| dc.contributor.advisor | 鍾曉芳 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chung, Siaw-Fong | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (作者) | 李婉慈 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (作者) | Lee, Wan-Tzu | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 李婉慈 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Lee, Wan-Tzu | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2026 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2-三月-2026 13:30:24 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 2-三月-2026 13:30:24 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 2-三月-2026 13:30:24 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) | G0112161004 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/161924 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 華語文教學碩博士學位學程 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 112161004 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 近義詞向來是華語學習者之學習難點之一，而「方式」、「方法」作為名詞近義詞組，在辭典釋義與實際使用上皆存有諸多共同性，故而造成混淆。因此本研究以名詞近義詞組「方式」、「方法」為研究對象，從歷時與共時角度釐清此二詞之詞義與使用差異。首先採用數部辭典針對「方式」、「方法」及詞根「方」、「式」、「法」進行釋義整理，並根據《漢籍全文資料庫》追溯「方式」與「方法」自先秦至民初時期可能之詞義發展，再以《COCT 書面語語料庫2024》辨析「方式」和「方法」現代之句法功能、詞義特徵、搭配詞、執行者、詞義範圍。
根據《漢籍全文資料庫》，「方式」之詞義在發展過程中缺乏聯繫，「方法」則展現環環相扣之緊密性，並能明顯覺察與現代用法之關係。而從《COCT 書面語語料庫2024》得知「方式」多作狀語使用，「方法」則偏向處於賓語位置；而根據用途類型分布，顯示「方式」、「方法」著重於「思想」和「行為」區塊，因而強調「功能」，並在結合辭典釋義後判斷「手段」與「方式」、「方法」密切相關，且從「方式」偏重於實踐行動類亦可得知其十分重視「實踐」，而「方法」著重於應對處置類型亦表現其傾向於「目的」；對於以本研究討論範圍內之動詞（短語）作定語修飾「方式」、「方法」之搭配情形，發現該類定中短語內部關係密切，傾向於「方式」之動詞（短語）展現出「本能、選擇性」之特徵，偏向於「方法」之動詞（短語）則是表現出「準則、目的性」；而由於「方式」傾向與實踐過程共現故凸顯其對「形式」之重視及「重複性」；且「方式」亦較「方法」更需要執行者出現於語境中；而根據前接成分之觀察，得知「方法」應較「方式」更傾向於普遍認知，且在前接介詞與前接動詞各有偏好；再以相對之極端描繪「方式」和「方法」之詞義範圍，除核心以功能、手段構成，初步分為形式和目的以展現「方式」、「方法」個別詞義偏重，而「方式」、「方法」又基於與搭配之定語的適切性在用途類型上表現出差異與聯結。
經統合辭典釋義與《漢籍全文資料庫》、《COCT 書面語語料庫2024》之研究結果後，除了將「方式」定義為「為了實踐思想或行為之功能所採取的形式」，「方法」為「為了達成思想或行為功能之目的所採取的手段」，更進一步發現此二詞確實繼承部分詞根意義，然「方式」在成詞發展歷程中缺乏連貫性，故推斷其應承襲「方法」之部分詞義加以變化而成，因此「方式」、「方法」在《漢籍全文資料庫》中未表現出明顯聯繫，但從《COCT 書面語語料庫2024》得知此二詞皆十分著重於「思想和行為」之「功能」。再以詞義核心、用途類型、搭配之動詞（短語）、執行者、實踐過程、前接成分為框架要素，將此二詞歸屬於研究者所界定之「功能性手段框架」，並以此說明「方式」、「方法」之詞義與搭配對象之間的聯繫。亦提供教學建議，望華語教學者能將本研究結果結合教學，使學習者具備更貼近母語者之近義詞識別與運用能力。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Near Synonyms have long been one of the major learning challenges for learners of Chinese. “fang1shi4” (方式) and “fang1fa3” (方法), as a pair of near-synonymous nouns, share many similarities in both dictionary definitions and actual usage, which often leads to confusion. This study takes the noun synonym pair “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3” as its research focus and clarifies their semantic and usage differences from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. First, several dictionaries are consulted to consolidate the definitions of “fang1shi4,” “fang1fa3,” and the morphemes “fang1” (方), “shi4” (式), and “fa3” (法). Then, using the Scripta Sinica database (漢籍全文資料庫), the study traces the possible semantic developments of “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3” from the pre-Qin period to the early Republic of China era. The COCT Written Corpus 2024 is further used to analyze the modern syntactic functions, semantic features, collocations, actors, and semantic scopes of the two words.
According to the Scripta Sinica database, the semantic development of “fang1shi4” lacks internal continuity, whereas “fang1fa3” exhibits a tightly connected developmental trajectory in which its relationship with modern usage is clearly observable. Findings from the COCT Written Corpus 2024 indicate that “fang1shi4” frequently functions as an adverbial, while “fang1fa3” tends to occur in object position. According to the distribution of usage types of “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3”, both words are shown to concentrate on the domains of “thought” and “behavior,” thereby emphasizing “function.” In conjunction with dictionary definitions, it can be determined that “means” is closely related to both “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3”. Moreover, “fang1shi4” focuses on practical action, which indicates its strong orientation toward “practice,” whereas “fang1fa3” emphasizes contexts of response and handling, also showing its tendency toward “purpose.” As for verb (phrase) modifiers within the scope of this study, the internal structure of such modifier-noun constructions is closely linked. Verbs (phrases) tending toward “fang1shi4” exhibit features of “instinctiveness” and “selectivity,” whereas those tending toward “fang1fa3” display characteristics of “principle” and “goal-orientation.” Since “fang1shi4” tends to co-occur with the process of implementation, it highlights its emphasis on “form” and “repetition.” Compared with “fang1fa3”, “fang1shi4” also more strongly requires the explicit presence of an executor in the discourse context. Finally, observations of preceding elements indicate that “fang1fa3” is more inclined than “fang1shi4” toward general cognition, and that each shows distinct preferences in terms of preceding prepositions and verbs. Furthermore, their semantic scopes can be described at opposing extremes: in addition to a core structure constituted by “function” and “means”, the analysis further provisionally distinguishes between “form” and “purpose” to highlight the respective semantic emphases of “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3”. Furthermore, based on the appropriateness of their attributive modifiers, “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3” exhibit both differences and interconnections across usage types.
After synthesizing dictionary definitions with findings from the Scripta Sinica database and the COCT Written Corpus 2024, this study defines “fang1shi4” as “the form adopted to realize the function of a thought or action,” and “fang1fa3” as “the means adopted to achieve the purpose of the function of a thought or action.” It further reveals that the two words do inherit certain aspects of their morphemic roots; however, the developmental path of “fang1shi4” lacks continuity. Thus, it is inferred that “fang1shi4” may have evolved through modifications of certain semantic components originally associated with “fang1fa3.” Accordingly, “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3” do not exhibit a clear connection in the Scripta Sinica database. However, data from the COCT Written Corpus 2024 indicate that both words place strong emphasis on the “function” of “thought and behavior.”Using “semantic core”, “usage types”, “collocating verbs (phrases)”, “actors”, and “process of implementation” as frame elements, the study situates both terms within the researcher-defined “functional-means framework,” and on this basis explains the relationships between the meanings of “fang1shi4” and “fang1fa3” and their collocational counterparts. Pedagogical suggestions are also provided in hopes that instructors of Chinese as a second language may integrate these findings into teaching, enabling learners to gain more native-like abilities in distinguishing and using near-synonymous vocabulary. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 5
2.1 辭典釋義 5
2.2 詞義之內在聯繫與構詞中的語義演變 8
2.3 同義詞、近義詞 13
2.4 近義詞與語料庫研究 14
2.5 框架語義理論與近義詞研究 18
2.6 近義詞教學與偏誤研究 20
2.7 小結 21
第三章 研究設計 23
3.1 研究架構 23
3.2 研究方法 24
3.3 資料蒐集 27
3.4 小結 46
第四章 研究結果 49
4.1 《漢籍全文資料庫》中的「方式」、「方法」 49
4.2 《COCT 書面語語料庫2024》中「方式」、「方法」 52
4.3 小結 83
第五章 結論與討論 85
5.1 「方式」、「方法」之詞義演變 86
5.2 「方式」、「方法」之詞義與搭配對象之間的交互關係 91
5.3 研究建議與未來展望 95
參考文獻 97
附錄 1 「方」之辭典釋義一覽表 100
附錄 2 「式」之辭典釋義一覽表 102
附錄 3 「法」之辭典釋義一覽表 103
附錄 4 動詞（短語）類別區分示例 104 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 3827002 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112161004 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 方式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 方法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 近義詞 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 語料庫 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 詞義演變 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 概念語義框架 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Fang1shi4 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | fang1fa3 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | near synonyms | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | corpus | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | semantic evolution | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Frame Semantics | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 探討近義詞「方式」與「方法」之異同：以語料庫為本 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | A Corpus-Based Study on the Similarities and Differences of the Mandarin Near-Synonyms Fang1shi4（方式）and Fang1fa3（方法） | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王智儀（2012）。基於語料庫之近義詞辨析—以漢語動詞「建立、成立」為例。臺南應用科大學報，31，261-279。https://doi.org/10.6969/JTUT.201210.0261
王錦慧（2022）。「畢」「竟」與「畢竟」的語法化探究。漢學研究，40(1)，301-334。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=02544466-202203-202204220006-202204220006-301-334
宋怡南（2024）。現代漢語時間副詞「始終」與「一直」之辨析與教學建議。臺灣華語教學研究，28，63-105。https://doi.org/10.29748/TJCSL.202406_(28).0003
呂柏青（2022）。漢日同形詞「未來」與「將來」之語內及跨語言對比分析與教學建議。臺灣華語教學研究，25，103-138。https://doi.org/10.29748/TJCSL.202212_(25).0004
汪鋒（2020）。語義演變、詞彙競爭與詞彙分層：以「茗」、「茶」的興替為例。Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 13(2), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1163/2405478X-01302001
吳品嬅、陳純音（2019）。華語多義詞「怕」的語義探討及其教學啟示—以「怕」、「害怕」、「可怕」、「恐怕」為例。華語文教學研究，16(4)，1-32。https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.201912_16(4).0001
胡裕樹（2003）。現代漢語（增訂本）。三聯書店（香港）有限公司。（原著出版於1992年）
陳奕秀（2018）。以「偷、搶」二字分析語料庫近義詞之詞語搭配關係與華語教學應用。遠東通識學報，12(2)，33-56。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=19977638-201807-201808270010-201808270010-33-56
陳瑤玲（2024）。從「頭」說起－「頭」字意義演變與後綴音讀。靜宜中文學報，25，33-74。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=23050845-N202411300002-00002
陳爾薇（2015）。近義詞「國外」、「外國」的比較及教學建議。臺大華語文教學研究，3，25-52。https://doi.org/10.6664/NTUTCSL.201508_(3).0002
張莉（1997）。論現代漢語多義詞詞義的內在聯繫。河北大學學報：哲學社會科學版，22(3)，62-67。
黃雅菁（2014）。華語近義詞教學之課堂操作：以「改善」、「改進」、「改良」為例。臺大華語文教學研究，2，161-185。https://doi.org/10.6664/NTUTCSL.201408_(2).0006
曾筱倫（2024）。近義詞「因為」與「為了」之對比分析及教學建議。華文世界，133，145-181。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=10170855-N202407060010-00014
費爾迪南．德．索緒爾（2019）。普通語言學教程（高名凱譯）。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。（原著出版於1916年）
楊美儀（2014）。近義詞「生命、生活」與「Life」之華英對比辨析－以語料庫及問卷研究為本〔碩士論文，國立政治大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
謝文慶（1982）。同義詞。湖北人民出版社。
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 110-137). Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75-102). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries (Original work published 1993). In Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics (pp. 99–148). De Gruyter. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nccu/detail.action?docID=453847
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165693
Ma, W. Y., & Chen, K. J. (2003). Introduction to CKIP Chinese word segmentation system for the first international Chinese word segmentation bakeoff. In Proceedings of the second SIGHAN workshop on Chinese language processing (pp. 168-171).
Petruck, M. R. (1996). Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.2.fra1
Wu, P.-H., Chen, C.-Y. D., & Lai, H.-L. (2023). 華語「知道類」近義詞之習得順序。Chinese as a Second Language Research, 12(2), 305-331. https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2023-2006
Setyopurwanto, L., Ina, I., & Lusi, L. (2021). 丹戎布拉大學師範教育學院漢語專業 2018屆學生對近義詞「恐怕」和「害怕」的掌握情況分析。Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.26418/jppk.v10i10.50207 | zh_TW |
