探討「給」的語法功能與教學語法

Abstract

本論文探討「給」的語法功能，並檢視學習者語料庫中學習者使用「給」的偏誤情形，最後根據語言學理論、學習者語料和教學語法架構，排序出「給」的教學順序。本研究首先整理出華語教材和工具書中對於「給」的描述；再整理目前語言學理論中，對於不同位置「給」的詞類和功能的討論，並與教材對照。再利用學習者語料庫分類學生對於不同結構「給」的使用情形，並提出教學建議。最後分析不同結構「給」的難易度，作為「給」的教學排序依據。本研究的研究發現和建議如下：\r\n1. 我們認為，動詞的性質和「給」的功能與句法有很大的關係，特別是雙賓動詞因為有與格轉換性質，和V後gei結構可相互連結，我們建議，雙賓動詞應獨立為一個語法點和V後gei共同介紹。\r\n2. V前gei的偏誤率為第二高，且該用「跟、對」卻用「給」的偏誤語料數量最多。我們認為原因可能有二：第一，學習者不清楚V前gei和不同性質動詞的搭配會影響句意；第二，V前gei的英譯為to/for，此英譯和介詞「跟、對」相同，造成學習者的混淆。因此，我們建議在教學語法中，應該增加V前gei功能和不同動詞性質的搭配規則。在V前gei和「跟、對」的區辨上，我們根據Tsao (1988)、張寶林（2014）等人的研究，認為「跟、對」和「給」的差異在於，當說話者希望指出動作的方向時，應該要用「跟、對」，而V前gei則主要用於標記受益者。\r\n3. V-gei偏誤率和V前gei幾乎並列第二。根據 Her (2006)，V-gei結構語義中心在「給」，V為「給的方式」。因此我們主張，教學上應該將V-gei視為一個不可分開的結構教學，且語義為「用V的方式『給』」。\r\n4.目前來說，目的gei還不屬於教材語法點之一，我們認為目的gei應該獨立成一個語法點教學，原因有三：第一，該結構容易被誤認為V前gei或V後gei，但功能大有不同。目的gei的功能為補充說明主要動詞的目的 (Ting & Chang, 2004; Her, 2006)。第二，本研究認為，在語境完整的情況下，可以獨立使用目的gei，若不獨立介紹，容易和V前gei混淆。第三，目的gei的意義和「讓」有所重疊，容易使學習者用錯。這一點從偏誤語料統計中可以得到證實，數據顯示目的gei的偏誤率最高，其中以「給、讓」的誤用數量最多。因此，若將目的gei獨立為一個語法點，有助於區辨目的gei和「讓」的異同，進一步幫助學生減少「給、讓」的偏誤。

In this paper, we disscuss the grammatical function of Mandarin gei, and examine the distribution of gei-constructions in interlanguage through the TOCFL learner corpus. We then design an order of teaching Mandarin gei according to the linguistic theory, the interlanguage in the corpus, and the framework of a pedagogical grammar. We first collected both the descriptions of gei in Chinese teaching materials and the linguistic discussions of gei. Then we made a comparison between the two. After that, we used the TOCFL learner corpus to select and classify the interlanguage in the corpus and present our teaching suggestions. Lastly, we analyzed the difficulty values of all the gei structures as an index for our proposed teaching order. The results and suggestions of this paper are stated below:\r\n\r\n1. We think the property of verbs plays an important role in the function and syntax of gei. Especially when the double object verbs have the property of dative alternation, this property is related to the structure of postobject gei. Our suggestion is that the double object verbs in Mandarin should be taught independently and the postobject gei should be introduced at the same time.\r\n2. The error rate of preverbal gei stands at the second place. Moreover, most of the interlanguage materials involve misusing gen and dui instead of gei. We think there are two reasons for that: First, the learners are unaware that the relationship between the verbs and preverbal gei may influence the meaning of the sentence. Second, the translation of preverbal gei is either “to” or “for” in English. These translations correspond to gen and dui, and that confuses the learners. Therefore, we suggest that in the pedagogical grammar, the rule of how to distinguish preverbal gei, gen, and dui should be stated. According to Tsao (1988) and Zhang (2014), we think the difference between preverbal gei, gen, and dui is that, when the speaker wants to point out the direction of an action, it is gen or dui that should be used. The preverbal gei is mainly used to mark the beneficiary of an action.\r\n3. The error rate of V-gei construction is almost as high as that of preverbal gei. According to Her (2006), the semantic center of the V-gei structure is in gei, and V modifies gei with “how the subject gives.” Therefore, we propose that V-gei should be taught as an inseparable structure, and the meaning is “to give in the way of V.”\r\n4. So far, purposive gei construction is not part of the grammar in the Chinese teaching materials yet. There are three reasons why we think the purposive gei should be taught independently: First, the purposive gei construction looks similar to those of preverbal gei or postobject gei, but their functions are different. The function of purposive gei is to supplement information regarding the purpose of the action. Second, we think that purposive gei could be used independently without the main verb when the context is clear. Third, it would be helpful to clarify the difference between purposive gei and rang to the learners, so that the error rate of misusing gei and rang can be reduced, if we separate the construction from the others.