Title

日語高低重音對於華語聲調習得的影響──以中日同形詞聲調偏誤為例

Translated Titles

Acquisition of Mandarin Tones by Japanese learners: Evidence from Chinese-Japanese Homographs

DOI

10.6342/NTU201603190

Authors

黃斐瑄

Key Words

華語聲調 ; 日語高低重音 ; 中日同形詞 ; 聲調偏誤 ; Mandarin tones ; Japanese pitch-accent ; Chinese-Japanese homographs ; tonal errors

PublicationName

臺灣大學華語教學碩士學位學程 學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2016年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

劉德馨

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

近二十年來,隨著全球學習華語的人口急遽成長,針對外籍學生聲調習得的研究也有蓬勃的發展。在聲調教學的領域中,先行研究多著重於學習者在語音知覺與產出作業中的表現,然而探討母語音韻特性如何對華語聲調習得產生影響的研究卻略顯不足。為對此有更多了解,本研究旨在透過中日同形詞的聲調偏誤分析,檢驗日語高低重音對於華語聲調習得可能產生的正遷移效果。 過去研究顯示日籍學習者的聲調偏誤部分源於日語的音韻特性,可視為母語對目標語的負遷移效果。然而,日語的高低重音或華語的聲調,皆為以音高變化區辨語義的手段,若能善用日籍學習者固有的音高感覺,應有助於其華語聲調的習得。本研究的目的即在於探討,當音高變化在兩個語言中達到一致時,高低重音是否能對聲調表現產生正遷移,進而提高聲調產出的正確率。為了檢驗上述假設的正確性,筆者以中日同形詞為材料實施了語音實驗,紀錄14位受試者共三次的朗讀結果,分別進行量化分析與質性觀察。 結果顯示,日華語音高變化一致的目標漢字與不一致的對照漢字之間,正確率並無顯著差異;而聲調組合違背日語重音規則的詞彙,其聲調正確率並未比不違背的詞彙低。上述兩項結果皆與本研究的假設不符,可知日華語中音高變化一致與否對該漢字的聲調正確率並無顯著影響。此結果可能與日華語中音韻系統作用層次不同,且學習者對於兩個語言間存在音高對應關係缺乏意識有關。 儘管如此,根據Flege (1995, 1996) 提出語音學習模型 (Speech Learning Model),雙語者的兩個語音系統存在於一個共同的、可塑性高的語音空間。依循此理論脈絡,筆者認為面對母語為日語的初級學習者時,以明示教學法向學習者說明母語與目標語間的音韻共通性,仍能促使其運用母語中對於音高變化的敏感度建立聲調的音感,以利於日後掌握華語聲調的音準。最後,筆者針對日台兩地的初級聲調教材內容進行檢視與討論,並提出個人的教學建議。

English Abstract

The past two decades have witnessed a substantial increase of learning Chinese as a second language worldwide, and numerous studies have been conducted to understand the mechanism of Mandarin tonal acquisition by foreign language learners. While extant studies on the acquisition of Mandarin tones predominantly focused on production and perception, few studies have been conducted to untie the effect of L1 prosodic patterns on the acquisition of Mandarin tones. To remedy this gap, the present research aimed at examining potential L1 positive transfer of Japanese pitch-accent on the acquisition of Mandarin tones, with a special focus on Chinese – Japanese homographs. While pitch movement is a syllable-level phenomenon in Mandarin and a word-level phenomenon in Japanese, both languages refer to pitch height to change the meaning of a word. This typological similarity suggests that, for Japanese learners of Mandarin, taking advantage of pitch awareness in the native language might be beneficial in the acquisition of Mandarin tones. To test this hypothesis, fourteen Japanese learners participated in the experiment, and were asked to read a word list of Chinese-Japanese homographs. Their performance was recorded for later quantitative and qualitative analyses. A perception test was also conducted to investigate the relation between learners’ perception and production. Our results indicated that, the accuracy rates were not significantly higher for Chinese-Japanese homographs with consistent pitch height. Meanwhile, the accuracy rates were not significantly lower for lexical sets whose tonal combinations violated Japanese pitch-accent constraints. A possible explanation is that pitch movement operates at the syllable-level in Mandarin while it operates at the word-level in Japanese. Consequently, Japanese learners lack phonological awareness of pitch correspondence between Mandarin and Japanese. Nevertheless, as Flege (1995, 1996) notes, L1 and L2 sounds coexist in a shared and malleable system. Under this rationale, we suggest that explicit teaching, i.e. providing learners with phonological correspondence between L1 and L2, might activate learners’ pitch awareness, thus facilitating the acquisition of Mandarin tones. Based on the results of the present study, pedagogical implications for Japanese learners and suggestions for future studies were provided at the end of the thesis.

Topic Category 人文學 > 語言學
人文學 > 中國文學
文學院 > 華語教學碩士學位學程
Reference
  1. 加納剛(2010),《日籍學習者學習漢語詞彙之難點─中日同形詞使用偏誤研究─》,國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  2. 林華一(2007),《零起點日籍學習者之漢語聲調習得》,臺北:國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  3. 陳慶華(2008),《日籍學習者華語發音之偏誤分析矯正與教學研究》,臺北:國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  4. 黃慧中(2014),《以日語重音和語調的教學策略改善日籍初級華語學習者聲調偏誤成效之探討》,桃園:中原大學應用華語文研究所學位論文。
    連結:
  5. 楊馥綺(2007),《日本漢字音與日本學生學習漢語語音之關聯》,臺北:臺灣大學中國文學研究所學位論文。
    連結:
  6. Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R. & Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 32(2), pp. 233-250.
    連結:
  7. Ball, E. W. & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, pp. 49-66.
    連結:
  8. Bentin, S. (1992). Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: A survey and appraisal of current knowledge. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Ed.), Orthography, Phonology, Morphonology, and Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland. Pp. 67-84.
    連結:
  9. Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R. & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, pp. 2299–2310.
    連結:
  10. Bybee, Joan, Chakraborti, C., Jung, C. & Scheibman J. (1998). Prosody and segmental effect: some paths of evolution for word stress. Studies in Language, 22, pp. 267-314.
    連結:
  11. Chandrasekaran, B., Yi, H.-G., Smayda, K. E. & Maddox, W. T. (2016). Effect of explicit dimension instruction on speech category learning. Attention, Percepttion, & Psychophysics, 78(2), pp. 566-582.
    連結:
  12. Chen, M. Y. (2000). Tone Sandhi: patterns across Chinese dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  13. Dekeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: an experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, pp. 379-410.
    連結:
  14. Duanmu, S. (2000). The Phonology of Standard Chinese (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.
    連結:
  15. Flege, J. E., Takagi, N. & Mann, V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of /ɹ/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, pp. 1161-1173.
    連結:
  16. Francis, A. L., Ciocca, V., Ma, L. & Fenn, K. (2008). Perceptual learning of Cantonese lexical tones by tone and non-tone language speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), pp. 268-294.
    連結:
  17. Gandour, J. T. & Harshman, R. A. (1978). Crosslanguage differences in tone perception: a multidimensional scaling investigation. Language and speech, 21(1), pp. 1-33.
    連結:
  18. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P.E. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
    連結:
  19. Hao, Y.-C. (2012). Second language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese tones by tonal and non-tonal language speakers, Journal of Phonetics, 40, pp. 269-279.
    連結:
  20. Hyman, L. M. (2001). Tone systems. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.) Language typology and language universals : an international handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Pp. 1367-1380.
    連結:
  21. Hyman, L. M. (2006). Word-prosodic typology. Phonology, 23(2), pp. 225-257.
    連結:
  22. Li, C. & Thompson, S. (1977). The acquisition of tone in Mandarin-speaking children. Journal of Child Languages, 4(2), pp. 185-199.
    連結:
  23. Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S. & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, pp. 358-368.
    連結:
  24. Matisoff, J. (1973). Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Consonant Types and Tone (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics), Los Angeles: UCLA. Pp. 71-95.
    連結:
  25. Pike, K. L. (1945). The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
    連結:
  26. Shen, X. S. & Lin, M. (1991). A perceptual study of Mandarin Tone 2 and 3. Language and Speech, 34(2): 145-156.
    連結:
  27. So, C. K. (2010). Categorizing Mandarin Tones into Japanese Pitch-accent Categories: The Role of Phonetic Properties. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2010 Satellite Workshop on Second Language Studies, Tokyo.
    連結:
  28. Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Grundzuege der Phonologie, in Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.
    連結:
  29. Xu, Y. (1994). Production and perception of coarticulated tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(4), 2240-2253.
    連結:
  30. Xu, Y. (1997). Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics, 25, pp. 61-83.
    連結:
  31. 1. 中文著作(依作者姓氏筆畫數排列)
  32. 王仁強(2011),〈現代漢語詞範疇認知研究──以《現代漢語辭典》(第5版)為例〉。《外國語文》,第27卷,第1期,頁71-77。
  33. 王幼敏(1998),〈日本人學漢語中的聲調語調問題〉,華東師範大學學報,第2期,頁95-96。
  34. 王順洪(1999),〈漢日同形詞給日本人學習漢語造成的誤區〉,載於張起旺與王順宏(主編)《漢外語言對比與偏誤分析論文集》,北京大學出版社,頁18-24。
  35. 戸田昌幸、黃國彥(1989),《日語語音學入門》,台灣:鴻儒堂。
  36. 何平(1997),〈談對日本學生的初級漢語語音教學〉,《語言教學與研究》,第3期,頁44-50。
  37. 朱川(1994),〈漢日超音質特徵對比實驗〉,《華東師範大學學報》,第1期,頁84-87。
  38. ──(2013),《外國學生漢語語音學習對策(增訂版)》,台北:新學林。
  39. 吳門吉、胡明光(2004),〈越南學生漢語聲調偏誤溯因〉,《世界漢語教學》,第2期,頁81-87。
  40. 吳宗濟(1992),《現代漢語語音概要》,華語教學出版社。
  41. 吳麗君等著(2002),《日本學生漢語習得偏誤研究》,北京:中國社會科學出版社。
  42. 孟子敏(2000),〈日語學生的華語語音偏誤成因及教學策略〉,《世界華語文教學研討會論文集》,第六屆第四冊教學應用組,頁64-77。
  43. ──(2002),〈日語學生漢語發音的音節音拍化傾向分析〉,《言語文化研究》,第21期,頁225-231。
  44. 長古川良一(1990),〈為什麼日本學生最難掌握的是漢語聲調〉,《中國語文》,第6期,頁480。
  45. 侯銳(2011),〈關於日語聲調的調域〉,《外語研究》,第127期。頁38-42。
  46. 宮本幸子(1997),〈日本人學習漢語聲調〉,《第五屆國際漢語討論會論文選》,頁618-624。
  47. 國立臺灣師範大學(2011),《新版實用視聽華語(一)》,臺北:正中書局。
  48. 張可家、陳麗美(2005),〈日本學生學習華語的聲調偏誤分析:以二字調為例〉,《第十七屆自然語言與語音處理研討會》(台南,2005),頁1-15。
  49. 葉德明(1970),《遠東生活華語(第一冊)》,臺北:遠東圖書公司。
  50. 趙元任(1956),《現代吳語的研究》,北京:科學出版社,頁73-75。
  51. ──著,丁邦新譯(1984),《中國話的文法》,香港:中文大學出版社。
  52. 國立臺灣師範大學國語教學中心(2015),《當代中文課程1》,臺北:聯經出版公司。
  53. 魯寶元(2000),〈漢日同形異義詞的對比考察與對外漢語教學〉,《漢日語言研究文集(三)》,北京:北京出版社,頁60-101。
  54. 續三義(2000),《對日漢語語音教程》,北京:北京語言文化大學出版社。
  55. 2. 日文著作(依作者姓氏首字筆畫數排列)
  56. 大河內康憲(1992),〈日本語シ中国語ソ同形語〉,於大河內康憲編《日本語シ中国語ソ対照研究論文集(下)》,東京:ゑボウれ出版,頁179-215。
  57. 土岐哲(1982),〈ヤヱЙ⑦Ь〉,載於日本語教育學會(主編)《日本語教育事典》,東京:大修館,頁26-43。
  58. 山崎誠、小沼悦(2004),〈現代雑誌ズれんペ語種構成〉,《言語処理学会第10回年次大会発表論文集》,頁670-673。
  59. 日本文化廳(1978),《中国語シ対応エペ漢語》,東京:大藏省印刷局。
  60. 王曉青(2003),《台湾日本語学習者デソ日本語語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьソ指導法ソ基礎的研究─中国語ソ四声シ日本語語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьソ対照研究ソ視点ろヘ─》,廣島:廣島大學教育學研究所博士論文。
  61. 伊藤祥雄(2004),《文法ろヘ学トペ中国語》,東京:ЮШф社。
  62. 朱春躍(1993),〈中国語話者ソ日本語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьソ習得─ガソ特徴Ь指導上ソ問題点メバをゲサ─〉,《第7回大學シ科學公開Ё⑦рЖヨу国際化エペ日本語―話ウ言葉ソ科学シ音声教育》,東京:ヱдк①,頁179-184。
  63. 早田輝洋(1977),〈日本語ソ音韻эИу〉,《伝統シ現代》45号,頁41-49。
  64. 松村明(2006),《大辞林(第三版)》,東京:三省堂。
  65. 松森晶子、新田哲夫、木部暢子、中井幸比古(2012),《日本語ヤヱЙ⑦Ь入門》,東京:三省堂。頁20-30。
  66. 金田一春彦(1980),〈ヤヱЙ⑦Ь〉,《国語学大辞典》,東京:東京堂。頁 6-7。
  67. ──監修,松永一枝編(2001),《新明解ヤヱЙ⑦Ь辞典》,東京:三省堂。
  68. 佐藤武義(1995),《概說日本語ソ歷史》,東京:朝倉書店。
  69. 服部四郎(1954),〈音韻論ろヘ見ギ国語ソヤヱЙ⑦Ь〉,《日本語ソ言語学第2巻音韻》1980徳川宗賢編,東京:大修館,頁37-65。
  70. 侯銳(2005),〈日本語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьシ中国語声調ソ比較──日本語話者ソ声調問題メバをゲサ〉,新潟經營大學紀要,第11期,頁137-145。
  71. 高松政雄(1986),《日本漢字音概論》,東京:風間書房。
  72. 宮島達夫(1967),〈近代語彙ソ形成〉,《国立国語研究所論集 アシタソ研究 第3集》,頁1-50。
  73. 荒屋勸(1983),〈日中同形語〉,《大東文化大学紀要人文科学》,21号,頁61-96。
  74. 許雪華(2014),〈日中同形語ソ量ソ分析〉,《或問》,113号,頁113-122。
  75. 陳永基(1993),〈台湾式日本語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьソ矯正ズコゆサ〉,《日語教學研究國際研討會論文集》,頁192-204。
  76. 植田渥雄(1986),〈半三声ソ発音指導ズ関エペ考察シ提言─日本語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьシソ対比ろヘ〉,《桜美林大学中国文学論叢》,12号,頁1-17。
  77. 黃招憲(2000),《日本語ヤヱЙ⑦Ьシ中国語声調ソ対照研究》,臺北:致良出版社。
  78. 曾根博隆(1988),〈日中同形語ズ関エペ基礎的考察〉,《明治学院論叢》,第424期,頁61-96。
  79. 愛知大学現代中国学部漢語研究会(2006),《中国語課本》,名古屋:やペハ。
  80. 榎本英雄、古屋順子(2009),《К①ろヘ始バペ「中国語ソ発音」徹底ЬяみЯ⑦ヲ》,東京:ヤюヱ。
  81. 窪薗晴夫(1995),《語形成シ音韻構造》,東京:ゑボウれ出版。
  82. ──(1999),《日本語ソ音声》,東京:岩波書店。
  83. 平安時代•齋部廣成撰,小田清雄校訂 《古語拾遺》,大阪:國文館,1891。
  84. 3. 英文著作(依作者姓氏首字母排列)
  85. Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press. Pp. 171-204.
  86. Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and Reason in Reading and Spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  87. Chao, Y. R. (1948). Mandarin Primer. CambriHarvard College Press.
  88. Chandrasekaran, B., Gandour, J. T. & Krishnan, A. (2007). Neuroplasticity in the processing of pitch dimensions: a multidimensional scaling analysis of the mismatch negativity. Restorative neurology and neuroscience, 25(3-4), pp. 195-210.
  89. Duanmu, S. (1990). A formal study of syllable, tone, stress and domain in Chinese languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
  90. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Timonium, MD: York Press. Pp. 233-277.
  91. Flege, J. E. (2007). Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. In J. Cole & J. Hualde (Ed.), Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  92. Fon, Y.-J. J. (1997). What are Tones Really Like? – An Acoustic-based Study of Taiwan Mandarin Tones. Thesis. National Taiwan University.
  93. Fon, J. & Chiang, W.-Y. (1999). What does Chao have to say about tones? -a case study of Taiwan Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27(1), pp. 15-37.
  94. Fon, J., Chiang, W.-Y. & Cheung, H. (2004). Production and Perception of the Two Dipping Tones (Tone 2 and Tone 3) in Taiwan Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 32(2), pp. 249-281.
  95. Haudricourt, A.-G. (1954). De L’origine Des Tons En Vietnamien. Journal Asiatique, 242, pp. 69-82.
  96. Mattingly, I. G. (1972). Reading, the linguistic process and linguistic awareness. In J. Kavanagh & 1. Mattingly (Ed.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 133-137.
  97. Peng, S.-H. (2000). Lexical versus 'phonological' representations of Mandarin sandhi tones. In M.B. Broe and J.B. Pierrehumbert (eds.), Acquisition and the lexicon: Papers in Laboratory Phonology V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 152-167.
  98. Pike, K. L. (1948). Tone languages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  99. So, C. K. (2006). “Effects of L1 prosodic background and AV training on learning Mandarin tones by speakers of Cantonese, Japanese, and English,” PhD Thesis PhD, Department of Linguistics Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.
  100. Treiman, R. & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Ed.), Phonological Processes in Literacy A Tribute to lsbelle Y Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 67-83.
  101. Wood, C., Wade-Woolley, L., & Holliman, A. J. (2009) Phonological awareness: beyond phonemes. In C. Wood & V. Connelly (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Reading and Spelling. New York: Routledge. Pp. 7-23.
  102. Worth, R. (2011). Teaching Pronunciation to Adult Learners of Foreign Languages. Paper presented at WISLI Pedagogy Workshop, Wisconsin.
  103. Yip, M. (2002). Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  104. 4. 法文著作(依作者姓氏首字母排列)
  105. Capelle, G. & Menand, R. (2009). Le Nouveau Taxi! 1: Méthode de français. Paris: Hachette Livre.
  106. Coadic, M. M., Poisson-Quinton, S. & Vergne-Sirieys, A. (2009). Festival 1: Méthode de français. Paris: CLE International.