韓籍學習者於漢語雙及物構式習得探究

Abstract

先前研究發現信息結構及句法重量是影響韓籍學習者選用英語雙及物構式的因子（Lee et al., 2015），此兩因子在漢語研究中，多用以討論與格轉換現象；在韓語系統中，也被發現是影響語序漂移的因素。韓語與漢語在信息結構皆遵守舊到新原則（Park, 2018；陳俊光，2007），但句法重量，韓語長詞組置於短詞組前的傾向（Choi, 2009），漢語則遵從尾重原則（陳俊光，2007）。因此本文旨在探究韓籍漢語學習者，習得漢語雙及物構式是否受不同語言能力、母語系統特性影響，及其與漢語母語者的表現有何異同。研究方法採用產出任務（翻譯及句子組合）及語句接受度給分任務，前者討論句法重量的影響，後者以信息結構為操縱變因。人工標記語料後再輔以統計工具分析是否具顯著性。研究結果發現，整體而言韓籍學習者的與格動詞習得表現比雙賓動詞優異，產出語料也偏好使用與格構式。動詞與構式搭配之限制關係是影響韓籍學習者產生系統性中介語偏誤的因素，學時長短則無明顯影響，與韓籍學習者於翻譯任務最常見的偏誤類型為構式雜糅的結果相呼應。韓籍學習者使用構式偏好帶「給」的結構或介詞在前的構式，這類構式語序最貼近韓語母語語序；其構式偏好與漢語母語者偏好產出雙賓構式及與格構式有顯著不同，但都產出較多符合尾重原則的語料。其中，韓籍學習者產出的漢語與格構式有長到短語序傾向，產出的漢語雙賓構式則相反，與母語韓語句法重量觸發漂移語序機制相符，漢語母語者則皆符合尾重原則。韓籍學習者及漢語母語者的信息結構標記次數都以新到舊原則為最多，未有顯著差異，但從該任務結果發現漢語母語者運用了篇章功能，韓籍學習者仍依賴語序結構，偏好可對應母語語序的目標語構式。綜上，韓籍學習者總體習得表現主要受母語遷移影響，亦是形成其中介語偏誤的主因。Previous studies on L2 Korean learners’ acquisition of English ditransitive constructions have found the influencing factors include information structure and syntactic weight (Lee et al., 2015). These two factors are not only be widely discussed in the research of Mandarin dative alternation, but also be recognized as the influencing factors regarding the Korean word order scrambling. Though Korean and Mandarin syntactic structures both show the “Given-before-New” principle of information structure (Park, 2018; Chen, 2007), the Korean system demonstrates Long-Short phrase order tendencies (Choi, 2009) while the Mandarin system presents with the End-Weight principle of syntactic weight (Chen, 2007). Therefore, this study aims to inquire about the performance acquisition of Mandarin ditransitive constructions of Korean Mandarin learners, the differences caused by varying Mandarin proficiency levels, the principle of syntactic weight, the information structure of the Korean language, and the affinity between Korean Mandarin learners and Mandarin native speakers. This research adopts production tasks presenting with independent variable syntactic weight, acceptance scoring tasks regarding the independent variable information structure as effective research methods where subjects can only perform one task. Thereafter, all the collected data will be manually inspected, tagged, and then analyzed with statistical tools.The results show that Korean Mandarin learners generally perform better on PD_V than DO_V and prefer using PDC (Prepositional Dative Constructions). The collocate restriction between verbs and constructions is the influencing factor of systematic interlanguage from Korean Mandarin learners, while the long or short-term learning has no salient effect. It could be corresponded to the performance that construction blends are the most common errors made by Korean Mandarin learners during the translation task. Korean Mandarin learners preferred using constructions with Gei（給）and prepositional constructions, while native Mandarin speakers preferred using DOC (Double Object Constructions) and PDC. This salient difference is because the word order of constructions with Gei（給）and prepositional constructions is similar to Korean word order. However, both Korean Mandarin learners and native Mandarin speakers all followed the end-weight principle. Furthermore, Korean Mandarin learners demonstrated long-short word order tendency with PDC, but short-long tendency with DOC. This features the Korean scrambling word-order mechanism by syntactic weight. As for the acceptance scoring task, Korean Mandarin learners and native Mandarin speakers had no salient difference in performance. Both groups’ performances presented the highest occurrence of the New-before-Given principle with BOTH_V questions. According to this result, we found that native Mandarin speakers applied the discourse functions during the task, but Korean Mandarin learners still relied on the word-order so that they prefer the constructions which word-order is similar to the native Korean system. In general, the author conclude that the performance of Korean Mandarin learners was affected by the native linguistic transfer and this transfer is also the main cause of their systematic interlanguage errors.