日籍華語學習者的「讓字句」偏誤分析

Abstract

漢語「讓字句」具有多重語義功能，包括「致使義」、「要求義」、「允許義」和「被動義」，在日語形式和語義上存在部分對應與差異，導致日籍華語學習者在學習與使用「讓字句」時，容易產生偏誤。 本研究旨在分析日籍華語學習者「讓字句」的偏誤類型（遺漏、冗贅、誤代、錯序），並提出母語遷移和教材影響的可能性。首先透過TOCFL學習者語料庫，觀察日籍者容易發生的偏誤類型；再設計一套30題的翻譯試卷，對32位日籍華語學習者（CEFR B1中級以上）進行問卷發放，進行量化與質性分析；最後檢視現行臺灣華語教材《實用視聽華語》、《當代中文課程》以及《時代華語》的「讓字句」教學編排，提出教學建議。 語料庫研究結果發現：（一）偏誤率由高至低排序為：致使義＞允許義＞要求義＞被動義，被動義偏誤數最少；（二）偏誤類型由高至低排序為：遺漏＞誤代＞錯序＞冗贅；（三）遺漏偏誤以「讓」字遺漏數量最多、NP2遺漏數量次之；（四）誤代偏誤以「把字句」誤代數量最多，「給字句」次之。 問卷分析調查發現：（一）偏誤率由高至低排序為：致使義＞要求義＞被動義＞允許義，最能掌握允許義；（二）偏誤類型由高至低排序為：遺漏＞誤代＞錯序＞冗贅；（三）遺漏偏誤同以「讓」字遺漏數量最多、NP2遺漏數量次之；（四）被動義多以「被字句」呈現，此外致使義亦可見少數幾筆「使字句」、要求義可見「叫字句」、允許義可見「給字句」之使用傾向。 最後，教材分析指出三本教材都有語義區分不明、編排順序相近的問題，可能導致學習干擾。建議「讓字句」多語義應分課教學，並從允許義開始，再來是致使義、要求義、被動義。

The Chinese construction ràng serves multiple semantic functions, including causative, directive command, permissive, and passive meanings. Due to both structural and semantic overlaps and mismatches with Japanese, Japanese-native Chinese learners often struggle with accurate usage of ràng-constructions. This study investigates four types of errors (missing, redundancy, misselection, and misordering) that Japanese-native Chinese learners commonly make when producing ràng-constructions, and explores the potential influence of L1 transfer and textbook sequencing. The research is conducted in three stages: (1) error patterns are identified through the TOCFL learner corpus; (2) a 30-item multiple-choice questionnaire is designed based on these findings and administered to 32 Japanese-native Chinese learners for both quantitative and qualitative analysis; (3) teaching materials from Practical Audio-Visual Chinese, A Course in Contemporary Chinese, and Modern Chinese are reviewed for their instructional treatment of ràng-constructions. Corpus analysis shows that (1) In terms of semantic functions, the error rate ranked from highest to lowest as follows: causative > permissive > directive command > passive, with passive being the least problematic; (2) In terms of error types, the ranking was: missing > misselection > misordering > redundancy; (3) Within missing errors, omission of the word ràng was the most frequent, followed by omission of NP2; (4) Within misselection errors, the bǎ-construction was most frequently misused in place of ràng, followed by the gěi-construction. Questionnaire results further reveal that: (1) Error rates for semantic functions were ranked as follows: causative > directive command > passive > permissive, with learners performing best on permissive usage; (2) The ranking of error types remained the same: missing > misselection > misordering > redundancy; (3) Similar to the corpus findings, missing errors mostly involved the omission of ràng, followed by NP2; (4) In passive meaning contexts, the bèi-construction was commonly used, a few shǐ-constructions appeared for causative meanings, jiào-constructions for directive command, and gěi-constructions for permissive usages. Finally, the textbook analysis revealed that all three textbooks lacked clear semantic distinctions, potentially causing interference in learning. It is recommended that the multiple semantic functions of ràng-constructions be taught separately, beginning with permissive, followed by causative, directive command, and finally passive usage.