本文選題：多義動(dòng)詞 + 賓語類型��； 參考：《云南師范大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文依據(jù)《常用漢語1500高頻詞語表》,結(jié)合《漢語水平詞匯與漢字等級(jí)大綱》、《現(xiàn)代漢語常用詞表(草案)》以及《漢語動(dòng)詞用法詞典》等找出帶義項(xiàng)數(shù)量不同的、帶名詞性賓語類型具有多樣性的18個(gè)多義動(dòng)詞作為研究樣本,以緬甸留學(xué)生為調(diào)查對象,通過語言對比和偏誤分析的方法,從第二語言習(xí)得的角度對緬甸留學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語多義動(dòng)詞帶賓短語的情況進(jìn)行考察分析。試圖探尋緬甸留學(xué)生在習(xí)得漢語多義動(dòng)詞帶賓短語過程中產(chǎn)生偏誤的傾向性規(guī)律,并嘗試以個(gè)案的形式分析其偏誤產(chǎn)生的原因,最后依據(jù)偏誤成因探討相應(yīng)的教學(xué)策略。本論文共分為三個(gè)部分。第一部分依據(jù)《漢語動(dòng)詞用法詞典》、《漢緬詞典》和《緬漢詞典》,從靜態(tài)的角度對比分析了漢語多義動(dòng)詞與相關(guān)緬語動(dòng)詞帶賓情況。首先,對比分析了漢緬語多義動(dòng)詞的義項(xiàng)數(shù)和義項(xiàng)語義。就義項(xiàng)數(shù)而言,相關(guān)緬語動(dòng)詞的義項(xiàng)數(shù)稍多于漢語多義動(dòng)詞。而語義方面,漢語多義動(dòng)詞和相關(guān)緬語動(dòng)詞能對應(yīng)的語義遠(yuǎn)少于不能對應(yīng)的語義。其次,對比分析了漢緬語多義動(dòng)詞帶名詞性賓語的基本類型和具體的帶賓情況。從帶賓類型上看,漢語多義動(dòng)詞能帶13類名詞性賓語,而緬語動(dòng)詞只能帶10類。從帶賓具體情況上看,超過半數(shù)的漢語動(dòng)詞都能帶受事、處所、結(jié)果、工具賓語,但是相關(guān)緬語動(dòng)詞除了多數(shù)能帶受事賓語之外,其他類型的賓語都較少。第二部分從二語習(xí)得的角度調(diào)查分析了緬甸學(xué)習(xí)者習(xí)得漢語多義動(dòng)詞帶賓短語時(shí)的偏誤情況。即,在六個(gè)及少于六個(gè)義項(xiàng)的多義動(dòng)詞帶賓短語中,緬甸學(xué)習(xí)者的動(dòng)賓短語習(xí)得偏誤率很低,但是在七個(gè)及七個(gè)以上的多義動(dòng)詞動(dòng)賓短語習(xí)得中,其偏誤率會(huì)顯著增高。為了進(jìn)一步探究緬甸留學(xué)生產(chǎn)生偏誤的具體原因,我們采用了口頭訪談的形式,對容易產(chǎn)生偏誤的動(dòng)賓短語進(jìn)行訪談,并記錄了訪談結(jié)果。第三部分結(jié)合調(diào)查問卷的結(jié)果和口頭訪談的內(nèi)容,分析了緬甸學(xué)習(xí)者的偏誤特點(diǎn)及偏誤成因。即,漢語為高級(jí)水平的緬甸學(xué)習(xí)者在習(xí)得多義動(dòng)詞帶賓短語時(shí),在對某動(dòng)賓短語理解偏誤時(shí),其偏誤原因是多元交叉的。主要的偏誤類型為:漢緬語多義動(dòng)詞語義的不對稱性引起的偏誤、漢語動(dòng)詞的多義性引起的偏誤、漢緬語賓語類型的差異性引起的偏誤、語義聯(lián)想不當(dāng)引起的偏誤。其中,漢語動(dòng)詞的本身的多義性是引起的偏誤的主要原因。最終,本文以個(gè)案的形式分析了嚴(yán)重偏誤的動(dòng)賓短語,并在結(jié)語處提出了相應(yīng)的教學(xué)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：云南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：H195

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李臨定;;賓語使用情況考察[J];語文研究;1983年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 劉召興;漢語多義動(dòng)詞的義項(xiàng)習(xí)得過程研究[D];北京語言文化大學(xué);2001年

2 蒲徐波;中高級(jí)階段留學(xué)生詞匯習(xí)得偏誤分析與教學(xué)策略[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

3 蔣吉靈;現(xiàn)代漢語賓語語義類型分析及習(xí)得研究[D];中南民族大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1998371