德籍學習者之 漢語雙音節聲調研究

Abstract

德語為非聲調語言，故漢語聲調為德籍學習者的難點之一（顧安達，2011）。目前德籍漢語聲調研究仍偏重單音節分析層次，然而雙音節詞在現代漢語詞彙比例最高（吳淮南，2003），又包含語流中的基本連調變化（朱川，1997），且存在母語重音系統遷移至漢語連調組合的問題（吳羚莞，2009）。有鑑於目前研究尚未跨越至連調組合的分析，也未深入探究母語重音與聲調表現之關連，因此本研究設計聽辨與發音測驗考察德籍學習者雙音節聲調的中介音，以了解雙音節組合的難易度與偏誤誘因，歸納其雙音節聲調表現與母語重音模式之相關性。 本研究針對7名學習漢語三個月以下、6名學習漢語三個月至一年的德籍受試者，進行問卷調查、漢語雙音節聲調聽辨與發音測驗。考量聲、韻母難點可能產生影響，因此測驗項目是以/a/為音節結構主體，搭配第一、二、三、四聲與輕聲的20種聲調組合。研究結果發現：聽辨偏誤率最高為「3-1」誤聽為「0-1」，發音偏誤率最高為「1-3」誤說成「1-2」。另外，德籍學習者最難掌握含第三聲的聲調組合；而「1-1」聽辨與發音的偏誤率都最低。從偏誤率較高的組合及其偏誤類型來看，德籍受試者雙音節聲調受德語重音模式遷移影響，易形成「重輕」或「輕重」的分布；並傾向將第三聲與輕聲歸為非重音，而音長較長、音高較高的第一、第二與第四聲則對應至重音。再者，研究顯示德籍學習者聲調類別感知較倚靠調型，與漢語母語者以音高為主不盡相同。除了母語遷移，目的語知識也是偏誤產生的原因，如「1-2」聽成「1-3」即為二、三聲混淆；「3-1、3-2、3-4」的半上誤說為全上，則是忽略三聲變調規則。此外分析結果表示由於學習時間較短，其漢語聲調之聽辨與發音都尚未形成穩定的系統，因此兩者仍處於各自發展的階段。。 本文最後提出漢語聲調教學應加強雙音節組合的聽辨與發音訓練，並就德籍學習者的難點給予相關建議，以期能提升德籍學習者的聲調能力。German is a nontonal language, thus Mandarin tones are one of learner’s difficulties（Guder, 2011）. There is a great deal of literature on monosyllabic tones, however, disyllabic words not only has the highest percentage in modern Mandarin than others（Wu, 2003）, but also contain the basic tone patterns（Zhu, 1997）.In addition, some researchers have identified that L1 stress patterns transfer to L2 learning of Mandarin disyllabic tones（Wu, 2009）. Therefore, in order to fill this gap in the study of Mandarin tones of German learners, the specific aims in this paper are to explore the interlanguage phonology of Mandarin disyllabic tones of German learners through the perception and production tests, to identify the common errors and what are the causal factors, and to investigate the correlation between interlaguage phonology and L1 stress patterns of German learners. We constructed and administered a questionnaire, a perception and production test of Mandarin disyllabic tones with /a/, which was chosen to eliminate the influence of difficult vowels and consonants. The participants included seven learners who have studied Mandarin under three months and six learners who have studied Mandarin for three months to a year. A major finding is that “3-1” has the highest error rate in perception test, and the main error pattern is “0-1”; “1-3” has the higest error rate in production test, and the main error pattern is “1-2”. Furthermore, in both perception and production tests, disyllabic tone patterns “3-T” have the lowest correctness, and “1-1” has the lowest error rate. The error rates and types of disyllabic tone patterns seems to be indicative of the fact that German word stress patterns has influenced the interlangue phonology of German learners, and the error types show “trochees” or “iambs” structures. This finding also suggests that in German learners’ tone perceptual categories, Tone 3 and neutral tone may be unstressed syllable, and Tone 2 and Tone 4 which have longer syllable duration and slope change are categorized stressed syllable. The results also suggest that German learners attach more importance to the contour and less to the F0 height; but Mandarin listeners use both F0 height and contour as perceptual cues. Besides the L1 transfer, target language and training were found to highly influence German learners’ Mandarin disyllabic tones. For example, the main perceptual error type of “1-2” is “1-3”, which indicated that Tone 2 and Tone 3 are confused; and the Tone 3 in the production of “3-1, 3-2, 3-4” changes to sandhi Tone 3 didn’t happen, but it still remained a concave shape.One possible reason for this result may lie in the overemphasis with the canonical Tone 3 during training. Finally, our analysis showed a low correlation between perception and production, which has relation with the unstable interlangauage system that its leaning period is less than three months. The present study suggests that teachers should strengthen perceptual and productive training in order to improve German learners’ Mandarin disyllabic tones. We also provide some advices about correcting the errors and hope this reaserch could serve to reinforce the L2 teaching of Mandarin tones for German learners.