現代漢語詞類劃分與教學語法

王楚蓁(Chu-chen Wang)

指導教授 ： 鄧守信

國立臺灣師範大學/國際與僑教學院/華語文教學研究所/碩士(2007年)

摘要

過去漢語詞類系統經常沿襲西方語言學的傳統劃分模式與命名，劃分標準則多採以語義、句法和詞形等綜合判斷的折衷主義 (eclecticism) ，易造成「就 (預設) 詞類推論劃分標準」的作法，缺乏漢語詞類發現程序的具體操作，亦忽略漢語的語言特性及跨語言的對應關係，將傳統的漢語詞類系統運用於華語教學上，產生諸多負遷移之影響。
本文檢視Jackendoff (1977) 、Wierzbicka (2000) 、Croft (1991) 等學者從生成語法、原型理論及型態句法的角度提出詞類劃分的不同模組，進一步探討三者應用於劃分漢語詞類時的適切性和優缺點。本文採Croft (1991) 的主要詞類劃分模組，輔以Hengeveld (1992) 語言詞類類型劃分，初步建立劃分漢語詞類之架構。並討論劃分漢語詞類的先備條件，藉以釐清漢語詞法與句法的界面，以便於句法層面上討論劃分漢語詞類的句法測試程序，並說明本文提出的詞類之句法測試如何處理漢語詞類兼類與名物化問題。
詞類本為理論語言學運作的基本單位，應用於教學上時，則產生依不同教學法、不同程度或不同學習對象所訂定的權宜分類，因此目前華語教材的詞類表仍是眾家紛紜，詞類的劃分標準、詞類的數目、詞類術語 (terminology) 及詞類於教材語法點中之編寫等形同雜集，此現象不利於漢語教學語法 (pedagogical grammar) 之建構。教學語法的編寫須考量L1與L2跨語言之間的對應關係，詞類於跨語言間的不對應性是造成L2學習者負遷移的常見因素，對於L1與L2可相對應之詞類 (如三大詞類) ，卻經常能達到正遷移之效，因此完善漢語詞類系統可助語法教學事半功倍之力。
鑑於此，本文從L2學習者於漢語詞類使用的偏誤現象著眼，探討對外漢語教材詞類標記之使用現況，並以本文提出的漢語詞類劃分架構為軸，建立基於教學語法理念的漢語詞類系統與個別詞類的編寫要點，冀於日後能將漢語詞類的教學語法推廣納為華語教學領域內，以提升對外華語教材素質與教學品質。

關鍵字

詞類 ； 教學語法 ； 詞類劃分

並列摘要

With respect to Western languages there has been a long tradition of categorizing words for the purpose of grammatical description. The field of Chinese linguistics commonly follows these Western categorization conventions and tries to apply criterions such as semantics, syntax, morphology and other such conventions, when definining Chinese word classes. As a consequence of this and because of the absence of a convincing discovery procedure and the lack of inter-language corresponding relations, there is an intrinsic risk of negative transfers when teaching Chinese as a second language.
This thesis inspects various models of Parts of Speech such as the ones proposed by Jackendoff (1977), Wiezbicka (2000), Croft (1991) or Hengeveld (1992) containing different approachs to grammar theory such as Generative Grammar, Prototype Theory and Markedness Theory. This thesis adopts mainly Croft’s major parts-of-speech model and compares it to Hengeveld’s WFM principle of differentiating parts-of-speech systems with the objective of establishing the basic foundations of a proper Chinese part-of-speech system. In order to attain this goal, the thesis proposes Chinese wordhood tests and syntactic diagnostic tests, and explains in greater detail how the syntactics tests could be used to analyze Chinese peculiarities such as zero diversion and nominalization.
The traditional theoretical linguistics model usually begins with the definition of a parts-of-speech system and when this methodology is applied to teach Chinese as a second language, it is modified to various expedient classification systems according to different teaching methodologies, student levels and learning targets. Therefore, at present the utilization of grammatical categories in Chinese textbooks is still a disparate mix of models that handicaps the goal to establish a more suitable Chinese pedagogical grammar. The asymmetry of inter-language parts-of-speech systems is the main factor for negative transfers, and to reverse the situation we should aim to perfect and establish a symetric Chinese parts of speech system and the theories that sustain it, with the clear objective of reaching the high desirable positive transfer scenario.
In consideration of these facts, the thesis tackles the common errors of Chinese parts of speech aimed to L2 learners and discusses the actual status quo of parts of speech in Chinese teaching textbooks. The thesis establishes the ideal model of a Chinese parts of speech system and the necessary principles required to compile particular word classes using a strong pedagogical grammar base. The purpose of this thesis is to bring into the TCSL field an accurate Chinese parts-of-speech system in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of Chinese textbooks and Chinese language instructions.

並列關鍵字

parts of speech ； word classes ； Chinese parts-of-speech system ； pedagogical grammar

參考文獻

Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical Categories: verbs, nouns,and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaun (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184-221). MA: Ginn.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht.

Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.