漢語詞彙歧義探究與教學應用

A Study of Lexical Ambiguity and Pedagogical Implication in Mandarin

蕭惠貞(S. Hui-Chen Hsiao)；陳昱蓉(Yu-Jung Chen)

歧義 ； 多義詞 ； 消解歧義 ； 華語教學 ； ambiguity ； polysemy ； disambiguity ； TCSL

華語文教學研究

11卷2期（2014 / 06 / 01）

1 - 30

繁體中文

本文探究漢語「做＋名詞組」之詞彙歧義與消解歧義之方式，從「做人」、「做夢」、「做文章」、「做功課」四詞著手，以詞彙意義與詞彙語境線索詞為基礎，進行語義辨識實驗。透過該實驗，我們分析華語學習者如何理解含有多義詞句子，希冀其能有助於華語教學應用。實驗對象包括母語者（參照組）和華語學習者（實驗組）各20位。實驗結果為（1）教學效果顯著，平均答對率進步18%；（2）詞彙語境線索教學對華語學習者理解句義有幫助；學習者答對率與其圈選的線索詞，兩者顯示為中度相關（r值為0.58）。本研究建議教學時可教導學生詞彙意義判斷策略（線索詞），以利其能有效透過相關詞彙語境線索推測多義詞的確切詞義。

The study examines the lexical ambiguity and the cues related to resolving the ambiguity of the Mandarin verb zuò-related phrases, including ＂zuò rén＂, ＂zuò mèng＂, ＂zuò wénzhāng＂ and ＂zuò gōngkè＂. Experiments on semantic recognition (differentiation) on the basis of lexical semantics and cues from sentential/contextual cues were carried out to analyze how Mandarin second language (L2) learners interpret sentences with ambiguous words. We aim to provide insights gained from the current results into the teaching of Mandarin. There were 40 participants in the study, including 20 native Mandarin speakers in the control group, and 20 Mandarin L2 learners in the experimental group. The results of the study are: i) the number of average correct answers increased by 18%, demonstrating significant teaching effect; ii) the provision of contextual cues in lexical teaching could help Mandarin L2 learners in interpreting the meaning of sentences. The r value between the rate of correct answers and the cues they selected was 0.58, signifying a moderately positive relationship between the two. It is thus recommended to include teaching of lexical judging strategies in order to help Mandarin L2 learners to infer the meanings of polysemous words via related contextual cues.

1. Thorndike, Edwar L. and Woodworth, R. S. 1901. The Influence Of Improvement In One Mental Function Upon The Efficiency Of Other Functions (1). Psychological Review 8:247-261.
2. Apresjan, Ju D.(1974).Regular polysemy.Linguistics,12(142),5-32.
3. Azuma, Tamiko,Van Orden, Guy C.(1997).Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times.Journal of Memory and Language,36,484-504.
4. Barnard, Chester I.(1968).The Functions of the Executive.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
5. Birgit, Harley(1996).Introduction: Vocabulary Learning and Teaching in a Second Language.The Canadian Modern Language Review,53(1),3-12.
6. Costa, A. L.(ed.),Bellanca, J.(ed.),Forgarty, R.(ed.)(1992).If Minds Matter: A Foreword to the Future.Palatine, Il.:Skylight Publishing.
7. Cruse, Alan(2000).Meaning in Language.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
8. Duffy, Susan A.,Morris, Robin K.,Rayner, Keith(1988).Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory & Language,27,429-446.
9. Frawley, William(1992).Linguistic Semantics.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Gentner, Dedre,France, Ilene M.(1990).The Verb Mutability Effect: Studies of the Combinatorial Semantics of Nouns and Verbs.California:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
11. Kooij, Jan G.(1971).Ambiguity in Natural Language: an investigation of certain problems in its linguistic description.New York:North-Holland Publishing Company.
12. Krashen, Stephen(1981).Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
13. Lyons, John(1995).Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Mondria, Jan-Arjen,Wit-de Boer, Marijke(1991).The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language.Applied Linguistics,12,249-267.
15. O'Malley, J. Michael,Chamot, Anna U.(1990).Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.England:Cambridge University Press.
16. Oxford, Rebecca(1990).Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.New York:Newbury House.
17. Rayner, Keith,Frazier, Lyn(1989).Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,15(5),779-790.
18. Schiffrin, Deborah(1994).Approaches to Discourse.Oxford:Blackwell.
19. Simpson, Greg,Burgess, Curt(1985).Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance,11,28-39.
20. Small, Steven(ed.),Cottrell, Garrison(ed.),Tanenhaus, Miachael(ed.)(1988).Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology, and Artificial Intelligence.San Mateo, California:Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
21. Swaab, Tamara Yvonne,Brown, Colin M.,Hagoort, Peter(2003).Electrophysiological correlates of the time course of ambiguity resolution.Brain and Language,86,326-343.
22. Tayler, John(1989).Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
23. Verspoor, Marjolijn,Lowie, Wander(2003).Making Sense of Polysemous Words.Language Learning,53(3),547-586.
24. Weinreich, Uriel(1964).Webster's Third: a critique of its semantics.International Journal of American Linguistics,30,405-409.
25. 方麗娜(2003)。對外華語文詞彙教學的策略研究。南師學報（人文與社會類），37(2)，1-16。
26. 王建平(1992)。語境與邏輯基本規律。語境研究論文集，北京=Beijing:
27. 任紹曾(2003)。詞彙語境線索與語篇理解。外語教學與研究（外國語文雙月刊），35(4)，251-258。
28. 吳明隆(2007)。SPSS 統計應用學習實務：問卷分析與應用統計。臺北=Taipei:經瑋國際股份有限公司=Jingwei International Ltd.。
29. 束定芳、庄智象(1996)。現代外語教學：理論、實踐與方法。上海=Shanghai:上海外語教育出版社=Shanghai Forieng Language Education Press。
30. 張如瑩、黃居仁(2004)。中央研究院中英雙語知識本體詞網（Sinica BOW：結合詞網，知識本體，與領域標記的詞彙知識庫。第十六屆自然語言與語音處理研討會論文集
31. 許秀霞(2008)。臺北=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
32. 曾振源(2009)。國小原漢學童作文病句的差異現象分析及補救。語文與語文教育的展望，臺北=Taipei:
33. 劉月華、潘文娛、故韡(1996)。實用現代漢語語法。臺北=Taipei:師大書苑=Shida Shuyuan。

1. 林慶隆、李詩敏(2018)。再探「高興」類近義詞：基於語料庫工具輔助之辨析研究。華語文教學研究，15(1)，45-83。
2. 歐德芬(2017)。義素為本的詞語教學—以關鍵義素組構詞語網絡。臺灣華語教學研究，15，97-123。
3. 楊文金、陳世文、古智雄(2018)。從系統功能語言觀點探討科學詞彙的歧義與解歧。科學教育學刊，26(3)，241-259。
4. 張鑑如、何文君(2019)。兒童華語學習詞彙選取之教師觀點初探。國立彰化師範大學文學院學報，20，131-154。