本論文的研究目的在於提出以臺灣學習者的需求分析為根基之韓語會話教材分析之方法論，進而提出為了開發臺灣韓語系學生專用會話教材而需要之基礎資料。本論文的章節構造如下： 第一章提出本研究之必要性與目的，再來探討與本研究有關之先行研究。本論文把有關先行研究分為‘韓語教材分析基準有關研究’、‘韓語學習者需求分析有關研究’、‘同時牽涉到教材分析與學習者需求分析之研究’，進而探討各研究之有意之處以及有限之處。接著提出研究對象及研究方法。 在第二章，首先提出本論文所設定的‘韓語會話教材分析標準’。 本論文以分析出‘教材的各部分多麼符合學習者的需求’為重點來設定了‘韓語會話教材分析標準’。此點為本論文所提出之‘韓語會話教材分析標準’與先行研究所提出之教材分析標準不同之處。而本研究的‘韓語會話教材分析標準’略分為‘外在構成分析標準’及‘內在構成分析標準’，而內在構成分析是由‘學習目標與構成分析’、‘學習資料分析’、‘學習內容分析’以及‘學習活動分析’來構成的。接著提出本研究所使用的‘學習者需求分析問卷’之問題組成。‘學習者需求分析問卷’是由本研究的‘韓語會話教材分析標準’當中需要查出學習者需求之項目為中心來構成的。 在第三章，先分析出使用‘學習者需求分析問卷’來進行的問卷調查結果，進而以此分析結果及在第二章所提出的‘韓語會話教材分析標準’為主要根基來進行‘學習者別教材分析’。藉此得知本研究的問卷對象，也就是國立政治大學韓國語文學系學生以及某一私立韓語補習班學生針對現用的會話教材具有什麼樣的想法並且想要什麼樣的會話教材。加上，也可得知國立政治大學韓國語文學系學生以及某一私立韓語補習班學生共同在使用的『재미있는 한국어』1～6冊多麼符合兩個具有不同特性的學習者集團之需求。 透過教材分析結果而得知外在構成上的‘學習情境’及‘原文翻譯’方面都符合兩個學習者集團的需求，但是‘文法索引’方面皆不符合兩個學習者集團的需求。還有‘說明語言’及‘教材相關附屬物’方面大致上比較符合補習班學生的需求。而藉內在構成分析而得知 ‘會話功能’方面皆符合兩個學習集團的需求。還有‘主題’、‘學習活動方式’以及‘練習題類型’方面相對傾向於符合韓語系學生集團的需求。而‘發音’、‘文法’、‘詞彙’及‘文化’方面比較傾向於符合補習班學生集團之需求。 在第四章，為開發符合臺灣韓語系學生的需求之臺灣韓語系學生專用會話教材，以第三章的分析結果為根據而提出建議。建議略分為‘提升外在構成之建議’及‘提升內在構成之建議’其中‘提升外在構成之建議’包含‘說明語言方面、索引方面、教材相關附屬物方面、教材的學習狀況前提方面以及翻譯文方面’之建議。而‘提升內在構成之建議’涵蓋‘主題方面、會話功能方面、發音方面、文法方面、詞彙方面、文化方面以及學習活動方面’之建議。 第五章整理研究內容，進而提出本研究之意義和限制。本研究提出了以學習者需求分析為根基的韓語會話教材分析之方法論，這是與以往個別進行學習者需求分析及教材分析之既有研究不同之處，也就是本研究之意義所在。加上本論文是第一篇分析出針對韓語會話教材的臺灣學習者之需求，以此為根基來進行教材分析，而提出了為開發臺灣韓語學習者專用教材所需要之基礎資料。而到目前為止幾乎尚未有臺灣韓語學習者需求分析研究或周密分析臺灣韓語教材之研究，在此情況下本研究更具有意義。 不過本研究之有限之處在於問卷對象被侷限於國立政治大學韓國語文學系學生以及某一私立補習班學生。還有本論文以所分析的教材為基準，僅提出韓語系學生專用會話教材之開發方向，具體的開發方案或單元構成模型，有待後續研究。 / The aim of this study is to propose a methodology for textbook analysis based on Taiwanese learners’ needs analysis and to present the basic data for developing conversation textbooks for Korean language major students in Taiwan. The structure of this paper is as follows: Chapter 1 states the need and purpose of this study and provides a review of related literature. Existing literature can be classified into 3 topics: ‘the standards for Korean textbooks analysis related studies’, ‘Korean learners’ needs analysis related studies’ and ‘studies that covers both Korean textbooks analysis and Korean learners’ needs analysis’. In addition, subjects and methodology of this study are also presented in chapter 1. Chapter 2 presents ‘the standards for analyzing Korean conversation textbook’ and the construction of the questionnaire applied in this study. This study has set the standards for Korean conversation textbook analysis focusing on analyzing to what extent a textbook meets the needs of the learners. This is what distinguishes ‘the standards for analyzing Korean conversation textbook’ set by this study from the other standards for Korean textbook analysis presented by existing studies. We classify ‘the standards for Korean conversation textbook analysis’ into ‘the standards for the analysis of external structures’ and ‘the standards for the analysis of internal structures’. Internal structures analysis consists of ‘lesson goals and unit structure analysis’, ‘learning materials analysis’, ‘learning contents analysis’ and ‘learning activities analysis’. ‘The questionnaire for learners’ needs analysis’ applied in this study is mainly composed of chosen questions among ‘the standards for Korean conversation textbook analysis’ that needs to acquire learners’ needs for analyzing. Chapter 3 analyzes the result of ‘the questionnaire for learners’ needs analysis’ and conducts ‘textbook analysis by different learners’ based on both ‘the standards for Korean conversation textbook analysis’ mentioned in chapter 2 and the result of the questionnaire. Through this analysis, we show the general opinions of the students in Korean language and culture department at National Cheng-Chi University and the students of one anonymous private institute. We document their opinions on the current conversation textbooks as well as the desired features of conversation textbooks from their perspective. Furthermore, we demonstrate how『재미있는 한국어』volume 1~6, which are used by both the students in Korean language and culture department at National Cheng-Chi University and the students of the anonymous private institute, meet the needs of these two groups of learners with different characteristics. Our result shows that in the external structures, needs in both ‘learning situation premise’ and ‘translation’ aspects are met in both groups. Needs in the ‘grammar index’ aspect, on the other hand, are not met in either group. In the ‘explanation language’ and ‘textbook appurtenances’ aspects, the textbooks coincide more with the needs of learners from the private institute in general. Looking at the internal structures, ‘communicative functions’ presented in the textbooks tends to meet the needs of both groups. Besides, ‘themes’, ‘way of activities’ and ‘type of activities’ presented in the textbooks tend to coincide more with the needs of Korean language majors in general, while in ‘pronunciation’, ‘grammar’, ‘vocabulary’ and ‘culture’ aspects, the textbooks tend to coincide more with the needs of learners from the private institute on the whole. Chapter 4 offers suggestions on developing conversation textbooks for Korean language major students in Taiwan based on the analyses of chapter 3. The suggestions are divided into two parts. First, ‘suggestions for the external structures’ improvement’ consist of ‘explanation language’, ‘index’, ‘textbook appurtenances’, ‘learning situation premise’ and ‘translation’ aspects. The composition of ‘suggestions for the internal structures’ improvement’, on the other hand, is ‘theme’, ‘communicative function’, ‘pronunciation’, ‘grammar’, ‘vocabulary’, ‘culture’ and ‘activity’ aspects. Chapter 5 summarizes the content of this study and states the significance and the limitation of this study. The significance of this study is that it has proposed the methodology of Korean conversation textbook analysis based on learners’ needs analysis, which is different from existing studies that have conducted learners’ needs analysis and textbook analysis separately. Furthermore, this is the first study that has not only analyzed Taiwanese learners’ needs about Korean conversation textbook but also analyzed textbooks based on those needs analysis, which provides basic data for developing textbooks for Taiwanese learners. Moreover, no study to our knowledge investigates Taiwanese learners’ needs or thoroughly analyzes Korean textbooks used in Taiwan, which is why this study bears big significance. The limitation of this study, on the other hand, is that the target of the questionnaire has been limited to the students in Korean language and culture department at National Cheng-Chi University and the students of one anonymous private institute. Another limitation of this study is that it has only suggested certain directions on the development of conversation textbooks for Korean language major students in Taiwan. Detailed development plan or specific models of unit structure rely on future research.

本研究的目的在於能讓以中文為母語的韓語學習者，能夠更快速且深刻理解韓語補助用言‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어) 오다’，並進一步期許藉由本研究的結果，學習者們得以將此文法表現確實的應用於日常生活與對話當中。 「補助用言」是中文母語者學習韓語時，感到困難且容易出現誤用情況的文法範疇之一，尤其韓語之中「補助用言」的運用相當發達，而中文之中雖然亦有與其對應之「補語 」的概念，但與韓語的「補助用言」相較之下，兩種文法概念雖然相似，但分別屬於兩個語言的框架之中，仔戲相比，兩者概念的判別基準與定義以及使用情況分佈，有著相當程度的落差。韓語「補助用言」之中的‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어)오다’，若將其直接認知為中文的「趨向補語」，而翻譯為「動詞+去」和「動詞+來」的話，反而容易產生誤用，甚至在某些特殊的用法時，是找不到韓中兩語言的對應關係的。 因此本研究從中文母語者學習韓語時面臨困難的「補助用言」範疇之中，選出‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어)오다’這一組類型，以中文母語者的角度對其各種用法進行分析，並依循找出其對應的中文。首先，為了釐清韓語補助用言‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어)오다’對於中文母語者的學習困難，將會依據先行研究(既存研究)鉅細靡遺地揭露韓語補助用言的各種特色，以及其中‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어)오다’的各項用法分類。接著，將語言資料庫的內容以抽樣篩選的方式，檢視補助用言‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어)오다’各種用法的使用分佈情形，進而比對先行研究之中的分類法是否符合語言使用者的使用情形。最後，將整理韓語補助用言‘(-어)가다’和‘(-어)오다’所對應的各項中文表現，並概略的比較韓語與和中文之間的的使用方式之異同。

「存在句」普遍的存在人類的語言之中，華語存在句主要有兩種語序「處所＋動詞＋人/事物」如例 (1)；「人/事物＋動詞＋處所」如例 (2)。 　　 (1) 桌子上有書。 (2) 書在桌子上。 「在」字句的主語屬於「有定」或「有指」的「人/事物」，而「有」字句只能帶「無定」的「人/事物」作賓語。華語語言學家通常將「有」字句稱為「存現句」表示「某處存在某事物」，或者表示「位於某處所的事物的出現或者消失」。在語法形式上表示處所的名詞出現在存現句的句首，而表示存在、出現、消失的人或事物的名詞組出現在動詞後。從語言學習角度來說，華語的「存現句」對於外籍生是一個較為陌生的結構。本文從功能語法角度分析華語的「存現句」。以「認知分析」、「引介功能」、「傳達信息」、「焦點」、「主題」、「有定到無定」、「名詞的定性」為理論架構而處理存現句的形成與結構。 韓語沒有對應於華語存現句的句型，表示存在的動詞「在、有、是」都翻譯成韓語「있다(itta)」，使用助詞「著」的存現句翻譯成「V+아/어/여(ɑ/ə/yeo) 있다(itta)」。韓語存在句的基本語序為「處所詞組＋名詞組＋存在動詞」，例如： (3) 산 에 나무 가 있다.　(山上有樹。) San e namu ga itta. 山 在 樹 有 本論文探討韓語存在句如何表現主題、焦點、定性，如何傳達信息而進行與華語存在句的對比分析。此外，從功能的角度提供適當的教學策略，並且針對韓籍學生設計存現句語法課程而應用在實際教學上，藉此探討功能語法在教學上應用的可行性。 / Existential Sentences generally exist in human languages. There are two kinds of word orders of Existential Sentences in Mandarin: locations+verbs+people/things(Example 1); people/things+verbs+locations(Example 2). Example 1: Zhuozi shang you shu. (桌子上有書。) Example 2: Shu zai zhuozi shang. (書在桌子上。) 　Subject of Example 2 is definite people/things; however, Example 1 can only use indefinite people/things as its object. Example 1 is generally considered as Existential Sentence. Mandarin Existential Sentence is an unfamiliar structure for students learning Mandarin as a foreign language. This thesis analyzes Mandarin Existential Sentence from the perspective of Functional Grammar. Topics covered in the discussion of Mandarin Existential Sentence include cognitive perception of space, presentative function, information packaging, focus, topic and definiteness. There is no corresponding Mandarin Existential Sentence in Korean. Verbs meaning “zai ‘to be at’(在), you ‘to have’(有), shi ‘to be’(是)” are translated to 있다(itta) ‘be, have’ in Korean. This thesis discusses how Existential Sentences express their topic, focus, definiteness and information in Korean. This thesis also provides suggestions for teaching Mandarin Existential Sentence to Korean students and discusses the feasibility of Functional Grammar in teaching .

依據1957年韓文學會的《韓國語大辭典》 的分類，在韓國語詞彙中漢字詞占總詞彙的53%，與之相比，非漢字詞彙占47%。由此可見，由於韓國屬於漢字文化圈，所以韓國人在學習華語的時候，與非漢字文化圈的人相比，存在著許多優勢。不過實際上韓國學生在學習華語時經常遇到很多困難，而且有時候並不能精確地使用詞彙。我們發現韓語中部分的漢字詞與相對應的華語詞彙存在著同形同義和同形異義的現象，雖然同形同義詞只是在語法上有些微的差異，但這些差異會成為韓國學習者學習華語的困擾。不僅在學習華語時會產生誤解和誤用，甚而會影響華語交際。由於韓國學習者的漢字基礎常常會誤導他們，所以他們在學習與運用華語時，已有的韓語漢字基礎會對學習產生負遷移。 在第二語言學習中甘瑞瑗(2002) 指出，詞彙習得和詞彙教學是很重要的一環。對韓國學生來說，掌握華韓語之間漢字詞的關連性是能否有效運用華語的關鍵之一。因此，筆者認為，比較和分析「台灣華語8000詞」和與之相應的韓語漢字詞，具有學習上的幫助。 本文旨在以「台灣華語8000詞」 為中心，對照《韓國漢字語辭典》找出兩者之間的同形漢字詞，並把這些同形漢字詞分為同形同義詞、同形部分異義詞與同形完全異義詞三類，具體地分析台灣華語詞和韓語漢字詞的異同。接著以個案研究的方式，探討韓語漢字詞在韓國學生學習華語詞彙時是否帶來正遷移的現象；並以問卷調查的方式來檢驗韓國學生已認識的韓語漢字詞，是否也對華語詞彙學習造成負遷移的影響。 最後，根據個案調查及問卷研究結果，分別對華韓同形同義詞、同形部分異義詞與同形完全異義詞等三類，提出華語詞彙教學建議。 / According to the research of the Chinese Character Society which get published 1957 in the Korean Dictionary, 53% of the Korean vocabulary is based on the Chinese language. This high percentage demonstrates the great impact of the Chinese culture on the Korean language over a long time. Today, Korean learners of the Chinese language may take advantage of this historical and linguistic fact when compared to learners from Western countries. However, in practice, Korean learners still have great difficulties in acquiring the correct usage of a variety of Chinese words in spite of lexical similarities with their mother tongue. Interferences from the Korean language usage on the learners’ target language are an obvious fact. In a first approach, compared with the homographic vocabulary of the Chinese language, Chinese loan words in the Korean language can be classified into three main categories according to their semantic congruency: 1. homosemantic words: homographic words in both languages share principally the same lexical meaning (同形同義詞); 2. semantic congruent words: homographic words in both languages share a congruent basic meaning but lexical meaning differs in certain properties (同形部分異義詞); 3. semantic incongruent words: homographic words in both languages principally do not share a common lexical meaning (同形完全異義詞). The reason may be due to historical meaning changes in both languages. Semantic differences in basically semantic congruent words and semantic incongruency of homographic words both handicap correct vocabulary acquisition of the Chinese language by Korean learners and complicate their correct comprehension and correct usage of the Chinese language. The relevance of correct vocabulary acquisition was already pointed out by the research of Gan Ruiyuan (甘瑞瑗,2002). The present study wants to do a fresh approach in the study of the basic homographic vocabulary of Chinese and Korean languages in its significance for Chinese language teaching to Korean students. To do this, it compares the semantic features of the Chinese basic vocabulary listed in the Taiwanese dictionary 8000 Words in Chinese with their Korean homographics listed in the Dictionary of the Sino-Korean language and classifies the results according to the three categories of semantic congruency mentioned above. Semantic incongruent features are discussed regarding their difficulty both in acquisition and in the correct usage for Korean learners of the Chinese language. In addition, a short learner’s enquiry wants to give further insights into phenomena of language interference which appear in the usage of Chinese homographic vocabulary by Korean students. Finally, the study wants to give some practical suggestions for teaching Chinese homographic vocabulary to Korean students.