提要 时间副词与关涉时间义的副词在句法语义上存在诸多区别, 这为汉语作为第二语言学习者带来了难题。从句法形式和语义特征两方面出发, 对 252 个具有时间意义的副词展开分析, 将其中的时间义描摹性副词、关联副词、重复副词、类同副词、协同副词和频率副词等予以排除, 从而得到了 155 个时间副词。后根据时间副词的功能, 将时间副词界定为表示事件时间位置或内在状态的副词。该范围划定与意义界定细化了副词的分类系统, 为高水平汉语二语学习者的副词学习提供了参考。

提要 语序是汉语最重要的语法手段之一, 但是现有初级汉语教材和课堂教学对语序都采取了简化处理, 缺乏明确系统的语序教学。 这种缺失造成了学生较多的语序偏误, 不能灵活掌握和运用不同的语序。 针对这一问题, 本文首先梳理了句法、 语用和认知等语序规则, 在考察了汉语句法成分自由度的基础上, 提出了概括动词谓语句的语义块规则: “话题参与者 + 条件 + 方式 + 动作 + 结果 + 焦点参与者”, 这个语义块规则可以进一步高度概括为: “话题+动程 + 焦点”。 对于非动词谓语句, 包括名词谓语句、 形容词谓语句和主谓谓语句, 句子的语序可以概括为两个语用语义块: “话题 + 说明”。 这两条高度概括的语用语义块规则既区分了动词谓语句和非动词谓语句的语义差异, 又体现了两者的语序共性。 然后, 本文通过对句子生成机制和不同规则的适用性分析, 提出语序规则的制约顺序为 “认知 → 语义 → 句法 → 语用”, 其中认知作为深层知识参与各个层面的制约, 语义为表达驱动, 句法为生成规则, 语用是调节规则, 输出的句子则是表层复合产物, 这些规则依次共同制约和决定句子的最终语序。 最后, 本文建议初级汉语教学应该提供包括认知、 语义、 句法、 语用在内的完整的汉语语序规则教学, 并构拟了由六个具体步骤组成的语序教学体系。

Abstract Language assessment literacy (LAL) ensures the appropriate design, implementation, and utilization of various language assessments (Taylor 2009). Taking language assessment courses (LACs) is a common approach to foster LAL, particularly among prospective language teachers, as previous research has explored. However, limited studies have compared LACs with different focuses. This study addresses this question by examining two cases of LACs for post-graduate students in a Chinese university preparing to become Chinese as a second language (CSL) teachers. These two courses, differing in purpose and target audience (teaching-oriented and research-oriented), are both introductory courses for beginners learning about language assessment. Drawing on Taylor’s (2013) model and Kremmel and Harding’s (2020) questionnaire, we investigated graduate students’ perceptions regarding their development of LAL in the respective courses, combining observation, questionnaires, and interviews. The findings reveal that students perceived a comprehensive improvement in their LAL levels, with the item-writing session regarded as particularly beneficial and applicable. Despite the challenges posed by theoretical concepts and the involvement of statistics, the students considered that a general LAC was insufficient and further learning opportunities were needed. The study emphasizes updating the need analysis and practice-based design of LACs.

提 要 “让你X你就X” 与 “让你X就X” “让你X就X” “让你XX” “让XX” 等相关构式形成紧缩构式群。 文章主要考察 “让你X你就X” 类紧缩构式群是如何从复句发展为紧缩结构, 由紧缩结构再发展到紧缩构式, 最后朝着习语化的方向发展, 并试图从概念叠加、 主观化、 语境吸收、 省略与紧缩角度对 “让你X你就X” 类构式群的形成动因进行解释。

提要 自 20 世纪 80 年代以来, 纠错反馈已在行为主义、先天习得、认知、社会文化以及互动主义等诸多理论研究领域呈现丰富成果, 而关于汉语教师纠错的实证研究仍相对匮乏。从同期引入国内的会话分析视角来看, 纠错被归类为一种修正机制。目前对汉语教师的修正行为研究主要集中在完整的不同层次课堂, 而对形式准确的微观课堂语境等特定环节的深入考察则明显不足。 本研究通过同济大学师生以及公共网络资源, 收集了 50 节课堂录像, 总时长 300 分钟, 并从中筛选出 226 段形式准确的汉语课堂片段, 共计 37446 字。研究者运用会话分析转录方法, 探讨了汉语教师在此特定语境下纠错行为的序列结构, 并尝试为汉语教学提出建议。本研究不仅证实了四种典型的修正模式, 还发现了两种非典型模式。这四种典型模式出现在特定微观语境中, 每种修正模式都有基本式及变体式, 呈现出多样性和全面性的特点。与日常对话相比, 研究发现每种修正模式都伴随着一个操练序列。此外, 师生常常使用非语言方式来引发或修正, 这也会影响修正模式, 因此非语言交际的作用不容忽视。 研究建议, 作为汉语教学互动活动的参与者, 教师和学生应充分理解课堂互动模式, 明确各自的角色和责任, 提高引发和修正的意识, 重视非语言交际, 以便更高效地实现课堂教学目标。.

Abstract This study investigates word searches produced by L2 Chinese learners in their conversation with an L1 speaker. Prior research has examined the organization of L2 word searches and the resources that L2 learners typically draw on. However, it is unclear how learners of different proficiency levels differ in the methods for accomplishing this action and whether their differences, if any, can provide insights on their development of interactional competence. To address these two questions, the present study adopts the framework of conversation analysis to examine three L2 Chinese learners’ conversations with the same L1 speaker. It discovers that lower-proficiency learners have limited methods to manage the interactional exigencies in a word search whereas higher-proficiency learners are able to use more varied methods, some of them showing features close to L1 speakers’ word searches. The three learners’ differential practices, which can be considered as three different moments in the acquisition of word search, converge with the three stages in the developmental trajectory reported in a previous longitudinal study (Pekarek Doehler & Berger 2019), providing evidence for L2 development of interactional competence.

Abstract Based on sociocultural theory, this study investigates the impact of concept-based language instruction (C-BLI) on learners’ acquisition of a complex Chinese verb-resultative construction (VRC) and its application in acquiring speaking skills. Using the Scheme of a Complete Orienting Basis of an Action (SCOBA) as a pedagogical diagram and adopting both quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study compares the effects of C-BLI, rule-based language instruction (R-BLI), and no intervention on Chinese learners’ acquisition of grammatical knowledge and skills across proficiency levels. Seventy-two university students participated in the study, with a mixed ANOVA analyzing group, level, and time effects. Qualitative data from reflective journals were also used to complement the analysis. Findings show significant improvements in language knowledge and skill acquisition for both the C-BLI and R-BLI groups, with C-BLI proving particularly effective for beginners and intermediates. This demonstrates the efficacy of C-BLI in fostering language acquisition and enhancing speaking skills, with implications for its integration into L2 instruction, including Teaching Chinese as a Foreign/Second Language (TCFL/TCSL).

Abstract This article uses the vocabulary measurement indicators of lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, lexical density, and lexical accuracy for second-language writing levels to systematically measure the lexical richness of essays written by Chinese as a second language (CSL) learners. It employs the methodology of building a corpus based on the collected compositions for data analysis. It shows that the Uber index of lexical diversity and the lexical density of CSL learners does not always show a positive correlation with increased test scores. Lexical sophistication usually positively correlates with test scores, but the growth trend tends to be flat from the 81–90 score range. Lexical accuracy below 80 points is positively correlated with writing scores; however, the data above 91 points is slightly lower than that of 81–90 points. This article further hypothesizes that the above measurement indicators fail to accurately measure CSL students’ Chinese lexical ability because those indicators do not include the sememe factors of Chinese words and thus rely too much on word form. This article further puts forward the specific manifestations (polysemes, homographs, and multi-category words) of sememe richness and proposes specific solutions to add sememe richness to the four original formulas through the use of the four above-mentioned measurement indicators in CSL.