研究生: |
林易昇 Lin, Yi-Sheng |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
探究語言使用環境、歧義和語境對華語學習者慣用語理解之影響 The Impact of Authentic Language Environment, Ambiguity, and Context on Mandarin-learners' Comprehension of Idiomatic Expressions |
指導教授: |
洪嘉馡
Hong, Jia-Fei |
口試委員: |
洪嘉馡
Hong, Jia-Fei 王炳勻 Wang, Pin-Yun 許展嘉 Hsu, Chan-Chia |
口試日期: | 2024/06/21 |
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: | 2024 |
畢業學年度: | 112 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 162 |
中文關鍵詞: | 慣用語 、歧義 、隱喻與轉喻 、詞彙理解 、語境 |
英文關鍵詞: | idiomatic expressions, ambiguity, metaphor and metonymy, lexical comprehension, context |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202400807 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:98 下載:16 |
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 |
華語慣用語為母語者常用之表達方式之一,其透過隱喻及轉喻的方式形成新的語義,使其多帶有雙重或多重語義(陳雅芳,2022),以及文化內涵(徐安妮,2008),且因為地區使用習慣的差異,以至於華語學習者的學習難度提升。此外,在華語教學方面,語境是否能幫助華語學習者理解(王艷芳,2009;趙嬌,2013;彭妮絲,2013)亦是值得討論的議題之一。
為了瞭解語言使用環境、歧義及語境對於華語學習者理解慣用語的影響,本研究先是透過母語者慣用語使用習慣問卷,挑選出臺灣母語者常用的慣用語及其特徵,再以母語者的常用程度及慣用語的歧義程度篩選出20個慣用語,設計成華語學習者慣用語推測能力問卷,最後,分析問卷收集之數據。
根據母語者慣用語使用習慣問卷之數據,本研究發現臺灣母語者常用之慣用語,多是以隱喻方式形成,且多是以具體物作為來源域,以達到表達清晰與生動之目的;此外,在語義使用上,則是以延伸的慣用語義為主,且往往帶有負面的感情色彩,間接的表達方式亦符合傳統中華文化委婉表達,弱化語言殺傷力之目的(Kaplan,1966;邱湘雲,2007)。
依照華語學習者慣用語推測能力問卷之結果,母語者的常用度與華語學習者理解慣用語之程度,未達顯著相關性,符合VanPatten & William (2007) 提及頻率對於二語習得的影響有限的觀察,可能是華語學習者未注意到真實語言環境中的慣用語或是未成為可理解輸入(Krashen, 1982;Gass, 1988)。此外,慣用語的歧義程度與正確率,亦未達顯著相關性,與學習者原本就不知慣用語有歧義有關。最後,在語境影響性與正確率方面,兩者達顯著正相關,表示語境對多數華語學習者在理解慣用語上有幫助性。
Chinese idiomatic expressions are one of the commonly used forms of expression by native speakers. These expressions often form new meanings through metaphor and metonymy, resulting in multiple meanings (Chen Yafang, 2022) and cultural connotations (Xu Anni, 2008). Due to usage differences in regions, learning Chinese idioms poses greater difficulty for Chinese learners. Moreover, whether context can help Chinese learners understand idiomatic expressions is also a topic worth discussing in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (Wang Yanfang, 2009; Zhao Jiao, 2013; Peng Nisi, 2013).
To understand the impact of the authentic language environment, ambiguity, and context on the Chinese learners’ comprehension of idiomatic expressions, this study first conducted a survey on the idiomatic usage habits of native speakers to select commonly used idioms and understand their characteristics. Then, based on the frequency of use by native speakers and the ambiguity of the idioms, 20 idioms were selected to design a questionnaire on the Chinese learners’ inferential ability of idioms. Finally, the collected data from the questionnaire was analyzed.
According to the data from the survey on the idiomatic usage habits of native speakers, this study found that idiomatic expressions commonly used by Taiwanese native speakers are mostly formed metaphorically, often using concrete objects as the source domain to achieve clear and vivid expression. Additionally, in terms of semantic use, extended idiomatic meanings are predominant, which often carry negative emotional connotations. The indirect way of expression also aligns with the purpose of euphemistic expression in traditional Chinese culture, reducing the linguistic impact (Kaplan, 1966; Qiu Xiangyun, 2007).
Based on the results of the questionnaire on the Chinese learners' inferential ability of idioms, there was no significant correlation between the frequency of use by native speakers and the understanding of idioms by Chinese learners. This is compatible with VanPatten & William's (2007) observation that frequency has limited impact on second language acquisition, possibly because Chinese learners did not notice idiomatic expressions in the environment or the expression in the environment did not become learners’ comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982; Gass, 1988). Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between the idiomatic ambiguity and the correctness rate. This might be related to the learners' initial unawareness of the idioms’ other meanings. Lastly, there was a significant positive correlation between the influence of context and the correctness rate, indicating that context is helpful for most Chinese learners in understanding idiomatic expressions.
王季香(2011)。漢語慣用語動賓詞組的語法分析及其TCSL語法教學策略。應華學報,(9),175-204。
王理嘉、陸儉明、符淮青、馬真、蘇培成(1995)。現代漢語。北京:商務印書館。
王勤(2006)。漢語熟語論。山東省濟南市:山東教育出版社。
王艷芳(2009)。留學生運用慣用語的語義偏誤與成因。理論界,6,143-144。
朱德熙(1997)。現代漢語語法研究。北京:商務印書館。
何兆熊(2000)。新編語用學概要。上海:上海外語教育出版社。
何自然、冉永平(2009)。新編語用學概論。北京:北京大學出版社。
李壬癸(2007)。人體各部位名稱在語言上的應用。語言暨語言學,8(3),711-722。
李兆同、徐思益(1981)。語言學導論。烏魯木齊:新疆人民出版社。
李坤崇(2005)。多元化教學評量(初版六刷)。台北市:心理出版社。
周玟觀(2019)。攻防摧破-佛教戰爭概念譬喻析論。興大中文學報,(46),149-174。
周荐(1985)。試論詞的感情色彩及其構成方式。天津社會科學,(3),76-80。
孟繁杰(2005)。對外漢語慣用語教學研究。海外華文教育,(2),65-71。
尚國文(2010)。趨向動詞「上」「下」多義性的認知基礎。台灣華語文教學,(8),6-18。
林玉霞(2015)。聽覺障礙幼兒的早期讀寫概念發展(上)。雲嘉特教期刊,(22),4-10。
武占坤、王勤(1983)。現代漢語詞彙概要。內蒙古:內蒙古人民出版社。
邱湘雲(2007)。委婉語在台灣語言及台灣文學中的表現。第四屆台灣文學與語言國際學術研討會論文集。台南:真理大學語文學院。
邱湘雲(2011)。客、閩、華語三字熟語隱喻造詞類型表現。彰化師大國文學誌,(22),241-272。
邱湘雲(2016)。華語五官慣用語概念隱喻及其教學研究。應華學報,(17),37-70。
洪月女(譯)(1998)。談閱讀(原作者:Kenneth S. Goodman)。臺北市:心理。
洪蘭(2004)。讓孩子的大腦動起來。臺北:信誼基金出版社。
胡裕樹(1992)。現代漢語(增訂版)。台北市:新文豐出版公司。
孫維張(1981)。略論詞義的色彩形象。吉林大學社會科學學報,(5),87-94。
孫維張(1989)。漢語熟語學。吉林省:吉林教育出版社。
孫德金(2009)。漢語水平考試發展問題略論。中國考試,(6),18-22。
徐安妮(2008)。你家的「母老虎」和我家的「龍」-中文及德文裡運用動物為喻之文化內涵對比與翻譯。廣譯:語言、文學、與文化翻譯,(1),107-128。
徐志民(1980)。關於詞的感情色彩的幾個問題。語言教學與研究,(3),51-58。
徐宗才、應俊玲(1985)。慣用語例釋。北京:北京語言學院出版社。
袁影(2004)。論戰爭隱喻的普遍性及文化淵源。外語研究,(4),36-39。
國家教育研究院(2021)。跨域趨勢──台灣華語文語料庫與能力基準整合應用系統。新北市:國家教育研究院。
張延成(2012)。第二語言習得與學習。武漢:湖北教育出版社。
張莉(1997)。論現代漢語多義詞詞義的內在聯繫。河北大學學報(哲學社會科學版),22(3),62-67。
張莉萍(2012)。對應於歐洲共同架構的華語詞彙量。華語文教學研究,9(2),77-79。
張惠晶(2013)。從四個文化機制看華人人際傳播:「拉近」、「推遠」、「彈性化」與「複雜化」。傳播與社會學刊,(24),193-223。
符淮青(2008)。現代漢語詞彙。台北市:新學林出版股份有限公司。
陳雅芳(2022)。臺灣華語教材中三字格慣用語分析及編寫建議。中原華語文學報,(22),45-72。
彭妮絲(2013)。從閱讀理解實徵研究探華語文教學中的文化教學。中原華語文學報,(12),23-44。
程祥徽、田小琳(2002)。現代漢語。香港:三聯書店有限公司。
黃伯榮、廖序東(2002)。現代漢語。北京:高等教育出版社。
黃宣範(2009)。棲於身的體現認知。載於蘇以文、畢永峨(編著)。語言與認知(頁55-81)。台北:臺大學出版中心。
黃柔溱、信世昌(2022)。華語中心隱性課程探討之個案研究──以臺灣中部某大學為例。臺灣華語教學研究,(25),69-102。
黃慶萱(2000)。修辭學(增訂三版)。臺北:三民書局。
石安石(譯)(1988)。漢語的歧義問題(原作者:趙元任)。語言學論叢,第15輯。北京:商務印書館。
趙琪鳳(2020)。漢語國際教育考試體系發展研究。語言戰略研究,(26),71-79。
趙嬌(2013)。慣用語教學中留學生和與心理詞典的建構。新疆職業大學學報,21(3),68-69,72。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡(2004)。實用現代漢語語法。北京:商務印書館。
劉正光、周紅民(2002)。慣用語理解的認知研究。外語學刊,(2),7-14。
劉叔新(1980)。詞語的形象色彩及其功能。中國語文,(2),150-153。
劉靜宜(2016)。華語詞彙學。臺北:新學林。
劉麗梅(2011)。對慣用語的重新認知。邯鄲學院學報,21(1),99-104。
歐秀慧(2010)。從新聞看生活中有關戰爭的隱喻思維。大葉大學通識教育學報,(6),21-35。
鄭定歐(1999)。詞彙語法理論與漢語句法研究。北京:北京語言文化大學出版社。
盧怡君(2013)。語意範疇研究中的原型觀點-以德語介係詞über的語意分析為例。輔仁外語學報,(10),47-69。
蕭惠貞(2013)。多義詞「洗」之語義分析、詞彙排序與華語教學應用。華語文教學研究,10(4),47-80。
賴明德、何淑貞、丁原基、林振興(2009)。華人社會與文化。臺北:文鶴。
賴虹燕(譯)(2004)。問卷設計、市場調查與統計分析實務入門(原作者:酒井隆)。新北市:博誌文化。
藍純(2005)。認知語言學與隱喻研究。北京:外語教學與研究出版社。
魏聰祺(2004)。借代分類及其辨析。臺中師院學報,18(1),111-134。
蘇席瑤(2018)。臺灣華語的在地化與標記化。臺灣學誌,(17),1-35。
蘇新春(2013)。現代漢語分類詞典。北京:商務印書館。
Ahrens, K. (1998). Lexcial Ambiguity Resolution: Languages, Tasks, and Timing. In D. Hiller (Ed.), Sentence Processing: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, pp. 11-31. San Diego: Academic Press.
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic Meaning (1st ed.). Routledge.
Angosto, A., Sánchez, P., Álvarez, M. & Cuevas, I. & León, J. A. (2013). Evidence for Top-Down Processing in Reading Comprehension of Children. Psicología Educativa, 19(2), 83–88
Binder, K. S., & Morris, R. K. (2011). An eye-movement analysis of ambiguity resolution: Beyond meaning access. Discourse Processes, 48(5), 305–330.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. Modern Language Journal, 68(4), 332–343.
Cham, J & Whiteson, D (2017). We Have No Idea: A Guide to the Unknown Universe. New York: Riverhead Books.
Chen, P. H. (2019). The Individual and Joint Effects of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Reading Strategy Use on Taiwanese EFL Learners' English Reading Comprehension. Language and International Studies, (21), 123-157.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Conrad, C. (1974). Context effects in sentence comprehension: A study of the subjective lexicon. Memory & Cognition, 2(1-A), 130–138.
Dancygier, B. (2016). Figurativeness, Conceptual Metaphor and Blending. In E., & Demjén, Z. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language (1st ed.), 28-41. Routledge.
Dopkins, S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(4), 461-476.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 429-446.
Eric Partridge (2006). Origins: A Short Etymologival Dictionary of Modern English. Routledge.
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon, and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 33-75.
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133-187.
Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. MIT Press.
Frawley, W. (1992).Linguistic semantics.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011). An Introduction to Language (Int. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Gass, S.M. (1988). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies1. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Gibbs, Jr, R. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Kreuz, R. J., & Rho, S. H. (1986). Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 323–335.
Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Literacy Research and Instruction, 6, 126-135.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Hoffman, R.R. (1989). Some ambiguities in the study of ambiguity. In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 204-222). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hogaboam, T., & Perfetti, C.A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 265-274.
Hong, J. F.(2018). A study on lexical ambiguity in mandarin Chinese. In Q. Su, J.-S. Wu, & J.-F. Hong (Eds.), Chinese Lexical Semantics - 19th Workshop, CLSW 2018, Revised Selected Papers, 467-477. Springer Verlag.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kövecses Semino (2016). Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In E., & Demjén, Z. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language (1st ed.), 13-27. Routledge.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lakeoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1–71.
McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Miller, George A. (1996). The Science of Words. New York: Scientific American Library.
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9(3), 225–236.
Panther, K., Thornburg, L., Panther, K. & Radden, G. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian (Human Cognitive Processing 4). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & Díez Velasco, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In: R. Dirven & R. Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 489-532.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2017). Cognitive psychology (7th edition). Cengage Learning.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over. Language, 77, 724 - 765.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). The philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.