Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 華語教學碩士學位學程 === 106 === There have been many studies on the Chinese “Bei” construction and Japanese passive voice. However, little research has been undertaken on the acquisition of the Chinese “Bei” construction by Japanese learners. This study aims to analyze errors of L1 Japanese...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ayaka Okuno, 奧野絢加
Other Authors: Te-Hsin Liu
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2018
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/25kkmq
id ndltd-TW-106NTU05612002
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-106NTU056120022019-05-16T00:22:54Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/25kkmq Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners 日籍學習者的華語被字句偏誤研究 Ayaka Okuno 奧野絢加 碩士 國立臺灣大學 華語教學碩士學位學程 106 There have been many studies on the Chinese “Bei” construction and Japanese passive voice. However, little research has been undertaken on the acquisition of the Chinese “Bei” construction by Japanese learners. This study aims to analyze errors of L1 Japanese learners’ Chinese “Bei” construction errors and propose how to teach this construction. At first, this study analyzes the convergence and divergence between the “Bei” construction and Japanese passive voice. Comparative analyses show that, semantically, the “Bei” construction usually conveys negative connotation, but Japanese passive voice doesn’t always have negative meaning. Syntactically, Japanese has a phenomenon called “Linguistic empathy”, whereby sentences can provide information about the speaker’s point of view, from which they describe a state of affairs. Consequently, compared with Chinese, the agent in Japanese passive voice has more restrictions. Apart from a comparison of the passive voice between Chinese and Japanese, we refer to TOCFL learner corpus and HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus to analyze 90 compositions of L1 Japanese learners. Our result shows that 57 out of 90 compositions were affected by Japanese negative transfer. The majority of errors stems from the difference of verbs between Chinese and Japanese. The second cause of error is that “Bei” construction usually conveys negative connotation while it is not the case in Japanese passive voice. The third cause of error is “Empathy” phenomenon. Japanese learners tend to put human beings in the subject position while there is no such restriction in Mandarin. This syntactic difference also leads to Japanese learners’ errors in the “Bei” construction. Based on the results of the present study, pedagogical implications for Japanese learners and suggestions for future studies were provided at the end of the thesis. Te-Hsin Liu 劉德馨 2018 學位論文 ; thesis 131 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 華語教學碩士學位學程 === 106 === There have been many studies on the Chinese “Bei” construction and Japanese passive voice. However, little research has been undertaken on the acquisition of the Chinese “Bei” construction by Japanese learners. This study aims to analyze errors of L1 Japanese learners’ Chinese “Bei” construction errors and propose how to teach this construction. At first, this study analyzes the convergence and divergence between the “Bei” construction and Japanese passive voice. Comparative analyses show that, semantically, the “Bei” construction usually conveys negative connotation, but Japanese passive voice doesn’t always have negative meaning. Syntactically, Japanese has a phenomenon called “Linguistic empathy”, whereby sentences can provide information about the speaker’s point of view, from which they describe a state of affairs. Consequently, compared with Chinese, the agent in Japanese passive voice has more restrictions. Apart from a comparison of the passive voice between Chinese and Japanese, we refer to TOCFL learner corpus and HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus to analyze 90 compositions of L1 Japanese learners. Our result shows that 57 out of 90 compositions were affected by Japanese negative transfer. The majority of errors stems from the difference of verbs between Chinese and Japanese. The second cause of error is that “Bei” construction usually conveys negative connotation while it is not the case in Japanese passive voice. The third cause of error is “Empathy” phenomenon. Japanese learners tend to put human beings in the subject position while there is no such restriction in Mandarin. This syntactic difference also leads to Japanese learners’ errors in the “Bei” construction. Based on the results of the present study, pedagogical implications for Japanese learners and suggestions for future studies were provided at the end of the thesis.
author2 Te-Hsin Liu
author_facet Te-Hsin Liu
Ayaka Okuno
奧野絢加
author Ayaka Okuno
奧野絢加
spellingShingle Ayaka Okuno
奧野絢加
Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners
author_sort Ayaka Okuno
title Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners
title_short Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners
title_full Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners
title_fullStr Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners
title_full_unstemmed Error Analysis of “Bei” Construction by Japanese learners
title_sort error analysis of “bei” construction by japanese learners
publishDate 2018
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/25kkmq
work_keys_str_mv AT ayakaokuno erroranalysisofbeiconstructionbyjapaneselearners
AT àoyěxuànjiā erroranalysisofbeiconstructionbyjapaneselearners
AT ayakaokuno rìjíxuéxízhědehuáyǔbèizìjùpiānwùyánjiū
AT àoyěxuànjiā rìjíxuéxízhědehuáyǔbèizìjùpiānwùyánjiū
_version_ 1719165331511967744