量詞與分類詞：教學的反思與建議

Abstract

因漢語的分類詞不同於量詞（Chao 1968，Tai and Wang 1990，Cheng and Sybesma 1999， Liang 2006，Her and Hsieh 2010，賴宛君2011），本研究認為兩者應採用各別的教學策略並提供漢語分類詞的教學建議。分類詞能夠彰顯所搭配名詞的本質特徵，也就是與名詞之間有意義上的關聯，並且其數學意義為「1」；量詞表示數量概念，因此能與多數名詞搭配，其數學意義為「1」以外的其他數字。（Liang 2006，Her and Hsieh 2010，賴宛君2011）\n在此理論基礎上，本文重新檢視王力（1947/1987）、呂淑湘（2007）、何杰（2008）、《新版實用視聽華語》討論的量詞。檢視結果發現，王力認定的41個量詞中，有33個是分類詞；呂淑湘認定的140個量詞中，有53個是分類詞；何杰認定的117個量詞中，有71個是分類詞。《新版實用視聽華語》編入的117個量詞中，有46個其實是分類詞。\n本研究發現漢語分類詞數量遠少於量詞，而這也是因為漢語分類詞只能與特定名詞搭配以彰顯該名詞的本質特質。（Her and Hsieh 2010，賴宛君2011）本研究提出以下兩項成果：第一，根據抽象程度、作用範圍、使用頻率三項指標，將61個常用分類詞進行排序，排出初、中、高三個學習階段應該學會的分類詞，並依照此教學排序，檢視《新版實用視聽華語》、翰林版國小國語課本中的分類詞教學排序。檢視結果發現，此兩套教材並未按照抽象程度、作用範圍、使用頻率三項指標依序編入分類詞，也未說明分類詞的編寫順序；此外，《新版實用視聽華語》對於分類詞的語意特徵也缺乏系統性的說明。\n第二，本研究根據上述分類詞的教學排序研究成果，針對初級、中級、高級三項不同的學習階段，提出漢語分類詞的教學建議。

Previous studies ( e.g., Chao 1968, Tai and Wang 1990, Cheng and Sybesma 1999, Liang 2006, Her and Hsieh 2010, Lai 2011) contend that Mandarin classifiers are different from Mandarin measure words. We thereby contend that the strategies about teaching classifiers or measure words should be differentiated and this study aims at providing some teaching suggestions regarding Chinese classifiers. Chinese classifiers can profile the essential features of nouns, and this means there is a restricted meaning relationship between Chinese classifiers and their collocating nouns. But Chinese measure words offer quantity meaning to nouns and can collocate with most nouns. From the perspective of math, Chinese classifiers are equal to number “1”, while Chinese measure words express measure concepts other than “1”. (Liang 2006, Her and Hsieh 2010, Lai 2011)\n On the basis of these theoretical studies, this thesis re-examines three representative studies about teaching Mandarin measure words and Chinese classifiers (Wang 1947, 1987; Lu 2007; He 2008) and a text book, Practical Audio-Visual Chinese. We found that those studies and the text book didn’t differentiate Mandarin Chinese classifiers from measure words. There are 33 classifiers among Wang’s 41 measure words; 53 classifiers among Lu’ 140 measure words; 71 classifiers among He’s 117 measure words . As for in Practical Audio-Visual Chinese , there are 46 classifiers among their 117 measure words.\nThis study finds that Mandarin classifiers are much fewer than Mandarin measure words. And this is because Mandarin classifiers can only collocate with certain groups of nouns and thus highlight the essential features of the nouns ( Her and Hsieh 2010, Lai 2011). This thesis displays two contributions. First, we present the teaching order according to three norms:the degree of abstract, the range of meaning, and the frequency of using. This teaching order is about 61 commonly-used Mandarin classifiers.We found that the elementary school Chinese text books and Practical Audio-Visual Chinese don’t arrange their classifiers according to these norms nor do they according to any logic norms.Besides, Practical Audio-Visual Chinese don’t explain the semantic feature of classifiers in a systemic way.\nSecond, we present suggestions about teaching classifiers to students of different Mandarin proficiency on the basis of our teaching order.