【作者】 刘志刚；

【导师】 程娟；

【作者基本信息】 北京语言大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 本文运用计量统计与定性研究相结合的方法,对《汉语水平词汇与汉字等级大纲》中10组不包含相同语素的单双音同义动词进行了考察。首先以CCL语料库为基础,考察二者的使用频率,继而从意义和语法功能方面考察其差异;随后,本文在HSK动态作文语料库中,考察留学生使用这些词语时的偏误情况,分析其偏误类型和形成原因。通过以上考察,力图揭示这10组单双音同义动词的内在差异,从而探索汉语同义词辨析的新角度和新方法,辅助对外汉语词汇教学。考察的结论为:1)使用频率上,无论是母语使用人群,还是汉语作为第二语言的学习者,在同一个义项上,双音动词的使用频率都远远大于单音动词。2)意义方面,所考察的十组单双音同义动词,均在意义上有着或多或少的差别。表现为三种类型:第一种是语义上基本没有差别,二者的差别主要体现在因音节制约因素而产生的搭配上,以“休息-歇”“节约-省”两组为代表;第二种是语义上的差别很大,具体表现为行为主体和关系对象的不同、语义范围的不同和语义程度的不同,以“懂-知道”“担任-当”等六组为代表;第三种是语义上的差别不大,只是在某些情况下二者不可以互换,以“爱-喜欢”“比如-像”两组为代表。3)语法功能方面,单双音同义动词除了共性以外,也存在着一定的差异,主要表现为三种类型:第一种类型是,做谓语时,二者的语法功能相同或相似,但是双音动词可做除谓语以外的其他语法成分,语法功能强于单音动词,以“节约-省”为等五组为代表。第二组类型是,二者的语法功能相同或相似,但是单音动词具有某些特别的用法,而双音动词没有,以“懂-理解”“懂-知道”两组为代表;第三种类型是,二者都做谓语时,宾语搭配受音节制约的因素较大,差别明显,以“节约-省”“休息-歇”“爱-喜欢”三组为代表。4)使用偏误方面,在学生所出现的偏误中,“误代”的偏误占了绝大比例,具体表现为同义或者近义词语的混淆;对词语语义的不明确和使用语境的不了解,是学生产生偏误的重要原因。此外,一个很重要的发现是,在考察学生偏误的时候,本体研究中我们确定的同义词,学生并不一定产生混淆;而学生的混淆词,也并不一定是我们以往认为的同义词。更多还原

【Abstract】 By combining the approaches of qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, this thesis makes an investigation into 10 pairs of synonymous monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs in Syllabus of Graded Words and Characters for Chinese Proficiency. Firstly, with the help of CCL corpus, the differences between the two kinds of verbs are surveyed from the angles of meaning and grammatical function. Secondly, the usage conditions by overseas students are researched within the HSK dynamic composition corpus. With the two steps of study, the author tries to find a new perspective or a new method to distinguish the Chinese synonyms, so as to assist Vocabulary Teaching in TCSL. The findings of the study are listed as follows:1. In the respect of usage frequency, people use more often the disyllabic verbs than the monosyllabic verbs of the same meaning, no matter the users are native or foreign.2. In the respect of meaning, only two pairs of ’complete’ synonyms are found among the chosen ten pairs of verbs. Differences exist more or less in the other 8 pairs of synonymous monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs, accounting for 80%. The differences mainly resulted from the extent and the range of their semantic meaning and, the discrepancy between the behavior subject and object.3. In the respect of grammatical function, differences exist in the synonymous monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs even though they are similar in meanings. The situation of the differences may be divided into two: A. some disyllabic verbs functions more than the monosyllabic verbs, because the former verbs could be other grammatical constituents except for the predicate. This situation accounts for 40%. B. some monosyllabic verbs have some special usages that disyllabic verbs do not have. This situation accounts for 20%. The syllabic restriction is clear.4. In the respect of using mistake, the ’mal-substitute’ dominates among all the mistakes by the students, namely, the confusion between synonyms and near-synonyms. The reason for the mistake is the semantic meaning ambiguity and the usage context incomprehension by the students. Additionally, the author finds that the students may not be confused in using the synonyms that we fixed in ontological research, whereas the confused verbs by the students may not be the ones that we used to think as synonyms.更多还原