English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25809948      Online Users : 54
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57574


    Title: 量詞與分類詞:教學的反思與建議
    Measure words and classifiers: Introspective viewpoints and suggestions in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language
    Authors: 陳羿如
    Chen, Yi Ju
    Contributors: 何萬順
    Her, One Soon
    陳羿如
    Chen, Yi Ju
    Keywords: 量詞
    分類詞
    對外華語教學
    Mandarin measure words
    Mandarin classifiers
    Teaching Chinese as a second language
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2013-04-01 14:38:35 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 因漢語的分類詞不同於量詞(Chao 1968,Tai and Wang 1990,Cheng and Sybesma 1999, Liang 2006,Her and Hsieh 2010,賴宛君2011),本研究認為兩者應採用各別的教學策略並提供漢語分類詞的教學建議。分類詞能夠彰顯所搭配名詞的本質特徵,也就是與名詞之間有意義上的關聯,並且其數學意義為「1」;量詞表示數量概念,因此能與多數名詞搭配,其數學意義為「1」以外的其他數字。(Liang 2006,Her and Hsieh 2010,賴宛君2011)
    在此理論基礎上,本文重新檢視王力(1947/1987)、呂淑湘(2007)、何杰(2008)、《新版實用視聽華語》討論的量詞。檢視結果發現,王力認定的41個量詞中,有33個是分類詞;呂淑湘認定的140個量詞中,有53個是分類詞;何杰認定的117個量詞中,有71個是分類詞。《新版實用視聽華語》編入的117個量詞中,有46個其實是分類詞。
    本研究發現漢語分類詞數量遠少於量詞,而這也是因為漢語分類詞只能與特定名詞搭配以彰顯該名詞的本質特質。(Her and Hsieh 2010,賴宛君2011)本研究提出以下兩項成果:第一,根據抽象程度、作用範圍、使用頻率三項指標,將61個常用分類詞進行排序,排出初、中、高三個學習階段應該學會的分類詞,並依照此教學排序,檢視《新版實用視聽華語》、翰林版國小國語課本中的分類詞教學排序。檢視結果發現,此兩套教材並未按照抽象程度、作用範圍、使用頻率三項指標依序編入分類詞,也未說明分類詞的編寫順序;此外,《新版實用視聽華語》對於分類詞的語意特徵也缺乏系統性的說明。
    第二,本研究根據上述分類詞的教學排序研究成果,針對初級、中級、高級三項不同的學習階段,提出漢語分類詞的教學建議。
    Previous studies ( e.g., Chao 1968, Tai and Wang 1990, Cheng and Sybesma 1999, Liang 2006, Her and Hsieh 2010, Lai 2011) contend that Mandarin classifiers are different from Mandarin measure words. We thereby contend that the strategies about teaching classifiers or measure words should be differentiated and this study aims at providing some teaching suggestions regarding Chinese classifiers. Chinese classifiers can profile the essential features of nouns, and this means there is a restricted meaning relationship between Chinese classifiers and their collocating nouns. But Chinese measure words offer quantity meaning to nouns and can collocate with most nouns. From the perspective of math, Chinese classifiers are equal to number “1”, while Chinese measure words express measure concepts other than “1”. (Liang 2006, Her and Hsieh 2010, Lai 2011)
    On the basis of these theoretical studies, this thesis re-examines three representative studies about teaching Mandarin measure words and Chinese classifiers (Wang 1947, 1987; Lu 2007; He 2008) and a text book, Practical Audio-Visual Chinese. We found that those studies and the text book didn’t differentiate Mandarin Chinese classifiers from measure words. There are 33 classifiers among Wang’s 41 measure words; 53 classifiers among Lu’ 140 measure words; 71 classifiers among He’s 117 measure words . As for in Practical Audio-Visual Chinese , there are 46 classifiers among their 117 measure words.
    This study finds that Mandarin classifiers are much fewer than Mandarin measure words. And this is because Mandarin classifiers can only collocate with certain groups of nouns and thus highlight the essential features of the nouns ( Her and Hsieh 2010, Lai 2011). This thesis displays two contributions. First, we present the teaching order according to three norms:the degree of abstract, the range of meaning, and the frequency of using. This teaching order is about 61 commonly-used Mandarin classifiers.We found that the elementary school Chinese text books and Practical Audio-Visual Chinese don’t arrange their classifiers according to these norms nor do they according to any logic norms.Besides, Practical Audio-Visual Chinese don’t explain the semantic feature of classifiers in a systemic way.
    Second, we present suggestions about teaching classifiers to students of different Mandarin proficiency on the basis of our teaching order.
    Reference: 丁聲樹(1961/1979)現代漢語語法講話。北京市:商務印書館。
    王力(1947/2002) 中國現代語法。香港:中華
    何杰(2008) 現代漢語量詞研究增編版。北京市:北京語言大學出版社。
    呂淑湘(1952/2008) 語法學習。香港:三聯書店。原出版社:復旦大學出版社
    呂淑湘(1947/1975) 中國文法要略。台北市:文史哲出版社。
    呂叔湘(1999) 現代漢語八百詞。北京市:商務印書館。
    呂文華(1994/1999第二刷) 對外漢語教學語法探索。北京市:語文出版社。
    黎錦熙(1925) 新著國語文法。上海市:商務印書館。
    劉月華(1996/2007) 實用現代漢語語法。台北市:師大書苑。
    國家對外漢語教學領導小組辦公室與漢語水平考試部(1996/1998第二刷) 漢語水平等級標準與語法等級大綱。北京市:高等教育出版社。
    王淑美、盧翠英、陳夜寧(2008)新版實用視聽華語(一)。台北縣:正中書局股份有限公司。2008年二版二刷。
    王淑美、盧翠英、陳夜寧(2008)新版實用視聽華語(二)。台北縣:正中書局股份有限公司。2008年二版二刷。
    范慧貞、劉秀芝、蕭美美(2008/2010)新版實用視聽華語(三)。台北縣:正中書局股份有限公司。2010年二版三刷。
    范慧貞、劉秀芝、蕭美美(2008)新版實用視聽華語(四)。台北縣:正中書局股份有限公司。2008年二版一刷。
    范慧貞、劉秀芝、蕭美美(2008)新版實用視聽華語(五)。台北縣:正中書局股份有限公司。
    張麗麗,黃居仁,陳克健,賴慶雄(編著)(1997)國語日報量詞典。台北市:國語日報。
    朱文宇(2011)華語教學實務講義,未出版。
    賴宛君(2011)準確界定漢語中分類詞,政治大學碩士論文,台北。
    謝禎田(2009)框架為本之分類詞研究,政治大學碩士論文,台北。
    蘇欣敏(2008)現代漢語台灣口語量詞分類研究,國立台灣師範大學碩士論文,台北。
    許美櫻(2011)華語形狀量詞之多項度量尺分析與認知研究,國立屏東教育大學進修暨研究學院,屏東。
    陳宛廷(2010)探討台灣國中英語教科書及其教師手冊以形式為主的教學方式之分佈,國立彰化師範大學碩士論文。
    宋帆(2008)漢泰語量詞比較研究和泰語量詞教學,上海外國語大學碩士論文,上海。
    張婷(2005)外國留學生量詞習得過程研究,華中科技大學碩士論文,武漢。
    蔡愷瑜(2010)由對比及難度等級探討日籍學習者漢語分類詞之使用,國立台灣師範大學碩士論文,台北。
    游輝隆(2008)國小語文教學數量詞之研究:以翰林版國語課本為例,東華大學碩士論文,花蓮。
    藤小春(2010)。漢語名詞的性質和數量詞使用的關係。華語文教學研究。Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 25-38.
    田意民、曾志朗、洪蘭(2002)漢語分類詞的語意與認知基礎:功能語法觀點。語言暨語言學。Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 101-1.2.
    伏學鳳(2007)初中級日韓留學生漢語量詞運用偏誤分析。語言文字運用(增刊)29-32。

    Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (2000)Classifiers : a typology of noun categorization devices. New York : Oxford University Press.
    Allan Keith.(1977)Classifier.Language 53:285-311.
    Au Yeung, Wai Hoo Ben.(2005)An Interface Program for Parameterization of Classifiers in Chinese. PhD. Dissertation, Hong Kong University.
    Borer, Hagit.(2005)Structuring Sense, Vol. 1:In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Chao, Y. R.(1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of Calofornia Press.
    Cheng , Lisa L. and Sysbesma, Rint. (1998)Yi-wan Tang, Yi-ge Tang: Classified and Massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 28.3:385-412.
    Cheng , Lisa L. and Sysbesma, Rint. (1999) Bare and not-so-bare Nouns and the Structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 30.(No. 4), pp. 509-542.
    Dekeyser, Robert M.(1995)Learning Second Language Grammar Rules.SSLA , Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 379-410.
    Dekeyser, Robert M.(1998/ 2005)Beyond focus on form. Focus on Form in classroom second language acquisition.(The Cambridge applied linguistics series). New York: Cambridge University Press.(1998) , 6th printing (2005).
    Doughty, C. and Williams, J.(1998)Pedagogical choices in focus on form. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.(pp. 197-262.)Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ellis, Rod. (2001). Introduction: investigating form-focused instruction, Language Learning, Vol. 51(Supp. 1), pp. 1-46.
    Erbaugh, Mary S.(1986). Taking stock: The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. Noun Classes and Categorization, ed. By Colette Craig,pp. 399-436. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Fillmore, Charles.(1975)Fram Semantics, in Linguistic Society of Korea. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by Linguistic Society of Korea: 111-137. Seoul:Hanshin Publishing.
    Gao, M, Y. And Malt, B.(2009). Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers, Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 24 (No. 7-8), 1124-1179.
    Her, One-Soon . & Hsieh, Chen-Tien. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese, Language and Linguistics, Vol. 11 (No. 3), pp.527-551.
    Her, One-Soon. ( to appear). Distinguishing Classifiers and Measure Words: a Mathematical Perspective and Implications. Lingua.
    Hu, Qian.(1993) The Acquisition of Chinese Classifiers by Young Mandarin-speaking Children. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston University.
    Jiang, Song-Jiang.(2010)Chinese Classifier Acquisition: Comparoson of L1 Child and L2 Adult Development. The University of Montana Missoula, MT.
    Landman, Fred.(2004)Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Malden: Blackwell.
    Liang ,Yu-Chang. (2006). Nominal Phrases in English and Japanese Speakers’ L2 Mandarin Grammars. Cambridge University Dissertation, Cambridge.
    Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Standford University Press, California.
    Liang, Szu-Yen. (2009)..The Acquisition of Chinese Nominal Classifiers by L2 Adult Learners. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington.
    Myers, James. (2000).. Rules vs. Analogy in Mandarin classifier selection. Language and Linguistics 1.2: 187-209.
    Mitchell, R and Myles, F.(2004). Second language acquisition theories. Great Briton: Hodder Arnold.
    Shi, Yuzhi & Li, Charles N.(2002)The establishment of the classifier system and the grammaticalization of the morphosyntactic particle de in Chinese. Language Science 24 (1): 1-15.
    Tai, James H-Y & Wang, Lianqin. (1990). A semantic study of the classifier tiao (條), Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, Vol. 25, pp. 35-56.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    華語文教學碩士學位學程
    98161006
    101
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098161006
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[華語文教學博/碩士學位學程] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    100601.pdf3357KbAdobe PDF1921View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback