現代漢語名詞謂語句研究與教學應用

現代漢語名詞謂語句在華語教學中一直是隱而不顯的語法點，根本原因在於難以建立一個跨語言的對比框架，前人文獻多採窮盡列舉的方式來定義之。本文以Payne（1997）、Pustet（2003）和Dixon（2010）對無動詞謂語句的類型分類為基礎，探討漢語名詞謂語句的四項語義關係：分別是量化（quantification）、相等（identity）、存有（existence and possession）以及屬性（attribution）。這四項語義關係中，可以發現漢語繫詞句和名詞謂語句呈現了互補分佈的現象。漢語量化關係的無標句式為名詞謂語句、相等關係的無標句式為繫詞句、存有關係的無標句式則為有字句、屬性關係則呈現紛雜的表達句式。根據本文的分類可以發現，傳統將名詞謂語句視為「繫詞句省略」簡化了現代漢語名詞謂語句的真實樣貌，而將「不是」當成名詞謂語句的否定式也是因「繫詞句省略」延伸造成的迷思。換言之，名詞謂語句和繫詞句不單純是非正式語體和正式語體的對比而已，而是依據不同的語義關係或語用策略而採取的句式選擇。其中，名詞謂語句除了量化關係以外，在其他三類須達成一定的句法、語義和語用條件才能使用：如出現在對比句構、作為謂語的名詞組需帶有修飾結構、或是帶有序列義的名詞等。語用上也與繫詞句有很大的差異，如相等關係展現出主謂語名詞之間的認同或親近感，存有關係經常與範圍副詞共現，強化全量或量少的語義等。本文最後分析學習者的名詞謂語句偏誤，發現以往可能低估了量化關係名詞謂語句的習得難度，部分學習者出現了繫詞泛用和遺漏的偏誤現象。本文根據Teng（2003）教學語法排序原則對這四種語義關係進行教學排序，依序是：量化關係、相等關係、存有關係和屬性關係。現代漢語名詞謂語句因其口語特性，長期以來被視為繫詞句的省略形式。因此忽略了名詞謂語句和繫詞句在語言經濟性和有效性之間，句法、語義、語用上產生的競逐關係，冀望本研究能作為一個起點，引發華語教學研究者對因「省略」之名而備受忽略的語言口語現象的關注和興趣。

關鍵字

名詞謂語句；繫詞句；教學語法；口語體；省略句

並列摘要

Nominal predicates in modern Chinese have long been overlooked as a grammatical teaching point in Chinese language instruction. The main reason for this is the difficulty finding a cross-linguistic comparative framework. Past literature on the topic has compiled exhaustive lists to define this phenomenon. This paper uses the classification for verbless clauses proposed by Payne (1997), Pustet (2003), and Dixon (2010) as the basis for its examination of the four semantic relationships in Chinese nominal predicates: quantification, identity, existence and possession, and attribution. Among these four semantic relationships, it can be seen that Chinese copular clauses and nominal predicates exhibit a complementary distribution. The unmarked sentence structures in Chinese of quantification, identity, and existence and possession are that of nominal predicates, copular clauses, and you construction sentences, respectively, while attribution is expressed through a variety of sentence structures. Following the classification laid out in this paper, it becomes apparent that the traditional view of nominal predicates as “copular clauses with omissions” is an oversimplification of the structure of nominal predicates in modern Chinese. This oversimplification has brought about the myth that the Chinese bu shi represents the only negation structure for nominal predicates. In other words, the difference between nominal predicates and copular clauses cannot be attributed to informal and formal language alone. Instead, the sentence structure is chosen based on different semantic relationships or pragmatics. For instance, aside from quantification, the other three relationship categories of nominal predicates must meet certain syntactic, semantic and pragmatic requirements: such as appearing in a comparative sentence structure, having the noun phrase accompanying the predicate follow a structure that allows for qualification and has a sequential meaning, etc. There is also a notable difference with copular clauses when it comes to pragmatics. For example, identity relationships reveal the identity and closeness between the subject and nominal predicate, existence and possession relationships often appear alongside scope adverbs, strengthening the semantic meaning of large or small amounts, etc. Finally, this paper analyzes the errors learners make when producing nominal predicates. It finds that in the past the difficulty of quantification in nominal predicates was underestimated, finding errors in omission or unnecessary copular usage among a portion of learners. This paper follows the order for teaching the four semantic relationships set by Teng (2003): quantification, identity, existence and possession, and attribution. Due to the colloquial nature of Modern Chinese nominal predicates, they have been long regarded as copular clauses with omissions. As a result, the competitive relationship between the economy and efficiency principles of language have been overlooked with regard to nominal predicates and copular clauses. It is the intention of this research to inspire greater interest and attention among researchers of Chinese language instruction on “omissions” and their appearance in colloquial speech.