現代漢語語法點等級化初探

Abstract

近年來，第二語言教學研究中提出溝通教學法、任務型教學法，促使中文教學更進一步思考結合語言功能與語言形式的教學，以期有效地提高學習者的語言能力。本文即以此為出發點，探討對外現代漢語語法點等級化。 本文以鄧守信(1997)提出的教學語法之理論架構為基礎，首先，為語法點找出清楚的定義，綜合各家說法，本文定義「語法點」為一個大於純語法結構（句型）、不能在詞彙層次上處理的，然後以鄧守信（2003）提出的語法點分類架構，將語法點分成四大群十類： A結構群：語型類、功能類、語序類、句型類、變形類、句式類 B語義群：同類詞、近義詞 C話義群：語氣詞、副詞、介詞／定式 D篇章銜接(限於篇幅，僅列出，不予討論。) 再來，討論初、中、高三級的等級訂定標準，本文尋求的等級標準，並非美國一般大學中文課程裡的分級，討論的語法點分級是跨等級的排序，而不涉及等級內部的排序；且為避免混淆，本文改以一、二、三為等級劃分名稱。我們討論學時、詞彙量、中文能力測驗、教材、教學大綱、語言能力等各種分級標準，最後以CEFR（歐洲共同語文參考架構）語言能力指標為基準，對應華語文能力測驗（TOP）、教學大綱、漢語水平考試（HSK）、新漢語水平考試（HSK）、漢語水平等級標準與語法等級大綱，以及師大國語中心常用的三套教材：《新版實用視聽華語》、遠東生活華語和迷你廣播劇，結合語言能力和語言形式，訂出一級語法點能達到CEFR的A2級能力指標，二級是B1，三級是B2/C1，再根據這套標準來檢視依據教材裡的語法點，結合本文的語法點分類架構，最後在三級中各找出五十個左右語法點示例。

Recently, researches on second language teaching have focused on two approaches: communicative approach and task-based approach. These two approaches aim at promoting the integration of language function and language forms in Chinese teaching in order to effectively increase learners’ language ability. Based on this concept, this paper is to discuss teaching Chinese language grammar points at different levels to speakers of other languages. Based on Teng S.’s theory on Pedagogical Grammar of Chinese, this paper will first define the term “grammar points”. After taking into consideration of all the other definitions in the field, I would define “grammar points” as not only grammatical structures (sentence patterns), but also are not being able to explained at vocabulary level. Then I will divide grammar points into four groups and ten types by using Teng S.’s structure of grammar points A. structural class：typological types, function types, word order types, transformational types, and sentence-structure types B. semantic class：natural-class types, near-synonymous types C. pragmatic class：sentence particles, adverbs, and preposition D. discourse cohesive devices Next, I will discuss the criteria of defining “beginning”, “intermediate”, and “advanced” levels. In this paper, standards of defining grammar levels are different from ones for course levels in American universities. Grammar points are cross-levelly ranked, and do not involve in internal ranking of different levels. To simplify this, I will use the terms “Level 1”, “Level 2”, and “Level 3” to distinguish the levels. This paper will analyze credit hours, vocabulary, Chinese language proficiency tests, textbooks, teaching guidelines, language proficiency and other criteria, use guidelines of The Common European Framework of reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) as a benchmark, and also include corresponding Test Of Proficiency-Huayu, teaching outlines Hanyu Shuipin Kaoshi(HSK), A Guidline to Chinese Proficiency Levels and Grammar Levels (1994), and the three sets of textbooks from Mandarin Training Center: ：Practical Audio-Visual Chinese, Far East Everyday Chinese, and Mini Radio Plays. With combination of language proficiency and language forms, Level 1 grammar points are equivalent to CEFR’s A2 catergory, likewise, Level 2 to B1, and Level 3 to B2/C1. Finally, examine the grammar points used in the textbooks against the new standards of levels discussed in this paper, and provide approximately 50 exmaples of grammar points in each level.