論文提要內容： 本研究旨在探討分析台灣國中生使役動詞的使用情況，主要探討學生使用使役動詞的錯誤情況，分析錯誤原因及調查在不同英文能力的學生使用上是否存在顯著差異。 此研究採取質及量的研究。質的研究包含(1)使役動詞的補語用法(2)使役動詞的意義及用法(3)學生在使用使役動詞上的錯誤分析。量的研究包含(1)使役動詞補語的錯誤率(2)使役動詞意義及使用上的錯誤率(3)高中低程度三組中顯著變化情形。 結果顯示學生在使役動詞補語使用上常用錯非限定動詞及誤用限定動詞，此外，本研究也發現學生在選擇正確使役動詞上錯誤率高於使役動詞補語使用。分析原因如下：(1)過度規則化(2)負向轉移(3)教學引導(4)學生語言知識不足(5)語言同化。此研究也發現高中低三組在使用使役動詞補語上確實有顯著差異，然而在使役意義上(coercive sense of make-causative)、未提出但已知接受動作者意義上(unmentioned perceptible causee sense of make-causative) 、 及服務框架意義上(service frame sense of have-causative) 高中低程度學生的表現並無不同。 / Abstract The purpose of this study aims to analyze the use of periphrastic causative verbs in Junior high students’ writing performance and to understand students’ difficulty in learning and using periphrastic causative verbs. The form of periphrastic causative verbs and grammatical characteristics are easy to remember. However, subtle meanings and usage are somewhat difficult. This study adopts qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis includes: (1) the verb complement form of periphrastic causative verbs, (2) the meaning and functions of periphrastic causative verbs, and (3) the factors that influence students’ erroneous uses of periphrastic causative verbs. The quantitative analysis comprises: (1) the inaccuracy rate of the use of every periphrastic causative construction in the tests for form and meaning, (2) the distribution of periphrastic causative verb errors in form and meaning and use and (3) multiple comparisons among accuracy at the three proficiency levels. The results of this study are summarized as follows: students have trouble distinguishing finite verb and non-finite complement verbs with respect to the form errors. They also have lower awareness of the differences of each causative verb concerning the meaning errors. The factors affecting their incorrect responses are (1) overgeneralization, (2) negative L1 transfer, (3) teaching induced errors, (4) learners’ ignorance of rule restrictions and (5) learners’ strategies of communication and assimilation. In addition, there are significant differences among the three groups with regards to the make +O +V, have +O +V, let +O +V and have +O +p.p. in the form test and the non-coercive sense of make-causative, the hierarchical relation of have-causative and the permissive sense of let-causative in the meaning and use tests. However, there is no significant difference between the three groups’ scores of meaning and use with the coercive sense of make-causative, the unmentioned causee sense of make-causative and the service frame sense of have-causative.