1 English speakers make more errors of overused nominal anaphora than L1 Korean speakers, and with English speakers there are more errors at B2 than B1 level. Therefore, we think L1 English speakers need more time to acquire nominal anaphora. 　　Third, in Korean, based on politeness principle, pronominal anaphora is rarely used to refer to elders or respected people, and nominal or zero anaphora are usually used. However, L1 Korean and English speakers often use nominal and pronominal anaphora as honorific at B1. But Korean usually used pronoun “nín” which is the honorific second-person pronoun in Chinese, and English speakers usually used the informal one “nǐ” instead. Furthermore, Korean used more zero anaphora than English speakers as honorific, so we think L1 pragmatics also affect L2 acquisition.