本文選題：存在句 + 韓國學(xué)生　； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：存在句在漢語中使用頻率比較高。但是由于漢語和韓語的存在句在結(jié)構(gòu)形式和語義、語用方面存在很多差別,因此韓國學(xué)生在漢語存在句的學(xué)習(xí)過程中會(huì)產(chǎn)生大量的偏誤。中韓兩國學(xué)者對(duì)存在句的本體已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了較為深入的研究。但是對(duì)存在句偏誤類型的研究還不是很多。因此,本文以韓語為母語的韓國學(xué)生為研究對(duì)象,考察他們漢語存在句的掌握情況。本文主要研究了“有”字句(處所詞／時(shí)間詞+有+存在主體)、“是”字句(處所詞／時(shí)間詞+是+存在主體)、“在”字句(存在主體+在+處所詞／時(shí)間詞)還有“V著”(處所詞／時(shí)間詞+V著+存在主體)這4種類型的句式。通過調(diào)查問卷統(tǒng)計(jì)歸納,可以看出韓國學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語存在句時(shí)出現(xiàn)的各種各樣的偏誤類型,并分析其產(chǎn)生的原因。本文主要分為以下幾個(gè)部分。第一章,主要介紹選題的緣由及研究意義、以及本文有關(guān)的前人的研究綜述、研究的目的與方法、還有本文的創(chuàng)新之處。第二章,是通過漢韓語的對(duì)比,找出兩個(gè)語言的異同點(diǎn),從而預(yù)測(cè)韓國學(xué)生會(huì)出現(xiàn)的偏誤類型。第三章,通過調(diào)查問卷的方式,了解并分析韓國學(xué)生使用漢語存在句的主要偏誤類型。調(diào)查對(duì)象是南京大學(xué)、江陵大學(xué)的初中高三個(gè)等級(jí)的72名韓國學(xué)生。從調(diào)查問卷中可以得出,韓國學(xué)生錯(cuò)誤率最低的偏誤類型是錯(cuò)序(錯(cuò)誤率是31%),而最高的是誤加(錯(cuò)誤率是54%)。在誤加方面,主要容易出現(xiàn)以下幾種類型的錯(cuò)誤：首先是在處所詞也就是A段加“在”。第二種是關(guān)于“在”字句和動(dòng)態(tài)助詞使用的偏誤。第三種是“V著”的B段動(dòng)詞前面能否加表示動(dòng)作正在進(jìn)行的副詞。不僅如此,在誤用方面可以發(fā)現(xiàn)韓國學(xué)生經(jīng)常把“有”和“是”混用。此外,在語序方面,存在的主要問題是把謂語放在句尾、把處所詞和存在主體的位置改變等。在分析偏誤類型的同時(shí),結(jié)合母語、目的語的影響,分析了韓國學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語存在句時(shí)出現(xiàn)偏誤的主要原因。母語的影響是由于漢語和韓語的基本特點(diǎn)不一樣,(比如說詞序、用法、語義等)因此經(jīng)常犯錯(cuò)誤。按目的語的影響進(jìn)行分類有兩種；首先,對(duì)目的語的掌握不好。對(duì)第二語言的理解不太深、不能熟練的運(yùn)用語言。其次,目的語的規(guī)則泛化。就是錯(cuò)誤地?cái)U(kuò)大了規(guī)則的適用范圍,在不該用的地方,或者該用的地方用上了別的結(jié)構(gòu)。第四章,是對(duì)韓國學(xué)生存在句的教學(xué)方法。在研究的基礎(chǔ)上提出針對(duì)韓國學(xué)生存在句相關(guān)的教學(xué)意見。結(jié)論部分,對(duì)本研究的主要內(nèi)容進(jìn)行了整理、歸納和總結(jié)。通過研究,本文得出的結(jié)論主要包括：1)通過四種存在句類型的偏誤分析可以知道,韓國學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語存在句時(shí)正確率的順序是；在(70%)有(61%)V著(53%)是(49%)。2)以偏誤類型基礎(chǔ)來看,韓國學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語存在句過程中偏誤類型的錯(cuò)誤率順序是；誤加(54%)誤用(40%)錯(cuò)序(31%)。3)通過看圖說話題可以看出,韓國學(xué)生看著相同的圖片而用存在句式把它描述時(shí),他們的存在句使用率順序是；有(89%)在(78%)V著(71%)是(37%)。與其他學(xué)者的論文相比,本文在很多方面還存在著不足,但是希望本文將會(huì)對(duì)韓國學(xué)生偏誤類型的研究有所幫助。
[Abstract]:There are a lot of differences in the pragmatic aspects of the Chinese and Korean existential sentences in Chinese and Korean, so there will be a lot of errors in the learning process of the Chinese existential sentences. The scholars of the two countries have made a more thorough study of the ontology of the existential sentence. There are not many studies on the types of errors in existential sentences. Therefore, the Korean students of Korean as their mother tongue are studied in this paper to investigate their mastery of their Chinese existential sentences. This paper mainly studies the "have" sentences (the word / time word + + existence subject), the "yes" sentence (the place word / time word + is the subject of the + existence) and the "in" word. There are 4 types of sentence patterns (the main body + the word / time word) and the "V" (the place word / time word +V + existence subject). Through the questionnaire survey, we can see all kinds of errors in the acquisition of Chinese existential sentences by the Korean students, and analyze the reasons for it. This article is mainly divided into the following several Part 1. The first chapter mainly introduces the origin and significance of the topic, as well as the research summary of the predecessors, the purpose and method of the study, and the innovation of this article. The second chapter is to find out the similarities and differences of the two languages through the comparison between Han and Korean, so as to predict the types of errors in Korean students. Chapter third, through investigation and inquiry There are 72 Korean students in the junior middle school of Nanjing University and Jiangling University. From the questionnaire, the lowest error rate of Korean students is the wrong order (error rate is 31%), and the highest is error rate (error rate). It is 54%). In the error addition, it is easy to make mistakes in the following types: first, in the locative words, the A section and the "in". The second is about the errors used in the "in" and the dynamic auxiliary words. The third is whether the B segment verb "V" can be added to the adverb which is being carried out. In addition, the main problem in the word order is to put the predicate at the end of the sentence, to change the location of the locative words and the position of the existence subject. In the analysis of the type of error, the influence of the mother tongue and the target language is used to analyze the main errors in the acquisition of Chinese existential sentences by the Korean students. The influence of the mother tongue is due to the different basic characteristics of Chinese and Korean, such as word order, usage, semantics, etc. so often make mistakes. There are two categories according to the influence of the target language; first, the mastery of the target language is not good. The understanding of the second language is not too deep, and the language can not be used skillfully. Secondly, the rules of the target language. Generalization. It is a mistake to enlarge the scope of the application of the rules, in the place where it is not to be used, or to use other structures in the place where it is used. The fourth chapter is the teaching method of the Korean students' existential sentence. On the basis of the study, it puts forward the teaching opinions related to the Korean students' existence sentence. The main conclusions of this paper are as follows: 1) the main conclusions are as follows: 1) through the error analysis of four types of existential sentences, it can be found that Korean students' acquisition of Chinese existential sentences is in the order of correct rate; (70%) (61%) (53%) (53%) is (49%) (49%)) based on the error type basis, the Korean students' acquisition of Chinese existential sentences in the process of errors The error rate sequence of type is: misuse (54%) misuse (40%) missequence (31%).3) through the picture talk problem, it can be seen that Korean students look at the same picture and describe it with the existential sentence pattern, their existence sentence order is (89%) in (78%) V (71%) is (37%). Compared with other scholars' papers, this article still exists in many aspects. It is not enough, but I hope this article will be helpful to the study of Korean students' error types.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：H195

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 安俊麗;;韓國留學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語存在句的偏誤分析[J];鹽城師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

2 溫曉虹;;主題突出與漢語存在句的習(xí)得[J];世界漢語教學(xué);1995年02期

3 雷濤;存在句研究縱橫談[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1993年02期

4 宋玉柱;動(dòng)態(tài)存在句[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1982年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 馮倩;漢語存在句的特點(diǎn)及其對(duì)外漢語教學(xué)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

2 鐘燕;對(duì)韓教學(xué)中“有”“是”“在”存在句的教學(xué)策略研究[D];上海外國語大學(xué);2014年

3 楊云;韓語母語者習(xí)得漢語存現(xiàn)句研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

4 朱丹丹;現(xiàn)代漢語存現(xiàn)句的對(duì)韓教學(xué)策略研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

5 肖嘉寧;韓國留學(xué)生“有”字句習(xí)得偏誤分析[D];上海師范大學(xué);2014年

6 于游美;漢韓“是”字句語法偏誤對(duì)比研究[D];魯東大學(xué);2013年

7 于海瑤;韓國留學(xué)生漢語寫作中“是”字句的偏誤分析[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

8 崔若望;基于HSK動(dòng)態(tài)作文語料庫的現(xiàn)代漢語“是”字句偏誤研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

9 柳丁任（YOO JUNGIM）;漢韓表示存在意義句式的比較及教學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

10 金寒娜（KIM HAN NAH）;韓國學(xué)生習(xí)得漢語“V著”存在句偏誤分析[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1826034