多義詞「而」的篇章分析與教學建議

Abstract

漢語「而」為一跨「並列」、「轉折」、「因果」語義關係類別的連詞，可見功能之複雜，而前人的研究偏重古漢語「而」的語義與語法功能。關於現代漢語「而」的研究多集中在學習者的偏誤，與篇章相關研究著實不多。為釐清多義詞「而」在現代漢語中的功能，本研究以Halliday（1985）的三大語言純理功能（metafunction）的概念（ideational）、篇章（textual）、人際（interpersonal）為分析架構，以真實語料為基礎，探討不同語義關係「而」在語義與篇章上的差異，並將研究結果應用於實際教學中。本研究之語料共2,115筆「而」的書面語料，996筆取自《中文詞彙特性速描系統》（Chinese Word Sketch Engine）、1,119筆取自《聯合知識庫》（UDN Data），兩語料庫的字數各約25萬字，以前人的研究為基礎，梳理語料，深入探討「而」不同語義關係的差異與篇章功能的異同。首先，先從歷時的角度來看，「而」原來以連接「並列」、有時間先後的語言成分，因此有「承接」功能，經過語境的推進而有「因果」、「轉折」等不同功能。「因果」為事理上的承接關係，轉折細化出對比功能，承接也延伸出遞進功能，形成複雜的語義關係。再從語料的分布來看，以「而2」（對比）最多，佔29.6%，其次為「而3」（遞進）佔27.5%、「而5」（因果）佔20.6%、「而4」（承接）佔13.2%，而以「而1」（轉折）佔9.1%最低。整體看來，「而」仍以逆接義（「而1」＋「而2」）與順承義（「而3」＋「而4」）為主，其次為因果義（「而5」）。在篇章層面上，「而」連接短句或分句的「局部連接」為89.7%，遠高於「整體連接」的10.3%，後者連接語段或語篇，其中以「而3」的30.7%、「而4」的27.5%與「而2」的24.8%較高。其次，「而1」為15.6%，「而5」僅1.4%。而範距大小與信息焦點的分布有關，整體連接的「對比焦點」比例明顯較高，連接語段時常帶出「新話題」並加以說明，因而與前面語段形成對比。最後，研究者將探討現行華語教材中「而」內容的優缺點，並將本研究的結果應用於教學上。

The Chinese conjunction er can be used in semantic features of juxtaposition, adversativeness, and causality. There is not much research on discourse, and previous research focuses mostly on the grammatical and semantic features of er in Classical Chinese. Additionally, research on er in modern Chinese focuses largely on the errors of learners. To better understand the actual use of er in modern Chinese, this study adopts Halliday's（1985） metafunction framework for analysis, including indeational, textual and interpersonal functions. It investigates the differences of er in semantics and discourse, and the results are applied for pedagogical purposes. The data of this study is composed of 2,115 tokens, 996 of which comes from Chinese Word Sketch Engine, and 1,119 of which comes from UDN data. There are about 500,000 words in total. Based on previous research, we further explored the semantic and discourse difference ofer. First, we inspected the use of er from the perspective of diachronic semantic evolution. Er was originally used in juxtaposition with temporal sequencing language units, and possessed semantic feature of continuation. It then evolved into the semantic features of causality and adversativeness, based on the context. The semantic feature of causality indicates the cause-effect in an event. Adversativeness can be subdivided into the semantic feature of antithesis. On the other hand, continuation can be extended into semantic feature of increment. All of these constitute the complex semantic features of er. The data of our corpora reveals that er2 “antithesis” (29.6%) is the highest, followed by er3 “continuation” (27.5%), er5 “causal” (20.6%), er4 “increment” (13.2%), and with er1 “adversativeness” (9.1%) being the lowest. All in all, the main semantic features of er are adversativeness (er1+er2) and continuation (er3+er4), and followed by causal (er5).In terms of the discourse level, a large percentage of er serves as local link, which is used to connect phrasal or clausal units. Only 10.3% of er serves as global link that connects sentences and paragraphs. Ranking from the highest to lowest are er3 (30.7%), er4 (27.5%), er2 (24.8%), er1 (15.6%), and with the percentage of er5 being only 1.4%. The length of the scope determines the focus of the structure of sentences. In terms of global link, connector words can form contrast focus, especially when placed at the beginning of the sentence. It will carry out a new topic and elaborate the details, which contrasts with the previous segments.Lastly we also examine and inspect the advantages and disadvantages of current Chinese learning materials, and apply the results for pedagogical purposes.