台灣大學生口語及寫作中詞語搭配錯誤使用之研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討不同語言程度的台灣大學生，其口語及寫作中詞語搭配的錯誤使用情況。 受試者為九十六名國立台灣師範大學大一學生，在完成一份依據全民英檢試題改編而成的試題後，根據其口語及寫作項目的成績加以分組，共分為初（elementary）、中（intermediate）、高（advanced）三級，每組32人，並針對受試者於這兩個項目中的答題內容，進一步分析其詞語搭配錯誤。 本研究共發現545個詞語搭配錯誤，就兩個測驗項目而言，在寫作測驗中發現較多的詞語搭配錯誤，並達顯著性差異；整體而言，語法詞語搭配錯誤（grammatical collocation error）多於詞義搭配錯誤（lexical collocation error）。LT1（動詞+名詞）、LT2（形容詞+名詞；名詞+名詞）、及GT10（動詞）為最常見的錯誤類型；GT8（形容詞+ that-子句）、GT3（名詞+that-子句）、與LT7（~連接詞~）等類型的錯誤則最為少見。 另外，研究發現中級受試者犯最多的詞語搭配錯誤，初級受試者最少，但兩者間並無顯著差異。因此，本研究中受試者的詞語搭配能力與其語言程度並無絕對關連。 然而，儘管各程度的受試者在錯誤類型上無顯著差異，進一步的質性分析卻顯示程度高的受試者所犯的錯誤，主要來自其本身嘗試新的詞語搭配用法所致，且其詞彙選用或是片語結構的複雜性均較高。而中級受試者雖亦嘗試較具難度的詞語搭配，但仍難擺脫母語的影響。至於程度較差的受試者，似乎無法完全掌握字音與字形的聯結，母語的影響仍然顯著。 詞語搭配錯誤主要來自母語影響。錯誤來源依據劉（1999b, p. 488）的研究可分為六大類：過度推論（overgeneralization）、忽略語法限制（ignorance of rule restrictions）、錯誤假設（false concepts hypothesized）、使用同義字（the use of synonyms）、負向移轉（negative transfer）、創新字（word coinage）、以及使用近似語詞（approximation）。 文末並建議除了研究受試者的語言輸出（production），也應探討其理解層面的知識（comprehension），如此才能對受試者的詞語搭配能力有全面性的了解。另外，詞語搭配教學的成效亦是未來值得進一歨探究的方向。

The present study aims to investigate the collocation errors in the oral and written production of Taiwanese college students’ English at different proficiency levels and to explore the sources of these errors. Ninety-six freshmen in NTNU participated in the study. They were further divided into three levels, with 32 in each—advanced, intermediate, and elementary—based on their test results of the speaking and writing sections in a modified set of General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). The collocation errors in the two tasks were identified and analyzed. A total of 545 collocation errors were found. Written collocation errors outnumbered oral ones, reaching a significance level; grammatical collocation errors outnumbered lexical ones. In the oral and writing tasks, it was found that LT1 (v + n), LT2 (adj + n; n + n), GT10 verb collocations were the most frequently produced error type; the least frequently made ones were GT8 (adj + that-clause), GT3 (n + that-clause), and LT7 (~conj~) errors. With respect to the errors made by each proficiency group, the intermediate group made the most errors and the elementary group produced the fewest errors though the significance did not reach a significance level. In other words, our subjects’ collocation competence cannot serve as an indicator of their general language proficiency. Although no significant difference in the error types was obtained at each proficiency level, a further qualitative analysis of the subjects’ errors showed that the errors made by the advanced learners mainly resulted from their bold attempts to make collocations based on their hypotheses. More complexity was involved in their word choice and phrase structures. The intermediate learners were considered to stay in a plateau where they were about to produce more challenging collocated forms but still could not get rid of the influence of their L1. The elementary learners seemed to have not tackled the problem with sound-form associations and of the properties of auxiliary verbs. The influence of L1 is obvious. L1 transfer is considered to be the main source of these types of errors. Sources of the collocation errors were further discussed in six categories suggested by Liu (1999b, p. 488): overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, false concepts hypothesized, the use of synonyms, negative transfer, word coinage, and approximation. Finally, it is suggested that further research can look into the differences between learners’ comprehension and production of collocations as well as the effect of teaching collocations.