日籍學習者對於漢語趨向事件表述之認知

Japanese Learners’ Conception of Chinese Directional Motion Event Expressions

蕭惠貞(S. Hui-Chen Hsiao)；陳品蓉(Ping-Jung Chen)

趨向位移句式 ； 複合趨向結構 ； 日籍學習者 ； 指示詞 ； 方式動詞 ； directed motion constructions ； complex directional complements ； Japanese learners ； deixis ； manner verbs

華語文教學研究

13卷1期（2016 / 03 / 01）

35 - 68

繁體中文

由於漢語與日語分屬不同類型的語言(cf. Chen and Guo 2009; Slobin2004; Tai 2003; Talmy 1985, 2000)，本研究欲探討日籍學習者因母語遷移而產生的學習認知難點，及因為漢、日語趨向事件結構表述不同所造成的認知差異。我們以漢語常用兩大類句型作為本實驗材料(Chen and Guo2009)，透過線上問卷進行圖片與語句對應自然度的判斷調查，共二十二名漢語母語者及十五名日籍學習者參與。研究結果如下：(1)日籍學習者與漢語母語者幾乎在所有句型皆有組間差異且具有顯著性(p ＜ .001)；(2)其中，在合法句式中的兩大類型分析，日籍組平均為3.35，漢語母語為4.21，p ＜ .001，亦達顯著差異；(3)相較於「無方式」及「非默認方式」動詞，雖然日籍學習者與漢語母語者皆對「默認方式」的接受度較低，然而前者的低接受傾向更為明顯。這很可能是因日語為動詞語言，其使用者在非必要時一般不使用方式動詞之故（Slobin 1997；杉村博文2000）。

Despite the typological differences proposed by Talmy (1985, 2000, cf. Tai 2003; Slobin 2004; Chen and Guo 2009), this study aims to investigate the difficulty that Japanese learners of Mandarin have in learning to conceptualize Chinese motion event expressions in comparison with Chinese native speakers (NSs). Fifteen Japanese intermediate-high learners of Chinese and twenty-two Mandarin NSs in total participated in this study. Subjects were asked to determine to what degree the sentences (presenting motion events, cf. Chen and Guo 2009) were natural in accordance with respective pictures. The results show that (1) there were significant differences between the Japanese group and the Mandarin group in almost all kinds of patterns (p ＜ .001) ; (2) in grammatical patterns, the average points given by learners were 3.35; and that by native speakers were 4.21, and there was significant statistical difference (p ＜ .001) between the two; (3) the Mandarin and Japanese groups both gave lower points to sentences containing verbs with “default” manner, in comparison with those presenting “no manner” or “non-default manner” expressions. The results of this study confirm the views of Slobin (1997) and Sugimura (2000) that verb-framed language (Japanese) users tend to not use manner-of-motion verbs when the action is default and is naturally presupposed.

1. 洪碧霞(2013)。如何在非漢語環境下教授漢語趨向動詞─以法國學習者為例。華語文教學研究，10(1)，31-60。
   連結：
2. Ameka, Felix K.,Essegbey, James(2013).Serializing languages: satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither.Ghana Journal of Linguistics,2(1),19-38.
3. Boas, Hans C.(ed.)(2010).Contrastive Construction Grammar.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
4. Bybee, J.(ed.),Haiman, J.(ed.),Thompson, S. A.(ed.)(1997).Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
5. Chen, L.(2005).Lafayette,University of Louisiana.
6. Chen, L.,Guo, J.(2009).Motion events in Chinese novels: evidence for an equipollently-framed language.Journal of Pragmatics,41,1749-1766.
7. Guo, J.(ed.),Lieven, E.(ed.),Budwig, N.(ed.),Ervin-Tripp, S.(ed.),Nakamura, K.(ed.),Ozcaliskan, S.(ed.)(2009).Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language. Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin.New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Inagaki, S.(2001).Motion verbs with goal pps in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,23,153-170.
9. Juffs, A.(1996).Learnability and the Lexicon: Theories and Second Language Acquisition Research.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
10. Juffs, A.(1996).Semantics-syntax correspondences in second language acquisition.Second Language Research,12(2),177-221.
11. Langacker, R. W.(1993).Reference-point constructions.Cognitive Linguistics,4,1-38.
12. Langacker, R. W.(1999).Grammar and Conceptualization.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
13. Matsumoto, Y.(2003).Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: clarifications and reformulations.Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita,Tokyo:
14. Odlin, T.(1989).Language Transfer.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
15. Pourcel, Stéphanie(2004).What makes path of motion salient?.Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,30(1),505-516.
16. Pourcel, Stéphanie,Kopecka, Anetta(2005).Motion expression in French: typological diversity.Durham Working Papers in Linguistics,11,139-153.
17. Shopen, T.(ed.)(1985).Language Typology and Lexical Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
18. Slobin, Dan I.(2006).What makes manner of motion salient? explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition.Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories,Amsterdam:
19. Sorace, A.(1995).Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language.The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford,Amsterdam:
20. Strömqvist, S.(ed.),Verhoeven, L.(ed.)(2004).Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Sugiyama, Y.(2005).Not all verb-framed languages are created equal: the case of Japanese.Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,31(1),299-310.
22. Tai, James H-Y.(2005).Conceptual structure and conceptualizations in Chinese grammar.Language and Linguistics,6(4),539-574.
23. Tai, James H-Y.(2003).Cognitive relativism: resultative construction in Chinese.Language and Linguistics,4(2),301-316.
24. Talmy, Leonard(2000).Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, Vol. 2.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
25. White, L.(1991).Argument structure in second language acquisition.French Language Studies,1,189-207.
26. White, L.(1987).Markedness and second language acquisition: the question of transfer.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,9,261-286.
27. Wu, S.(2011).Learning to express motion events in an L2: the case of Chinese directional complements.Language Learning,61(2),414-454.
28. 江敏華(2013)。臺灣客家話動趨結構中與體貌有關的成分。語言暨語言學，14(5)，837-873。
29. 杉村博文(2000)。「走進來」について。荒屋勤教授古希記念 中国語論集，東京=Tokyo:
30. 林鴻義(2007)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄師範大學=National Kaohsiung Normal University。
31. 柯理思(2003)。漢語空間位移事件的語言表達─兼論述趨式的幾個問題。現代中國語研究，5，1-18。
32. 張伯江、方梅(1996)。漢語功能語法研究。江西=Jiangxi:江西教育出版社=Jiangxi Education Press。
33. 陳忠(2007)。複合趨向補語中「來／去」的句法分佈順序及其理據。當代語言學，1，39-43。
34. 陸儉明(2002)。動詞後趨向補語和賓語的位置問題。世界漢語教學，2002(1)，5-17。
35. 楊凱榮(2006)。論趨向補語和賓語的位置。漢語學報，2006(2)，55-61。
36. 楊德峰(2004)。日語母語學生趨向補語的習得情況分析。暨南大學華文學院學報，2004(3)，23-35。
37. 楊德峰(2003)。英語母語學生趨向補語的習得順序。世界漢語教學，2003(2)，52-65。
38. 翟英華(2008)。俄羅斯留學生習得漢語趨向補語的教學研究。齊齊哈爾大學學報，2008(6)，75-77。
39. 錢旭菁(1997)。日本留學生漢語趨向補語的習得順序。世界漢語教學，1997(1)，94-101。

1. 蕭惠貞、陳品蓉(2016)。不同語言類型的潛在影響：以日籍學習者對於漢語複合趨向事件表述之認知為例。華語文教學研究，13(2)，1-41。