缅甸留学生习得汉语多义动词带宾短语的个案调查分析

发布时间：2018-06-09 02:21

本文选题：多义动词 + 宾语类型　；参考：《云南师范大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文依据《常用汉语1500高频词语表》,结合《汉语水平词汇与汉字等级大纲》、《现代汉语常用词表(草案)》以及《汉语动词用法词典》等找出带义项数量不同的、带名词性宾语类型具有多样性的18个多义动词作为研究样本,以缅甸留学生为调查对象,通过语言对比和偏误分析的方法,从第二语言习得的角度对缅甸留学生习得汉语多义动词带宾短语的情况进行考察分析。试图探寻缅甸留学生在习得汉语多义动词带宾短语过程中产生偏误的倾向性规律,并尝试以个案的形式分析其偏误产生的原因,最后依据偏误成因探讨相应的教学策略。本论文共分为三个部分。第一部分依据《汉语动词用法词典》、《汉缅词典》和《缅汉词典》,从静态的角度对比分析了汉语多义动词与相关缅语动词带宾情况。首先,对比分析了汉缅语多义动词的义项数和义项语义。就义项数而言,相关缅语动词的义项数稍多于汉语多义动词。而语义方面,汉语多义动词和相关缅语动词能对应的语义远少于不能对应的语义。其次,对比分析了汉缅语多义动词带名词性宾语的基本类型和具体的带宾情况。从带宾类型上看,汉语多义动词能带13类名词性宾语,而缅语动词只能带10类。从带宾具体情况上看,超过半数的汉语动词都能带受事、处所、结果、工具宾语,但是相关缅语动词除了多数能带受事宾语之外,其他类型的宾语都较少。第二部分从二语习得的角度调查分析了缅甸学习者习得汉语多义动词带宾短语时的偏误情况。即,在六个及少于六个义项的多义动词带宾短语中,缅甸学习者的动宾短语习得偏误率很低,但是在七个及七个以上的多义动词动宾短语习得中,其偏误率会显著增高。为了进一步探究缅甸留学生产生偏误的具体原因,我们采用了口头访谈的形式,对容易产生偏误的动宾短语进行访谈,并记录了访谈结果。第三部分结合调查问卷的结果和口头访谈的内容,分析了缅甸学习者的偏误特点及偏误成因。即,汉语为高级水平的缅甸学习者在习得多义动词带宾短语时,在对某动宾短语理解偏误时,其偏误原因是多元交叉的。主要的偏误类型为:汉缅语多义动词语义的不对称性引起的偏误、汉语动词的多义性引起的偏误、汉缅语宾语类型的差异性引起的偏误、语义联想不当引起的偏误。其中,汉语动词的本身的多义性是引起的偏误的主要原因。最终,本文以个案的形式分析了严重偏误的动宾短语,并在结语处提出了相应的教学策略。
[Abstract]:According to the Common Chinese 1500 High Frequency Vocabulary Table, the outline of Chinese level Vocabulary and Chinese characters, the Modern Chinese Common words list (draft) and the Chinese verb usage Dictionary, this paper finds out that the number of items with different meanings is different. There are 18 polysemous verbs with a variety of nominal object types as the research sample, and the Myanmar students are investigated by the methods of language contrast and error analysis. From the perspective of second language acquisition, this paper analyzes the acquisition of Chinese polysemous verbs with object phrases by Myanmar students. This paper attempts to explore the tendency of errors in the process of acquisition of polysemous verbs with object phrases by Myanmar students, and tries to analyze the causes of errors in the form of individual cases, and finally discusses the corresponding teaching strategies according to the causes of errors. This thesis is divided into three parts. In the first part, according to the Dictionary of Chinese verb usage, the Chinese-Burmese Dictionary and the Burman Chinese Dictionary, the author compares and analyzes the situation of Chinese polysemous verbs and related Burmese verbs with objects from a static point of view. Firstly, the meaning number and meaning semantics of polysemous verbs in Chinese and Myanmar are compared and analyzed. As far as the number of semantic items is concerned, the number of meanings of related verbs in Burmese is slightly more than that of polysemous verbs in Chinese. In terms of semantics, Chinese polysemous verbs and related Burmese verbs can correspond to far less semantics than can not be corresponded to. Secondly, the basic types of the polysemous verbs with nominal objects in Chinese and Myanmar are compared and analyzed. Chinese polysemous verbs can carry 13 kinds of nominal objects, while Burmese verbs can only take 10 types. More than half of Chinese verbs can bring object, place, result and tool object, but there are few other types of objects except most of them. The second part investigates and analyzes the errors in the acquisition of Chinese polysemous verbs with object phrases by Burmese learners from the perspective of second language acquisition. In other words, in six and less than six polysemous verb with object phrases, the acquisition error rate of verb-object phrases in Myanmar learners is very low, but in the acquisition of seven or more polysemous verb verb-object phrases, the error rate will increase significantly. In order to further explore the specific causes of errors in Myanmar students we use the form of oral interviews to interview verb-object phrases which are prone to errors and record the results of the interviews. The third part analyzes the characteristics and causes of Myanmar learners' errors by combining the results of questionnaire and the contents of oral interviews. In other words, Myanmar learners with Chinese as advanced level have multiple and intersecting reasons when they acquire polysemous verb with object phrase and understand the error of a verb-object phrase. The main types of errors are: errors caused by semantic asymmetry of polysemous verbs in Chinese and Burmese languages, errors caused by polysemy of Chinese verbs, errors caused by differences of object types in Chinese and Burmese languages, and errors caused by improper semantic association. The polysemy of Chinese verbs is the main cause of errors. Finally, this paper analyzes the verb-object phrases with serious errors in the form of individual cases, and puts forward the corresponding teaching strategies in the conclusion.
【学位授予单位】：云南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：H195

【参考文献】