研究生: |
劉佩菁 Pei-Ching Liu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
論泰國學生漢語聲母舌尖音、舌尖後音和舌面音的發音偏誤 -以泰國中華國際學校 11 年級外語班學生為例 Error Analysis of [ts] [tsˊ] [s] [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] [ʨ] [ʨˊ][ɕ] from Thai Learners- Case Study of Grade 11 Thai Students of Thai Chinese International School |
指導教授: |
曾金金
Tseng, Chin-Chin |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
華語文教學系 Department of Chinese as a Second Language |
論文出版年: | 2012 |
畢業學年度: | 100 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 103 |
中文關鍵詞: | 漢泰語音 、對比分析 、偏誤分析 、協同構音 、語言遷移 、舌尖音 、舌面音 |
英文關鍵詞: | Thai and Mandarin phonetics, Contrast Analysis, Error Analysis, Syllable Coarticulation, Language Transfer, Apical Consonants, Dorsal Consonants |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:295 下載:77 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
泰國學生在學習漢語語音的過程中,三組漢語塞擦音為其最大的困難,因為從漢泰語音對比來看,泰語只有一組塞擦音[tʃ] [tʃˊ]位置在漢語舌尖前音[ts] [tsˊ]和舌尖後音[tʂ][tʂˊ]、舌面音[ʨ][ʨˊ]之間,發音位置接近。然而,雖然對泰國學生來說,三組漢語塞擦音是學習難點,但是筆者發現並非每一個與之相拼的音都有問題。漢泰音節組合規則有很大的不同: 漢語三組塞擦音和韻母的組合是互補分布; 舌尖前和舌尖後塞擦音不可以和[i]和其結合韻、[y]和其結合韻相拼,但可以與[u]和其結合韻、空韻[ɿ][ɭ]相拼,舌面塞擦音則相反;泰語塞擦音則是可以和所有韻母組合相拼(泰語無[y]和[ɿ] ][ɭ]),包含和[i]相拼。所以本文旨在觀察泰國學生發三組漢語塞擦音全部的聲韻組合,歸納其偏誤的傾向,最後提出實際且有效的教學方法供教學者參考。
此次研究結果證明並非所有的與之結合的音都有問題。總結如下:1) [tʂ][tʂˊ][ʂ], [ts] [tsˊ][s]和[ʨ][ʨˊ][ɕ]後接空韻[ɭ] [ɿ]或是一時,問題最多。顯示這兩組音對受試者來說的確是難點。2) 另外,無論是[tʂ][tʂˊ][ʂ], [ts] [tsˊ][s]和[ʨ][ʨˊ][ɕ],受試者發後接[ɤn]或[an]的音時,[ɤn][an]會相混3) 而和[ei]或[iɛ]相拼,最沒問題。另外筆者也發現幾個現象:1) [tʂ][tʂˊ][ʂ], [ts] [tsˊ][s]和[ʨ][ʨˊ][ɕ]這三組音雖然對泰國學生來說是學習的難點,但是從實驗結果以及問卷調查結果,[tʂ][tʂˊ][ʂ] 和[ts] [tsˊ][s]偏誤相關,[ʨ][ʨˊ][ɕ]偏誤則較獨立 2) 舌尖後音[tʂ][tʂˊ][ʂ] 和舌尖音[ts] [tsˊ][s]的發音問題關聯緊密,例如:[tʂ][tʂˊ][ʂ] 常讀成[ts] [tsˊ][s],翹舌不足 3) 舌面音[ʨ][ʨˊ][ɕ]的發音問題較為獨立,例如:[ʨˊ][ɕ]相混,或是特定韻母偏誤和聲母有關 4) 受試者的送氣塞擦音普遍發得較鬆,阻礙不足,像擦音。針對以上偏誤,筆者提出三大教學建議:首先用學生熟析的語詞舉例子,然後用語音對比的方式教學,調整送氣塞擦音和擦音時只發出氣流。
Three pairs of affricates in Mandarin, [ts] [tsˊ], [tʂ] [tʂˊ]and [ʨ] [ʨˊ], are most difficult to native Thai learners when they are learning Mandarin consonants. Comparing the consonants between two languages, there is only one pair of affricates in Thai consonants, [tʃ] and [tʃˊ], and its position is between [tʂ] [tʂˊ]and [ʨ] [ʨˊ] of Mandarin. Therefore, it’s complicated for Thai learners to distinguish them. However, from my observation, I found out that Thai learners don’t have every articulation with those three pairs of affricates is wrong, for rules of syllabus combination. in Mandarin, the three affricates with vowels have complementary distribution, which means the retroflex affricates is allowed to be together with [u] and [ɭ], but not with [i] and [y]. in the contrast, the palatal one is allowed to be together with [i] and [y], but not with [u] and [ɭ]. in Thai, however, consonants are allowed to be together with all vowels, excluding [y] and [ɿ] ][ɭ] which doesn’t exist in Thai. For that reason, the research is to investigate all articulation combinations with three pairs of affricates for Thai learners, to draw the conclusion of their errors, and lastly to give teaching strategies to educators for suggestion.
The research reveals that not all syllable combinations of [ts] [tsˊ][s], [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] and [ʨ] [ʨˊ] [ɕ] have errors shown. There are three main results below: 1) Errors shown at times as long as [ts] [tsˊ][s], [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] and [ʨ] [ʨˊ] [ɕ] are combined with [ɿ] ][ɭ] and [i]. 2) It also happens when [ts] [tsˊ][s], [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] and [ʨ] [ʨˊ] [ɕ] are combined with [en] and [an]. 3) There’s little error shown when combining with [ei] and [ie]. Meanwhile, there are several phenomenons appeared from the observation: 1) Thai learners are able to tell difference between[ts] [tsˊ][s] , [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] and [ʨ] [ʨˊ] [ɕ] 2) Errors between [ts] [tsˊ][s] and [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] are closely related, for example, [tʂ] [tʂˊ][ʂ] sounds like [ts] [tsˊ][s] all the times. 3) Errors of [ʨ] [ʨˊ] [ɕ] are more independent than the other two, for example, difficulty to tell [ʨˊ] and [ɕ], or some errors of [ʨ] [ʨˊ] [ɕ] as consonants is particularly related to specific vowels. 4) Aspirated affricates is not operated tight enough, therefore, they sound like fricatives. Regarding those errors mentioned above, I would like to propose three suggestions that may be helpful in classroom: 1) Make example with materials which students have learnt or familiar with. 2) Then, to compare 3) Ask students only to focus on aspiration while operating aspired affricates and fricatives in order to reduce disturbance of syllables behind.
一、中文部份
王希哲(2003)。舌尖音聲母發音部位質疑。語文研究,第4期。
王玲娟(2003)。對外漢語初級階段語音感知教學研究。重慶大學學報(社會科學版),第9卷第3期。
王善江、曹盈(2009)。中介語及其石化現象研究。大連大學學報,第2期。
吉娜、簡啟賢(2004)。泰國學生初學漢語的偏誤分析。雲南師範大學學報第3期。
朱川(1997)。外國學生漢語語音學習對策。語文出版社。
江裕群(2002)。口腔防震式超音波觀測成人中文聲母音標發音結果。私立台北醫學大學碩士論文。
何山燕(2010)。從對比分析角度淺析對泰漢語語音教學策略。梧州學院學報,第20卷第4期。
吳宗濟、林茂燦(1989)。實驗語音學。北京:高等教育出版社。
李宇明(1984)。鄂豫方言的顫音。華中師範大學學報。
李紅印(1995)。泰國學生漢語學習的語音偏誤。世界漢語教學第2期。
房英、楊萬潔(2010)。新編泰語語音教程。昆明:雲南人民出版社。
林奕高、王功平(2005)。印尼留學生習得漢語普通話塞音和塞擦音實驗研究。語言教學與研究。
林燾、王理嘉(1009)。語音學教程。台北市:五南圖書出版社。
洪煒(2008)。初級階段泰國學生聲母發音偏誤考察。中國中山大學研究生學刊(社會科學版),第29卷第1期。
馬玉鳳(2009)。泰國學生初學漢語聲母韻母偏誤研究及教學建議。國立高雄師範大學碩士論文。
國際語音學會編(2008)。國際語音學會手冊:國際音標使用指南。江荻譯。上海:上海教育出版社。
教育部字頻總表:http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/M0001/pin/biau1.htm?open
莊潔(2009)。越南留學生習得普通話塞音和塞擦音實驗研究。菏澤學院學報,第31卷第3期。
陳娥(2006)。泰國學生漢語習得中的語音偏誤研究。雲南師範大學學報第2期。
陳晨(2008)。語音偏誤標記與語音對比-談泰國學生語音習得問題。雲南師範大學學報第2期。
陳晨、李秋楊(2007)。漢泰語音對比研究與語音偏誤標記分析。暨南大學華文學院學報第4期。
陳晨、李秋楊和王仲黎(2009)。泰國學生漢語元音習得中遷移現象的聲學實驗研究。民族教育研究,第20卷第1期。
曾金金(1999)。兩岸新聞播音員語料對比分析。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告。計畫編號:NSC 88-2411- H-003-017。
溫寶瑩(2008)。漢語普通話的母音習得。天津:南開大學出版社。
葉德明(2005)。華語語音學。台北:師大書苑。
廖宇夫(2008)。泰語基礎。北京:世界圖書出版公司。
趙金銘(2004)。對外漢語教學概論。北京:商務印書館。
趙春利(2005)。對外漢語偏誤分析二十年研究回顧。雲南師範大學學報,第3卷第2期。
趙璐(2008)。對外漢語教學中影響語言遷移的因素。語文學刊,第3期。
齊士鈴、張家騄(1982)。漢語普通話輔音音長分析。聲學學報。
劉尚林(2008)。針對泰國學生的漢語語音教學法研究。中國暨南大學碩士學位論文。
劉若男(2011)。語言遷移對漢語作為第二語言學習的影響。齊齊哈爾師範高等專科學校學報,第3期。
劉珣(2002)。漢語言作為第二語言教學簡論。北京:北京語言文化大學出版社。
劉惠美、曾進興和曹峰銘(1999)。國語語音對比的聲學相關特性。國科會研究彙刊:人文及社會科學,9(4),726-738。(TSSCI)
潘德鼎(1989)。泰語基礎教程:第一冊。北京:北京大學出版社。
蔣印蓮(1996)。泰國人學習漢語普通話語音難點辨析。第五屆國際漢語教學討論會論文選。
蔡整瑩、曹文(2002)。泰國學生漢語語音偏誤分析。世界漢語教學第2期。
鄭靜宜(2006)。國語捲舌和非捲舌的聲學特性。國立台南大學人文研究學報,第40卷第1期,27-48
鄧守信(2007)。遠東漢字三千字典。台北市:遠東。
魯健驥(1984)。中介語理論與外國人學習漢語的語音偏誤分析。語言教學與研究第3期。
魯健驥(1992)。偏誤分析與對外漢語教學。語言文字應用第1期。
賴百威(2007)。華語捲舌音與非捲舌音之偵測。國立清華大學碩士論文。
蘇曼(2011)。第二語言習得中的語言能力傾向、學習動機及策略。湖北廣播電視大學學報,第31卷第7期,108。
二、西文部份
Brown, H.D. (1980). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Corder, S. P. (1967). "The significance of learners' errors". International Review of Applied Linguistics 5.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). You can't learn without goofing. London: Longman.
Ellis. R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fathman, A. (1975). The relationship between age and second language production ability. Language Learning. 25, 245-266.
Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885). Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.
Kent, R. D. & Read, C (1992). The acoustic analysis of speech. San Diego: Singular.
Krashen, S. D. (1980). “The input hypothesis”. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics: Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 144-158). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1979). “The Monitor Model for second language acquisition”. In R. Gingras (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. CAL
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
O’Malley, J.M. et al. (1985). Learning Strategy Applications with Students of English as a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3.
O'Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 117-131.
Selinker, L (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York: Longman.
Selinker, L(1972)Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10:209-31
Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlinson-Keasey, C. (1985). Child Development: Psychological, sociocultural and Biological Factors. Chicago: Dorsey.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton