分析TOCFL學習者語料庫中母語為德語的中文學習者之寫作偏誤

專注於母語為德語之中文學習者的偏誤分析研究目前仍然不多，至今透過語料庫來分析母語為德語中文學習者的研究更少。為了建立有關該領域的基礎，筆者決定運用國立臺灣師範大學國語教學中心建置的「TOCFL學習者語料庫」進行偏誤分析。本研究之主要目的在於透過TOCFL語料庫發現有關德語母語者在學習中文過程中常犯偏誤類型的各種情況。筆者在蒐集德語部分的語料（共603筆）之後照反覆出現的偏誤類型進行整合與對比主要相似處。在產出結果的基礎上，本文旨在討論不同偏誤的可能來源，最後提出教學建議，以協助減少在學習過程中可能遇到的問題。本研究產出的主要結果如下：一、關於受目標語影響所導致的偏誤，德語母語者與大部分母語為拼音文字中文學習者之偏誤狀況類似。二、不同程度學習者受到德語影響程度不同，造成的偏誤傾向亦不同；初學者傾向依賴德語語序及句子結構，而中級程度學習者則更依賴德語詞彙的使用。三、有關母語為德語中文學習者的語法點最為顯著的發現如下：A）「了」字的偏誤情況同時顯示該詞彙多用與少用的傾向；B）德語母語者過度使用「有」字的現象可能與台灣人口語表達習慣相關；C）德國的中文學習者通常混用圍繞德語單詞 “und”（英文的 “and”）概念的連接詞；D）學習者在多數清況下使用量詞「個」代替其他量詞；E）結構助詞「的」的遺漏最為普遍。通過上述結果進一步提出教學建議，希望創建母語為德語中文學習者在偏誤問題上更有系統的知識整合，進而幫助建立具有國別化的教學策略。

關鍵字

語料庫分析；目標語影響；母語影響；寫作偏誤；德語母語學習者

並列摘要

Although many error-analysis studies have investigated error types of learners with different language backgrounds in the past, comparatively little error-analysis has been conducted for German learners of Chinese. This study aims to explore the common errors made by German learners in order to identify their problems in Chinese writing. The corpus analyzed in this study were based on the TOCFL Learner Corpus provided by NTNU’s Mandarin Training Center and amounted to 603 errors made by the learners with Chinese language proficiency ranging from A2 to B2. The results showed the several indications, such as: 1) Learners tended to confuse words containing similar characters and words of similar or identical grammatical usage. 2) Native language influence was found in all levels of proficiency, however in differing degrees: elementary learners showed bigger reliance on L1 word order/sentence structure, while intermediate learners of Chinese appeared to receive more influence from L1 vocabulary usage as opposed to sentence structure. 3) In regards to the various grammatical concepts that were analysed in this study, the most prevalent results showed a) a significant amount of over- and underuse of the particle “le” (了); b) a tendency to overuse “you” (有), which is likely due to Taiwanese peoples’ tendency to excessively use “you” in colloquial Chinese; c) general confusion of Chinese conjunctions surrounding the concept of “und/and”; d) that learners tended to over-generalize the quantifier “ge” (個) as a means to replace a variety of other quantifiers; and e) a general underuse of the structure particle “de” (的).