基于汉泰系词类型差异的泰国学习者“是”字句偏误研究
A Study on Thai Learners’ “Shi” (是)-Sentence Errors Based on Typological Differences between Chinese and Thai Copula Systems
摘要: “是”字句是现代汉语的核心句式,也是泰国学习者习得难点。本文基于全球汉语中介语语料库,以泰语三系词系统(เป็น/คือ/ใช่)为类型对比框架,对泰国学习者“是”字句偏误进行系统考察。经检索,“是”字句偏误共6796条,采用隔四取一法得到有效语料321条。研究发现四种偏误类型呈“误加 > 遗漏 > 误用 > 错序”格局:误加集中表现为形容词谓语句中多余添加“是”,与泰语pen的宽泛谓述功能直接相关;遗漏以“是……的”句中“的”的遗漏及判断句中“是”的遗漏为主;误用以“是”与“有”、“在”的混用为核心;错序偏误最少。我们从泰语三系词与汉语“是”的类型对比视角解释了偏误成因,并提出了分级教学及汉泰对比教学策略。
Abstract: The “Shi”-sentence is a core sentence pattern in Modern Chinese and a major difficulty for Thai learners. Based on the Global Chinese Interlanguage Corpus (GCIC) and employing the Thai three-copula system (เป็น/คือ/ใช่) as a typological contrastive framework, this study systematically examines “Shi”-sentence errors made by Thai learners. A total of 6796 error entries were retrieved, from which 321 valid tokens were obtained through systematic sampling. The findings reveal a gradient distribution of error types: addition > omission > substitution > misordering. Addition errors predominantly involve the redundant use of “Shi” before adjectives, directly attributable to the broad predicative function of Thai pen (เป็น). Omission errors mainly consist of the omission of de in “Shi…de” constructions and the omission of “Shi” in copular sentences. Substitution errors center on the confusion between “Shi” and you as well as zai. Misordering errors are the least frequent. The study explains the causes of these errors from the perspective of the typological contrast between the Thai three-copula system and Chinese “Shi”, and proposes graded instruction and contrastive teaching strategies.
文章引用:薛慧敏, 杨哲华. 基于汉泰系词类型差异的泰国学习者“是”字句偏误研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(8): 1139-1150. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.148882

参考文献

[1] 吕叔湘. 汉语语法分析问题[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1979.
[2] 刘月华, 潘文娱, 故韡. 实用现代汉语语法[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2001.
[3] 张和友. “是”字结构的句法语义研究—汉语语义性特点的一个视角[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2012.
[4] 高秋霞. 印尼汉语学习者“是”字句偏误分析研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 厦门: 厦门大学, 2017.
[5] 闫利敏. 基于“HSK动态作文语料库”的韩国留学生“是”字句偏误及教学研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 苏州: 苏州大学, 2020.
[6] 柯伟智. 语序类型学视野下的汉泰修饰成分研究[J]. 云南师范大学学报, 2012, 10(2): 70-76.
[7] 娄婉娜. 汉泰语存在句对比及教学研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 武汉: 华中师范大学, 2018.
[8] 廖小丹. 泰国学生“有”字句、“是”字句习得研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 武汉: 华中师范大学, 2022.
[9] 李默. 中高级泰国学生汉语存在句偏误分析[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 昆明: 云南师范大学, 2022.
[10] 朱德熙. 语法讲义[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1982.
[11] 赵元任. 汉语口语语法[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1979.
[12] 范晓. 三个平面的语法观[M]. 北京: 北京语言大学出版社, 1996.
[13] 周洪波. 表判断“是”字句的语义类型[J]. 安徽教育学院学报(社会科学版), 1992(4): 51-55.
[14] 金家恒. “是”字句句法语义研究[J]. 黄山学院学报, 2004, 6(5): 84-86.
[15] 杨石泉. 话语分析与对外汉语教学[J]. 语言教学与研究, 1984(3): 68-76.
[16] Wongwattana, U.S. (2015) Complexities of Thai Copular Constructions. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 8, 97-120.
[17] Hedberg, N. and Potter, D. (2010) Equative and Predicational Copulas in Thai. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, 6-7 February 2010, 144-157.
https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v36i1.3908
[18] Jaratjarungkiat, S. (2019) Is the Copula /pen/ in Thai Meaningless? Journal of Mekong Societies, 15, 23-42.
[19] 鲁健驡. 外国人学汉语的语法偏误分析[J]. 语言教学与研究, 1994(1): 49-64.