跨語言視角下不同母語學習者使用漢語情態詞「會」的比較研究

Abstract

漢語情態詞「會」具有能力、慣常、推測、預期與將來等多重語義功能，其使用與語境密切相關。本研究以跨語言視角出發，探討英語、韓語與越南語母語學習者在書信寫作與觀點論述中使用「會」的情形，比較三組學習者在使用頻率、語義分布、搭配詞與偏誤表現上的共通傾向與差異，並進一步探討相關使用特徵與學習者母語情態表達方式之間可能存在的關聯。 本研究以CEC學習者語料庫中的英語、韓語與越南語母語學習者作文為分析對象，選取書信寫作與觀點論述兩種文體，並依據范曉蕾（2016）將「會」分為心智能力義、高質能力義、慣常義、認識必然義與計畫性將來五類。由於三組學習者的使用皆高度集中於認識必然義，本研究進一步針對此類「會」分析其使用頻率、搭配詞與語境功能，並以AntConc與MI值觀察搭配詞的共現關聯，同時進行偏誤分析。 搭配詞分析發現，三組學習者皆出現「一定」、「相信」、「時」與「也」等共同詞項，反映確定程度、判斷來源、時間背景與篇章補充等功能，同時也呈現不同的搭配傾向。英語組較多出現不同程度的判斷與推測相關詞項，韓語組除判斷相關詞項外，也出現較多組織前後文、時間與範圍關係的詞項，越南語組則較集中於確定程度較高的判斷詞。這些分布可與三種母語不同的情態表達方式相互參照。文體方面，書信寫作中的「會」較多出現在個人經驗、主觀判斷與後續安排相關語境，觀點論述則較多涉及議題結果、立場判斷、條件關係與理由推進，說明搭配詞與完整語境能進一步呈現單純頻率與語義分類無法觀察到的使用特徵。 偏誤分析顯示，學習者最常出現遺漏偏誤，其次為冗贅與錯選，錯序偏誤較少，主要困難集中於判斷特定語境中是否需要使用「會」。錯選偏誤則涉及「會」與其他能願動詞之間的語義區分。整體而言，三組學習者在「會」的主要語義選擇上具有高度共通性，但進一步觀察搭配詞與語境後，仍可發現不同母語背景與文體中的使用特徵。因此，在分析「會」的使用及進行相關教學時，除語義功能外，亦需結合搭配詞、完整語境及不同能願動詞之間的分工。

The Mandarin modal verb hui has multiple semantic functions, including ability, habituality, inference, expectation, and futurity, and its use is highly context-dependent. From a cross-linguistic perspective, this study examines how English-, Korean-, and Vietnamese-speaking learners use hui in letter writing and opinion writing, comparing their frequency, semantic distribution, collocational patterns, and error types, as well as possible relationships with modal expression in their first languages. The data were drawn from the CEC learner corpus. Following Fan Xiaolei (2016), hui was classified into five semantic types: mental ability, high-quality ability, habituality, epistemic necessity, and planned future. As all three learner groups showed a strong concentration in the epistemic necessity category, this category was further analyzed in terms of frequency, collocates, and contextual functions. AntConc and Mutual Information (MI) scores were used to examine collocational associations, together with an analysis of learner errors. The collocation analysis identified several shared collocates across the three groups, including yiding ‘certainly’, xiangxin ‘believe’, shi ‘when/time’, and ye ‘also’, while also revealing group-specific tendencies. The English-speaking group showed more expressions related to varying degrees of judgment and inference. The Korean-speaking group used more items associated with discourse organization, temporal relations, and scope, whereas the Vietnamese-speaking group showed a greater concentration of judgment expressions with relatively high certainty. These patterns may be related to differences in modal expression across the three first languages. In terms of genre, hui in letter writing occurred more often in contexts involving personal experience, subjective judgment, and subsequent arrangements, while opinion writing more often involved issue-related consequences, stance-taking, conditional relations, and the development of reasons. The error analysis showed that omission was the most frequent error type, followed by redundancy and substitution, with word order errors occurring less often. Learners’ main difficulty lay in determining whether hui was required in a given context, while substitution errors reflected difficulties in distinguishing hui from other Mandarin modal verbs. Overall, the three learner groups were highly similar in their major semantic choices of hui, but differences became more apparent when collocational patterns and contextual functions were examined. The findings suggest that the analysis and teaching of hui should consider its semantic functions, collocational patterns, broader context, and distinctions from other Mandarin modal verbs.