- 學位論文
華語情態詞「想」、「要」與「想要」的偏誤類型與教學建議：以語料庫為本的分析
Error Types and Pedagogical Suggestions of Modal Verbs Xiang, Yao, and Xiangyao in Mandarin: A Corpus-Based Analysis
摘要
情態詞「想」與「要」被《華語八千詞》列為初級建議學習的詞彙，是生活常用的高頻詞。在線上辭典《中文詞彙網路》的說明中，這兩個助動詞的語意都是「表示心中存有完成後述事件的願望」，在某些語境中可以互相替代，是學習者可能出現偏誤的問題點。另一方面，歷來討論複合形式「想要」的文獻極少，推測可能是因為使用頻率較低的關係。根據筆者的觀察，在很多語境中，「想要」都可以與「要」、「想」交替使用。而關於「想要」與「想」、「要」進一步的語法功能差異，是本文所要探究的問題之一。 本研究是以語料庫為本的研究，採用華語教學及共時語法的視角，聚焦在主題情態詞「要」、「想」、「想要」，討論「華語中介語口語語料庫」、「TOCFL學習者語料庫」中英語背景學習者所出現的4種偏誤類型：誤加、誤代、錯序、遺漏，以及形成偏誤的主要原因。針對學習者偏誤語料中數量較多的幾個問題點，筆者檢視兩本台灣常用的華語教材《新版實用視聽華語》和《當代中文課程》對於這些語法點的說明。最後再根據教材說明上的不足，提出教材編輯、教學活動應用的建議。 綜合全篇研究，本文有四點發現。一，在學習者口語、書面語語料庫中，「要」、「想」出現最多的偏誤類型都是誤代，代表語法知識的掌握度還有進步的空間。另外，學習者使用「想要」的口語偏誤非常少，可能與教材的教學安排有所關聯。二，學習者容易出現偏誤的問題有五種：(1)「不要」與「不用」的誤代；(2)「要」與「會」的誤代；(3)「要」與「想」的誤代；(4)不熟悉情態句修飾結構；(5)不熟悉情態連用形式，需要加強說明。三，《當代》沒有說明使用率很高的要2(義務)，《視華》把常用的要2(義務)放在高級階段教授，還將「想」的三個語意一起說明，都有不足之處。四，本文認為「要」適合的語意教學順序為：慾念、即將、義務；「想」則是：意願、思考、思念。
並列摘要
Chinese modal verbs xiang and yao are high frequency words included in 8000 Vocabulary in Chinese. Every Chinese learner needs to learn them. These two words have the same explanation in Chinese Wordnet, i.e. “the speaker has a intention to accomplish some action”, and are interchangeable in many contexts. The combination of the two modal verbs, xiangyao, which we regard as a compound modal verb, has a much lower frequency than xiang and yao. In the past, not many scholars talk about this issue. Xiangyao also can replace xiang and yao in many contexts. One of the main question of this research is to find out the differences among these three Chinese modal verbs. This study investigates the three modal verbs from a TCSL (Teaching Chinese as a Second Language) perspective using both spoken and written data from Chinese learner corpora. Four error types are discussed: addition, substitution, sequential, and omission. The reasons behind these error types may be due to overlapping meanings among the three modal verbs. In addition, this study reviews two Chinese textbooks in Taiwan, Practical Audio-Visual Chinese and A Course in Contemporary Chinese. The way these modal verbs are presented and explained in the textbooks are evaluated and discussed. Based on the review, we offer several suitable pedagogical suggestions. The four findings in this study are listed below: First, the most frequent error type is substitution, which implies that learners cannot tell the differences between xiang and yao. Moreover, the error frequency of xiangyao is very low, which is a consequence of the fact that xiangyao is taught later than both xiang and yao. Second, some errors are commonly found: (1) using buyao instead of buyong; (2) using hui instead of yao; (3) using yao instead of xiang; (4) placing adjunts before modal verbs; (5) wrong order of two consecutive modal verbs. Third, one sense of yao (“have to”) should be taught earlier, but it is not mentioned in one of the textbooks, and is discussed only in the more advanced level in the other textbooks. In addition, the different meanings of xiang are not distinguished in one of the textbooks. Fourth, it is suggested that the order of teaching for yao is: “ to want”, “be going to”, and “have to”, whereas the order of teaching for xiang is: “to want”, “to think”, and “to miss”.