發(fā)布時間：2017-05-11 08:29

CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION

With the improvement of China’s economic and political status on international stage,Chinese as Foreign Language (CFL) learning now achieves high popularity among allnations across the world. However, as one of the three main ways to facilitate CFLlearning, the current situation concerning Chinese as Foreign Language Dictionaries(CFLDs) is still far from satisfactory. Although lots of CFLDs have come into themarket since 1980s, they are generally simplified versions of Modern ChineseDictionary (MCD), which pays little attention to the special needs of CFL learners.According to Xia Lixin’s (2009) investigation into CFL learners and the publicationof CFLDs, problems can be easily noticed as follows: 1) no participant in the studyhas ever used any type of CFLDs before; 2) about 8% of the participants in the study,that is, 5 CFL learners, use but never own a MCD before. Therefore, it is quiteobvious that the compilation of CFLDs still has a long way to go.

1.1 Research Background
As one of a special usage of Chinese language, Liheci (i.e. separate items) has alwaysbeen challenging not only for CFL teaching and learning, but for the compilation ofCFL textbooks and dictionaries. Despite the small proportion of Liheci in Chinesevocabulary, its significance should never be underestimated.Because of its grammatical properties, Liheci has long been a controversial areabordering lexicon and grammar. However, this particular phenomenon is not givenenough attention in existing CFL teaching. On the one hand, CFL learners have notgot sufficient instructions and training in their learning process. On the other, CFLtextbooks and dictionaries generally understate the special features of Liheci and evenadopt an avoiding strategy in dealing with them. As a result, Liheci poses a realchallenge to CFL learners in their language acquisition.When confronted with difficulties in language acquisition, CFL learnersgenerally turn to teachers, textbooks, or dictionaries for help. Thus, dictionary is ofgreat significance to CFL learners’ acquisition of Liheci and dictionary entries aresupposed to give excellent representations of them. However, Liheci is not given dueattention in existing CFLDs. Reasons lie in two aspects. Firstly, although manyresearches regarding Liheci have been carried out in CFL teaching, the relatedresearch findings have rarely been applied to the compilation of CFLDs. Secondly,few studies look into the problem from the perspective of CFL pedagogicallexicography. Even if it does, the application of research findings is inadequate, andinadequacies lie in every aspects of CFLDs, such as, its grammatical labeling, itsdefinition, its collocation, and its exemplification, etc. According to the data recordedin Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi Dynamic Composition Corpus (HSKDCC), various errorshave been made in CFL learners’ production of Liheci, for instance,“wǒ我zuò做mènɡ夢le了yì一wǎn晚shànɡ上 ”, “wǒ我zhènɡ掙qián錢le了yì一dà大bǐ筆”, etc. Therefore, as a major reference bookin CFL learning, representation of Liheci in existing CFLDs still needs improvementso as to facilitate CFL learners’ language acquisition.
........

1.2 Research Objectives and Research Issues
The current study covers following aspects: a comparison between native speakers’and CFL learners’ production of Liheci, an analysis on the deficiencies of the representation of Liheci in existing CFLDs, and some possible solutions to overcomethese deficiencies. The ultimate goal of this thesis is to find some feasible ways tobetter the representation of Liheci in CFLDs and to facilitate CFL learners’understanding of this particular phenomenon.To achieve above objectives, four research questions are addressed as follows:(1) What are the basic characteristics of Liheci? How can these findings be appliedto CFLDs?(2) What errors do CFL learners usually commit in their language production byuse of Liheci? What factors attribute to these errors?(3) What are the deficiencies of existing CFLDs’ representation of Liheci fromusers’ perspective for language production?(4) What are the possible ways to better CFLDs’ representation of Liheci?In order to reveal the basic characteristics of Liheci and uncover error patterns inCFL learners’ language production, corpus-based analysis, error analysis, andcontrastive interlanguage analysis will be adopted, and two corpora are examined inthis paper, that is, BCC and HSKDCC. In order to explore deficiencies of therepresentation of Liheci in existing CFLDs, four dictionaries are studied in this paper,namely, Modern Chinese Dictionary (MCD), A Dictionary of the Usage of CommonChinese Separable Word (DUCCSW), The Commercial Press Learner’s Dictionary ofContemporary Chinese(CPLDCC), and A Chinese-English Dictionary - A BasicDictionary for Chinese Language Learning (CED). Based on research findings fromthe above-mentioned studies, possible ways are proposed to the application ofConstruction Grammar to the representation of Liheci in CFLDs.
.........

CHAPTER TWORELEVANT STUDIES ON LIHECI FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OFLINGUISTICS, CFL TEACHING, AND LEXICOGRAPHY

2.1 Studies from the Perspective of Chinese Linguistics
Liheci is a common but challenging linguistic phenomenon for CFL learners in that,not only can it be used as a word, but other morphemes can be added in between toform a phrase. Since it brings great difficulties to CFL learners’ language acquisitionand their language performance, lots of studies about Liheci have been done.Since linguistic research may shed much light on pedagogical lexicography, wewill briefly introduce some relevant studies of Liheci from the perspective of Chineselinguistics, for instance, its grammatical properties, its classification, its identificationprinciples, its extending modes and roles, its origin, and its pragmatic use.Grammatical properties of Liheci depends on how we define it, in other words,whether it is a word, or a phrase, or something else. Generally, there are four differentopinions about its grammatical properties.Some researchers think that Liheci is a word (Lin Handa 1953; Li Qinghua 1983;Zhao Shuhua & Zhang Baolin 1996). Lin Handa (1953) came up with the name of“compound verbs” to refer to Liheci, which consists of a verb and an adjunct. Havinganalyzed 355 verb-object constructions from The Outline of Chinese Vocabulary (TheOutline for short), Zhao Shuhua and Zhang Baolin (1996) maintained that Liheci is aword other than a phrase, but they are different from common words because of itsexpandability. To sum up, they hold that Liheci should be regarded as a particular kindof word whether it is used separately or not. And the expandability of a combiningform cannot be viewed as the only criterion between word and phrase.
..........

2.2 Studies from the Perspective of CFL Teaching
Liheci is an integral part of Chinese language. Based on our analysis in BCC, it can befound that Liheci is a common linguistic phenomenon in Chinese language, especially,in its spoken language. Native speakers may find Liheci less difficult to comprehendbecause of their language intuition, but CFL learners lack such intuition in theirlanguage production. According to data recorded in HSKDCC, various errors havebeen committed in CFL learners’ production of Liheci. Therefore, it should be givendue attention in CFL learning and teaching. However, due to a lack of systematichanding, Liheci remains a weak point in CFL teaching and a great difficulty in CFLlearners’ language acquisition.With the development of Chinese language and Chinese linguistics, studiesconcerning Liheci are carried out not only from the linguistic perspective but from theperspectives of CFL teaching as well. Generally, scholars agree that the negativetransfer of learners’ mother tongue and the over-generalization of the target languageare main causes of learners’ errors. Other reasons are listed as follows: 1) The vaguegrammatical properties of Liheci; 2) The improper teaching and learning strategiesadopted in CFL learning; 3) The avoidance strategy adopted by CFL textbooks anddictionaries.Scholars put forward various proposals to deal with Liheci in CFL teaching andlearning. Some of them come up with suggestions from a macro perspective (RenXuemei 1999; Zhou Shangzhi 2001) while others explore the problem from a microperspective (Liu Chunmei, 2004). Zhou Shangzhi (2001) adopts the method of“cycle”, and his theory is quite feasible theoretically and practically. After analyzingthose Liheci listed in The Outline, he finds that CFL teaching should take advantageof characteristics of Chinese characters. Aiming at the avoidance strategy adopted bymost CFL textbooks, Liu Chunmei (2004) maintains that difficulty can be reduced byre-compiling CFL textbooks.
........

CHAPTER THREE CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS ON NATIVES’ USE OF LIHECI......19
3.1 Corpus Analysis Methods.......... 19
3.2 Natives’ Use of Liheci.....22
3.2.1 Usage of Verb-object Type.........22
3.2.2 Usage of Verb-complement Type..........26
3.2.3 Usage of Other Types......27
3.3 Summary.............. 28
CHAPTER FOUR CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS ON CFL LEARNERS’ USE OFLIHECI....31
4.1 Research Methods...........31
4.1.1 Method One: Error Analysis...... 32
4.1.2 Method Two: Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis......33
4.2 Error Analysis of Liheci Based on HSKDCC............. 34
4.3 Possible Causes of Learners’ Errors......37
4.4 Summary.............. 41
CHAPTER FIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE REPRESENTATION OFLIHECI IN DICTIONARIES..............43
5.1 Representation of Liheci in Dictionaries..........43
5.2 Deficiencies of Representation of Liheci in Existing CFLDs...........49
5.3 Summary.............. 56

CHAPTER SIXPROPOSALS FOR OPTIMIZATION OF THE REPRESENTATION OF LIHECIIN CFLDS

6.1 Theoretical Foundation for Optimization

Construction Grammar is an important part of cognitive linguistics. Closely linkedwith embodied philosophy, set in the background of cognitive psychology andcognitive linguistics, construction grammar is a newly-developed linguistic modelbased on Frame Semantics and its critical inheritance of Chomsky’s generativegrammar. Its theory involves structural linguistics, generative linguistics, framesemantics, etc. The notion was started by Fillmore (1976), but later developed by A. E.Goldberg (1995). Since its emergence in the 1980s, construction grammar can bedivided into the following four groups.Firstly, cognitive grammar proposed by Ronald Langacker (1987) lies thetheoretical foundation for construction grammar. From his point of view, cognitivegrammar mainly deals with the semantic content of constructions, and its centralargument is that semantics is primary in that form is motivated by content. Secondly,the notion of “construction” is put forward by Fillmore(1976, 1988), which mainlydeals with some formal aspects of constructions. Thirdly, construction grammardeveloped by Goldberg and Lakoff (1995) is the most influential one, which mainlydeal with the external relations of constructions and the structure of constructionalnetworks. Lastly, radical construction grammar developed by William A. Croft (2001)deals mainly with the internal structure of constructions.In this thesis, A. E. Goldberg’s construction grammar is our major concern.Definition of construction given by Goldberg (1995 ： 4) is as follows, “C is aCONSTRUCTION iff def C is a form-meaning pair <fi, si=""> such that some aspects ofFi or some aspects of Si is not strictly predictable from C’s components parts or fromother previously established constructions.” According to the above definition, somebasic ideas of construction grammar are as follows: 1) Construction is pairing of“form and function” or paring of “form and meaning”; 2) whether it is complex or not,a construction itself must have its own form and meaning; 3) its form and meaningcannot be inducted from its constituent parts or other established constructions. Inother words, the feature of unpredictable is regarded as the necessary condition of aconstruction. 

........

CONCLUSION

In the following section, some major findings, implications, limitations of the presentstudy and some suggestions for further study will be discussed.Based on an in-depth corpus analysis in BCC, actual usage patterns of Liheci in thelanguage production of native speakers are revealed in Chapter three. Error analysis iscarried out in HSKDCC so as to uncover error patterns in CFL learners’ production ofLiheci, and contrastive interlanguage analysis is conducted to find out some possiblecauses of these errors. Besides, deficiencies of the representation of Liheci in existingCFLDs are also revealed through a comparative study of MCD and several CFLDs.Based on findings of the above-mentioned chapters, some tentative proposals are putforward to introduce construction grammar into CFLDs in order to better therepresentation of Liheci in dictionary entries.Error patterns in CFL learners’ production of Liheci is revealed, whichinclude errors of its split form (i.e. errors of inserted form, errors of reduplicated form,and errors of inverted form) and errors of its combined form (i.e. misuse of POS andobject). Besides, it is found that two major causes should be responsible for CFLlearners’ errors, namely, L1 transference and L2 proficiency.
.........
The reference (omitted)

，

本文編號：356871