本文旨在探究對象介詞「向」、「對」、「跟」的使用是否與後接動詞類型、前後名詞短語有關，即這兩個部分的不同是否影響對象介詞的使用偏向。
周小兵（1997）、李增吉（2007）、《現代漢語虛詞例釋》（1982）、呂叔湘（1980）、景士俊（1980）等書籍及學者們從對象性介詞的研究從句式、語義入手進行探究，有關對象類介詞後接的動詞種類及名詞種類之考察可能存在缺漏，故本文想以此為入手點。
二語學習者在學習三個詞時會遇到解釋相似，用法相似，無法區別的困境，不利於學習。本文基於大型語料庫：HSK 2.0語料庫、暨南大學留學生語料庫、TOCFL語料、中研院平衡語料庫、BCC語料庫。三個介詞母語者、二語者的語料各500例，共3000例，進行卡方及費雪分析並解釋三個對象性介詞，動詞、名詞短語使用偏向不同之處。
結果初步發現，母語者及二語者語料中，後接詞有明顯偏向：「向」、「對」後接「虛向的動作性動詞」佔比為最高（母語者「向」70.60%、「對」76.80%；二語者「向」71.2%、「對」66.80%）。在「跟」語料中，皆為「言語動詞」的比例最高（母語者「跟」46.80%；二語者「跟」39.20%）。通過進一步分析，可以發現前後名詞短語的生命性與介詞後接動詞有一定的規律：「向」、「對」語料的前後NP出現「個體生命」、「群體生命」使用頻率相反，而「跟」語料中前後NP呈現出相同的趨勢，即兩者皆為「個體生命>群體生命」。「不發生變化的動作」偏向為「向」：一對多，「對」：多對一，「跟」：一對一。筆者通過收集母語者問卷的方式，測試母語者在設定的條件中，是否存在使用偏向，並對數據進行卡方檢定，得到的結果，六組中僅有一組差異不顯著（p值高於0.001），此組測試對象為：「對」加三種動詞以及個體名詞。這個結果意味著「個體名詞」無法影響介詞「對」與動詞的選取使用。另外由於，問卷中「向」與「跟」的數據過低，且過於相似所以才導致檢定，結果不顯著。此結果為受試者使用偏向造成的。

The purpose of the present study is to explore whether the use of the object prepositions ‘xiang’, ‘dui’ and ‘gen’ is related to the type of the verb following the preposition and the noun phrase preceding and following the preposition, that is, whether the difference between these two parts affects the use of object prepositions.
Books and scholars such as Zhou Xiaobing (1997), Li Zengji (2007), "Explanation of Function Words in Modern Chinese" (1982), Lu Shuxiang (1980), Jing Shijun (1980), etc. start from the clause pattern and semantics of the research on object prepositions. To conduct research, there may be gaps in the investigation of the types of verbs and nouns that follow object-type prepositions, so this article would like to take this as a starting point. When second language learners learn three words, they will encounter the dilemma of having similar explanations, similar usages, and being unable to distinguish them, which is not conducive to learning.
When L2 learners learn the three prepositions, they will encounter the dilemma of similar interpretation, similar usage, and indistinguishability, which is not conducive to learning. The present study is based on large language corpora: HSK 2.0, Jinan University International Student Corpus, TOCFL Corpus, Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus, and BCC Corpus. For each preposition, 500 sentences are extracted from native speaker and second language (L2) learner corpora, respectively, for a total of 3000 cases. Chi-square and Fisher exact test analyzes were conducted to explain the differences in the use bias of the three object prepositions, verbs and noun phrases.
The preliminarily results found that in the corpora of native speakers and L2 learners, the following words have obvious biases: ‘xiang’, ‘dui’ followed by "empty action verbs" accounted for the highest proportion (native speakers: ‘xiang’ 70.60%, ‘dui’ 76.80%; second language speakers ‘xiang’ 71.2%, ‘dui’ 66.80%). Within the data for ‘gen’, the proportion of "verbal verbs" is the highest (46.80% for native speakers; 39.20% for second-language speakers). After further analysis, it was found that there are certain rules between the animacy of the noun phrases before and after the preposition and the verbs followed by the preposition: the frequency of use of "individual life" and "group life" in the ‘xiang and ‘dui’ corpora are opposite, while the same trend is shown in the NPs preceding and following the preposition in the corpus data, that is, both are "individual life > group life". "Doing work" is biased towards ‘xiang’: one-to-many, ‘dui’: many-to-one, and ‘gen’: one-to-one.
The author collected questionnaires from native speakers to test whether native speakers have usage bias under the set conditions, and conducted a chi-square test on the data. The results obtained showed that only one of the six groups had no significant difference (p>0.5), the test objects of this group are: ‘dui’ plus three verbs and individual nouns.
This result indicates that "individual nouns" do not affect the selection and use of the preposition ‘dui"’and verbs. In addition, because the data of ‘xiang’ and ‘gen’ in the questionnaire are too low and too similar, the test results are insignificant. This result is caused by participants’ usage bias.

中文文献
尹戴忠. (2007). 漢語動詞研究綜述. 洛陽師範學院學報, 26(6), 120-122.
尹戴忠. (2007). 漢語動詞配價研究綜述. 韶關學院學報, 28(2), 59-62.
文婧.(2016).介詞“向”“往”“朝”的偏誤分析及教學策略(碩士學位論文,哈爾濱師範大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201602&filename=1016075136.nh
王一成,萬福成&馬寧.(2020).基於條件隨機場的多線索中文語義角色標注. 雲南大學學報(自然科學版)(03),474-480.
王一成,萬福成&馬寧.(2020).融合多層次特徵的中文語義角色標注. 智能系統學報(01),107-113.
王春傑.(2014).面向對外漢語教學的對象類介詞教學研究(碩士學位論文,黑龍江大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201602&filename=1015403120.nh
王珏. (2004). 漢語生命範疇及其辭彙, 詞法, 句法表現. 華東師範大學學報: 哲學社會科學版, 36(1), 112-120.
王盈.(2013).母語為英語的留學生習得對象類介詞偏誤分析(碩士學位論文,遼寧師範大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201402&filename=1014138541.nh
王琳琳.(2018).語法和語義角色對漢語指代消解影響的對比研究. 現代外語(06),756-767.
王微.(2012).對外漢語對象類介詞教學初探(碩士學位論文,蘇州大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD2012&filename=10123
王誠文,錢青青,荀恩東,邢丹,李夢&饒高琦.(2020).三元搭配視角下的漢語動詞語義角色知識庫構建. 中文資訊學報(09),19-27.
王瑩. (2005). 現代漢語言語動詞研究. 南開語言學刊, (2), 76-82.
王瑩.(2005).現代漢語言語動詞研究. 南開語言學刊(02),76-82+156.
王臻,常寶寶 & 穗志方.(2014).基於分層輸出神經網路的漢語語義角色標注. 中文資訊學報(06),56-61+78.
古川. (2002). <起點>指向和<終點>指向的不對稱性及其認知解釋. 世界漢語教學, (3), 49-58.
申小龍. (1988). 漢語動詞分類研究述評. 綏化學院學報, (4), 63-72.
朱曉麗.(2014).初級兒童英語讀物中句元語義角色知識的英漢對比研究(博士學位論文,北京外國語大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CDFD1214&filename=1014254962.nh
朱曉麗.(2018).語義角色理論述評. 河南理工大學學報(社會科學版)(04),54-60.
何薇&楊晶淑.(2006).對象類介詞“跟”與其韓語對譯詞的對比. 蘇州教育學院學報(04),30-33.
何薇.(2004).漢語常用對象類介詞的分析與教學(碩士學位論文,蘇州大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD0506&filename=2004132658.nh
何薇.(2006).對象類介詞“向”的分析與教學. 湖北社會科學(12),132-135.
呂叔湘.(2010).現代漢語八百詞(增訂本).[M].北京：商務印書館
李世奇,趙鐵軍,李晗靜,劉鵬遠 & 劉水.(2011).基於特徵組合的中文語義角色標注. 軟體學報(02),222-232.
李佳佳.(2011).留學生對象類介詞習得順序研究及偏誤分析(碩士學位論文,江西師範大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD2012&filename=1011236704.nh
李俠.(2016).語義角色範疇對比分析. 中國俄語教學(04),21-24.
李琳瑩.(1999).介詞“對”的意義和用法考察. 天津師大學報(社會科學版)(04),71-75.
李濟洪,王瑞波,王蔚林&李國臣.(2010).漢語框架語義角色的自動標注.軟體學報(04),597-611.
汪靈靈.(2005).日本學生學習漢語介詞“對”、“給”的偏誤. 零陵學院學報(01),123-125.
周洋.(2013).韓國留學生習得對象類介詞“對、向、給”的偏誤分析(碩士學位論文,吉林大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201302&filename=1013188968.nh
周穎.(2009).漢語常用介詞“給”、“跟”、“對”、“向”、“為”的研究及其教學(碩士學位論文,新疆大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD2010&filename=2009196359.nh
孟令恩,李穎,何彥青,屈鵬 & 王惠臨.(2014).基於語義角色標注的專利主題提取研究. 圖書情報工作(19),19-24.
孟宇.(2011).基於對外漢語教學的對象類介詞“對、向、給”研究(碩士學位論文,瀋陽師範大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD2011&filename=1011084408.nh
祁坤鈺.(2014).基於依存關係的藏文語義角色標注研究. 西北民族大學學報(哲學社會科學版)(01),139-143.
邵敬敏,周芍.(2005).語義特徵的界定與提取方法. 外語教學與研究(01),21-28+81.
侯學超.(1998).現代漢語虛詞詞典.[M].北京：北京大學出版社
柏曉鵬.(2017).中文命題庫的全局性語義角色標注及其對漢語研究的影響. 語言科學(05),481-492.
唐美華.(2018).格語法視域下的漢語語序與語義角色關係探究. 北京化工大學學報(社會科學版)(04),54-59.
徐馨竹.(2016).對外漢語教學中對象類介詞研究(碩士學位論文,安徽大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201602&filename=1016128354.nh
珠傑,仁青諾布,春燕,拉巴頓珠 & 索朗次仁.(2018).論元角色的藏語語義角色標注研究. 高原科學研究(03),85-96.
袁明軍,張慧晶.(1999).語義特徵研究概觀. 漢語學習(05),24-31.
崔希亮. (2001). 漢語空間方位場景與論元的凸顯. 世界漢語教學, 4, 3-11.
張川鈺.(2013).初級階段留學生對象類介詞教學設計(碩士學位論文,遼寧大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201401&filename=1013322666.nh
張松松, & 沈菲菲. (2017). 漢語動詞分類的認知研究. 揚州大學學報: 人文社會科學版, 21(1), 121-128.
張紅.(2016).情感動詞的語義遷移. 中國俄語教學(03),69-72.
陳祖榮. (1995). 淺談動詞的分類問題. 西華師範大學學報: 哲學社會科學版, (1), 56-58.
稅昌錫&邵敬敏.(2006).論語義特徵的語法分類. 漢語學習(01),14-21.
稅昌錫.(2005).語義特徵分析的作用和語義特徵的提取. 北方論叢(03),66-70.
馮國麗&於秀金.(2019).類型學視角下漢語的格配置與語義角色連續統. 外國語言文學(05),465-484.
黃辛.(2015).母語為英語的留學生習得對象類介詞“對、向”偏誤分析(碩士學位論文,福建師範大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201601&filename=1015713495.nh
楊鳳玲,周俏麗,蔡東風 & 季鐸.(2018).結合短語結構句法的語義角色標注. 中文資訊學報(06),1-11.
賈冰.(2015).對外漢語教學中對象類介詞的偏誤分析(碩士學位論文,黑龍江大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201601&filename=1015379418.nh
劉一韜.(2015).基於漢語虛詞用法的語義角色標注研究(碩士學位論文,鄭州大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201601&filename=1015302977.nh
劉月華等.(2010).實用現代漢語語法(增訂本).[M].北京：商務印書館
劉亞慧,楊浩蘋,李正華&張民.(2020).一種羽量級的漢語語義角色標注規範. 中文資訊學報(04),10-20.
潘泰.(2018).移動義兩用動詞的語義句法特徵分析. 湖北社會科學(08),126-131.
鄧守信. (1985). 漢語動詞的時間結構. 語言教學與研究, (4), 7-17.
鄧渝.(2015).歐美中高級水準留學生對象類介詞習得順序初探——以南京大學海外教育學院歐美留學生為例. 連雲港師範高等專科學校學報(04),49-54.
鄭亞楠.(2017).基於LSTM的漢語語義角色標注研究(碩士學位論文,西藏大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201702&filename=1017710104.nh
樸重奎. (1996). 現代漢語中變化動詞的再分類問題. 漢語學習, (6), 50-53.
戴琪.(2015).留學生漢語常用對象類介詞的偏誤分析(碩士學位論文,安徽大學).https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201602&filename=1016049792.nh
羅秋月. (1989). 現代漢語動詞再分類問題初探. 福建師大福清分校學報, (2), 39-44.
蘇娣.(2020).淺議語義配價和語義角色. 現代交際(14),82-83.
外文文献
Chappell, H., & Peyraube, A. (2008). Chinese localizers: Diachrony and some typological considerations. In Space in languages of China (pp. 15-37). Springer, Dordrecht.
De Vries, H. (2019). Collective nouns. Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number.
Du, W., & Tan, S. (2010). Optimizing modularity to identify semantic orientation of Chinese words. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 5094-5100.
Gardelle, L. (2018). Are there any collective nouns among lexical plurals in English?. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 63(1), 25-41.
Han, Z., Mo, Q., Zuo, M., & Duan, D. (2010, October). Efficiently identifying semantic orientation algorithm for Chinese words. In 2010 International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling (ICCASM 2010) (Vol. 2, pp. V2-260). IEEE.
Hatzivassiloglou, V., & McKeown, K. (1997, July). Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In 35th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and 8th conference of the european chapter of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 174-181).
Hu, X. (2019). Mandarin Localizers: Their Grammatical Category and Syntactic Distribution. The Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research, 9(1), 4.
Lamarre, C. (2013). When lexicalization meets grammaticalization: The development of “wang+ path” adverbials in Northern Chinese. Breaking down the barriers: Interdisciplinary studies in Chinese linguistics and beyond, 2, 887-909.
Lin, J. (2013). Thing-place distinction and localizer distribution in Chinese directed motion construction. Linguistics, 51(5), 855-891.
Nie, X., & Liu, F. H. (2021). Disyllabic Localizers in Modern Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 49(1), 1-39.
Sparvoli, C. (2018). A conceptual restructuring of spatial motion expressions in Chinese L2. Frontiers in Psychology, 1698.
Xu, T., Peng, Q., & Cheng, Y. (2012). Identifying the semantic orientation of terms using S-HAL for sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 35, 279-289.
Yao, J., Wu, G., Liu, J., & Zheng, Y. (2006, September). Using bilingual lexicon to judge sentiment orientation of Chinese words. In The Sixth IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT'06) (pp. 38-38). IEEE.
Yuen, R. W., Chan, T. Y., Lai, T. B., Kwong, O. O., & Tsou, B. K. (2004). Morpheme-based derivation of bipolar semantic orientation of Chinese words. In COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1008-1014).
Zhu, Y., Wen, Z., Wang, P., & Peng, Z. (2009, November). A method of building Chinese basic semantic lexicon based on word similarity. In 2009 Chinese Conference on Pattern Recognition (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Zwarts, J. (2020, September). Contiguity and membership and the typology of collective nouns. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 539-554).