現代漢語把字句與泰語相對句式的比較研究

Abstract

根據Sybesma（1999）對現代漢語「把字句」的分析，該句式可以分為「典型把字句」和「致使把字句」，兩者在句法結構相同，並且在語義上都具備「致使義」。然而，現代漢語「把字句」一直以來對泰籍學習者來說是一個複雜且難以習得的語法點之一。由於在漢泰詞典中以及大多數漢語教材中，常常將現代漢語「把字句」中的「把」翻譯為泰語「aw」、「thamhay」或「tham-aw」，導致泰籍學習者往往誤以為這三個泰語詞語等同於「把」。加上這三者的語法表面上與現代漢語「把字句」具有相似性，使得泰籍學習者在學習「把字句」時產生母語的干擾，並且出現偏誤。為了找出適合泰籍學習者學習現代漢語「把字句」的教學方法，故本研究從句式結構的角度對現代漢語「把字句」和泰語相對句式，包括「aw連動句」、「致使thamhay句」和「tham-aw句」，進行深入的比較，找出它們句式之間的差異。 根據對比分析的結果，泰語中的「aw」、「thamhay」和「tham-aw」並不能完全等同於現代漢語「把字句」中的「把」。從句法結構的角度來看，泰語「aw連動句」、「致使thamhay」和「tham-aw」與現代漢語「把字句」有明顯的差異。然而，這三個泰語句式在某些方面與「把字句」存在相似之處。首先，「aw連動句」的語法意義隱含著「位移義」，表示句中的賓語發生位置的移動，這一點與「把字句」的某一方面相似；其次，「致使thamhay句」和「tham-aw句」的語法意義都具備「致使義」，句中都隱含著因果關係，顯然與「致使把字句」相似。總而言之，雖然泰語中的「aw連動句」、「致使thamhay句」和「tham-aw句」與現代漢語「把字句」在句法結構上非完全等同，然而它們在某些功能性方面的相似之處仍有助於泰籍學習者理解和掌握現代漢語「把字句」。因此，本研究最後根據對比分析的結果，並針對泰籍學習者在學習現代漢語「把字句」時可能出現的偏誤情況，提出了針對泰籍學習者的教學對策，以減少其對現代漢語「把字句」所產生的偏誤。

Based on the comparative analysis, Sybesma (1999) classified the modern Chinese "ba-construction" into two types: the "canonical ba-construction" and the "causative ba-construction". Both types share the same syntactic structure and have a causative meaning. However, the "ba-construction" has always been a complex and challenging grammar for Thai learners. This is due to the fact that in Chinese-Thai dictionaries and most Chinese textbooks, the Chinese character "ba" is often translated into Thai as "aw," "thamhay," or "tham-aw", leading Thai learners to mistakenly believe that these three Thai expressions are equivalent to the "ba" in Chinese. Moreover, the grammar of these three Thai constructions appears to be similar to the modern Chinese the "ba-construction", causing interference from the learners' native language and resulting in errors. In order to identify effective teaching methods for Thai learners to acquire the modern Chinese "ba-construction", this study conducted a comprehensive comparison between the "ba-construction" in modern Chinese and corresponding Thai constructions, including the "aw construction", "thamhay construction", and "tham-aw construction". The results of the comparative analysis indicate that the Thai expressions "aw", "thamhay", and "tham-aw" cannot be fully equivalent to the Chinese "ba" in the "ba-construction". From a syntactic structure perspective, there are significant differences between the Thai "aw construction", " thamhay construction", and "tham-aw construction" and the modern Chinese "ba-construction." However, these three Thai constructions exhibit some functional similarities with the "ba-construction". Firstly, the "aw construction" implies a "displacement meaning", indicating a movement of the object in the sentence, which is somewhat similar to a certain aspect of the "ba-construction". Secondly, both the "thamhay-construction", and "tham-aw construction" carry a "causative meaning," implying a causal relationship, which is evidently similar to the "causative ba-construction." Although the "aw construction", "thamhay construction", and "tham-aw construction" have some functional similar to the modern Chinese the "ba-construction", but they are not entirely equivalent. Nevertheless, these three constructions still contribute to Thai learners' understanding and acquisition of the modern Chinese "ba-construction." Therefore, based on the results of the comparative analysis and considering the potential errors that Thai learners may encounter when learning the modern Chinese "ba-construction", this study proposes teaching strategies specifically tailored to Thai learners in order to reduce their errors in using the "ba-construction".