透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.206.64.143
  • 學位論文

以漢、韓對比分析探討韓語母語者的結果補語遺漏偏誤現象

The Study on Ommision Error Types of Resultative Complements of Korean Learners through the Comparative Analysis of Chinese and Korean

指導教授 : 劉承慧

摘要


本論文的目的為探討「韓語母語者的結果補語遺漏偏誤現象」與「母語韓語」之間的相關關係。透過宋燕、崔日義(2011)、劉秀萍(2012)、楊德峰等(2016)的先行研究,可知「韓語母語者的結果補語遺漏偏誤現象」確實是一種偏誤類型;而且,李銀京(2009)、宋燕、崔日義(2011)、劉秀萍(2012)、徐瑜彤(2016)等研究共同指出,偏誤率最高的是「結果補語遺漏偏誤」。對此現象的原因分析雖有所不同,但共同點為指出受到韓語的干擾。根據本論文整理至今的文獻資料的結果,並未發現由詞彙動貌(lexical aspect)的角度分析過前述問題。因此,本論文即由詞彙動貌的角度出發,分析「韓語母語者的結果補語遺漏偏誤現象」。 本論文透過「漢語結果補語對應的韓語成分與其形式」之分析得知,有的漢語結果補語在翻譯為韓語時,並沒有特定翻譯的形式;亦即「謂語 (結果補語消失)」形式。因此,本論文認為「韓語母語者的結果補語遺漏偏誤現象」的產生,與「母語韓語」之間具有某種關聯。表面上「韓語母語者常遺漏結果補語的原因」與漢語結果補語在韓語裡沒有特別翻譯的「謂語 (結果補語消失)」形式有關;至於其根本原因則在於漢語與韓語的動詞之間,動詞的內部時間性質(internal temporal constituency)有所差異,致使韓語母語者學習漢語時,對於結果補語的使用造成妨礙。為了論證以上假設,本論文選用劉秀萍(2012)所分析的「遺漏結果補語」97句為語料,將其翻譯成韓語後,查看這97句的動結式在韓語裡屬於哪一些形式。分析結果,果然「謂語 (結果補語消失)」形式共67句,在整體句型中占了高達69%。接著本論文對此67句作為分析的語料,進行述補結構之分析。結果顯示,謂語共24個,結果補語共11個。根據此24個謂語的對應韓語,由動詞動貌屬性(aspectual character)的角度分析探究:漢語與韓語的動詞之間動詞的內部時間性質--尤其是完成性(telic)--是否有所差異。分析結果,「此24個謂語的對應韓語」果然都包含[+完成性]。因此,本論文所得結論如下:因漢語與韓語的動詞之間動詞的內部時間性質有所差異,而導致韓語母語者受母語的影響下妨礙了結果補語使用。但是,由於語料來源的限制,本論文缺乏「韓語母語者正確運用漢語結果補語」的語料分析,為本論文之侷限與不足之處。

並列摘要


The thesis examines the connection between “the phenomena of native speakers’ omission error types of resultative complements” and “Korean as mother tongue.” Reviewing the previous studies of Song and Cui (2011), Liu (2012), and Yang et. al. (2016), it was discovered that the phenomena of native speakers’ omission error types of resultative complements is an error category. Moreover, the studies of Li (2009), Song and Cui (2011), Liu (2012), and Hsu (2016) points out that “omission error types of resultative complements” has the highest frequency of error. Regarding this phenomenon, although it is different from the analysis of reasons, the common point indicates the interference of Korean. According to the literature summarized in this thesis, there is no analysis of the mentioned issue from a lexical aspect. Therefore, the thesis departs from the perspective of lexical aspect to analyze “the phenomena of native speakers’ omission error types of resultative complements.” From the analysis of the “result-complement of Chinese and the contrastive analysis of the result-complement usages in Chinese and Korean grammar,” it is known that when translating a result-complement from Chinese into Korean, there is no particular syntax for translation. Simply put, it is the syntax of the predicate (the missing result-complement). Therefore, this thesis would like to argue that the formation of “the phenomena of native speakers’ omission error types of resultative complements” is associated with “Korean as mother tongue” in certain ways. Regarding its basic reason, it is the difference of internal temporal constituency of verbs in Chinese and Korean, resulting in certain obstacles for Korean native speakers when learning Chinese. To prove the above hypothesis, this thesis employed the 97 sentences analyzed by Liu (2012) with the focus on the omission of resultative complements as corpus to investigate the syntax of the verb-copying compound of Korean in these 97 sentences. The result of the analysis indicates that there are 67 sentences that contains the syntax of predicate (the missing of result-complement), occupying 69% of the overall sentence structures. Then, this thesis regarded the 67 sentences as corpus for the analysis of predicate-complement. The result indicates that there were 24 predicates and 11 complements. The Korean terms corresponding to these 24 predicates was analyzed with the aspectual character of verbs to determine whether there is any difference regarding the internal temporal constituency between verbs in Chinese and Korean, especially telic. The result of the analysis is that “the corresponding Korean terms of these 24 predicates” include [+telic]. Therefore, this thesis concludes that due to the difference in the internal temporal constituency between verbs in Chinese and Korean, it influences native speakers of Korean in using complements. Nevertheless, due to the lack of analysis of corpus in “the accurate use of Chinese complement of result by native speakers of Korean,” there are certain limitations and inadequacies in this thesis.

參考文獻


<中文文獻>
王力,《中國現代語法》,上海:商務印書館,1947。
王硯農,《漢語動詞—結果補語搭配詞典》,北京:北京語言學院出版社,1987。
北京語言學院語言敎學硏究所,《現代漢語頻率詞典》,北京:北京語言學院出版社,1986。

延伸閱讀