構式語法主張構式為形式與意義及功能的結合體，每一個構式都有其獨特的語義及篇章功能，即便是兩種語意相近的構式，其篇章功能必不同(Goldberg, 1992)。構式語法重視整體構式義與功能的論點為語言學習提供新的學習方式，有別於以往只注重形式的學習，構式語法重視語言使用功能，除增加學習者對構式義的了解也讓語言的學習更全面。由於現今有關構式語法與二語教學及學習的研究不多，本研究旨在探究基於構式語法的教學對現代漢語雙及物構式語法及功能學習之成效。雙賓構式與介賓構式為語義相近，功能(信息結構)不同的兩種雙及物構式。與介賓構式相比，當領事論元為已知信息時，常傾向以雙賓構式表達(Goldberg, 2003)。
本研究實驗對象為27位華語初級學習者，其中11位接受語法翻譯教學法(控制組)，16位接受構式觀教學(實驗組)。兩組分別於實驗前後進行語法合法度判斷測驗(grammaticality judgement test)與引導式問答測驗，前者檢測兩組語法知識學習之成效，後者則檢視兩組對構式功能(信息結構)之了解。研究結果顯示：(一)兩組在語法合法度判斷後測的表現並無顯著差異，實驗組與控制組學習成效皆顯著高於前測。(二)在引導式問答題上，實驗組學習成效顯著高於控制組，尤其是在處理信息結構上，實驗組較控制組了解如何依據對話中的新舊信息選擇合適的構式回答。本研究結果說明構式觀教學能幫助學習者了解兩構式間的功能差異，並能夠在對話中使用合適的構式。

Construction grammar (CxG) proposed that “constructions” are form-meaning pairs. Every construction is characterized by particular semantics and discourse functions. Two constructions with similar meaning must be different in functions (Goldberg, 1992). The emphasis on meaning and function provides a new approach to learning. Unlike the past that emphasized the form, CxG values the function. Such approach helps learners learn language in a more integrated way. Since few studies focus on CxG-based instruction on second language teaching and learning, this research aims to investigate the effect of the CxG-based instruction on Chinese ditransitive constructions. The ditransitive and prepositional paraphrases are forms that share similar semantics, but different functions. When the recipient argument is a given information in the discourse, ditransitive construction is used more often than prepositional paraphrases (Goldberg, 2003). 27 Chinese learners at the beginning level participated in this study. 11 learners were in the Grammar Translation Method group (the control group), while 16 learners were under CxG-based instruction (the experimental group). Both groups took the Grammaticality judgement pre- and post-test, and oral production pre- and post-task. The former test was to examine the effect on grammar knowledge learning; the latter aims at the learning effect of discourse functions. The result shows that no significant difference between two groups in grammaticality judgement posttest. In the oral production post-task, the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group, especially in tackling the information structure. They gain a better understanding of Construction functions. CxG-based instruction enables learners to realize functions between two constructions, and know how to use it properly in the conversation.

王惠（2005）。從構式語法理論看漢語詞義研究。中華民國計算語言學會。4（10），495-508。

王燦龍（2000）。人稱代詞「他」的照應功能研究。中國語文，3，228-237。

王洪明（2015）。俄漢雙及物構式對比。俄羅斯語言文學與文化研究，4，22-30。

石毓智（2004）。漢英雙賓結構差別的概念化原因。載於劉正光(主編)。構式語法研究（頁245-258）。上海：上海外語出版社。

朱德熙（2007）。語法講義。香港：商務印書館。

李敏（2006）。雙賓動詞的詞彙語意和雙賓句式語義的互動。世界漢語教學, 4, 55-66。

李敏（2007）。現代漢語雙賓句的再認識。語言教學與研究，6，38-44。

李淑静（2001）。英漢語雙及物結構式比較。外語與外語教學，6，12-14。

呂淑湘（1985）。近代漢語指代詞。上海：學林出版社。

何曉煒（2009）。雙及物結構的語義表達研究。外語教學與研究，41，18-24。

沈家煊 (2002)。如何處置 “處置式”？——論把字句的主觀性。中國語文，5。

林艷（2013）。漢語雙賓構式句法語義研究。北京：北京語言大學。

林正軍與劉永兵（2012）。構式語法視閾下的英語語法教學。外語教學理論與實踐，1，51-57。

屈承熹與紀宗仁（1999）。漢語認知功能語法。台北：文鶴

胡邦岳（2017）。第二語言教學中雙賓句構式-語塊教學法及其教學順序。 華文教學與研究，3，62-70。

陸儉明（2004）。構式語法理論與漢語研究。載於劉正光(主編)，構式語法研究(頁21-29)。上海：上海外語出版社。

陸儉明（2004）。詞語句法、語義的多功能性：對構式語法理論的解釋。外國語, 2（2）, 15-20.

黃宣範（譯）（2008）。漢語語法（原作者：Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.）。台北：文鶴。

黃居仁、張莉萍、安可思與陳超然（1999）。詞彙語意和句式語意的互動關係。中國境內語言暨語言學，5，413-438。

陳滿華（2009）。構式語法理論對二語教學的啟示。 語言教學與研究，4，64-70。

靳洪剛（2004）。第二語言習得與語言形式為中心的結構教學探討。二十一世紀華語文中心營運策略與教學國際研討會，24-35。

張伯江 (1999)。現代漢語的雙及物結構式。中國語文，3，175-184。

湯廷池 （1985）。國語的雙賓結構。載於湯廷池（主編）。國語語法研究論集（頁197-225）。台北市：學生書局。

熊學亮（2007）。英漢語雙賓構式探析。外語教學與研究，4（39），261-267。

劉丹青（2001）。漢語給予類雙及物結構的類型學考察。中國語文，5，387-479。

鄧雲華與石毓智（2007）。論構式語法的進步與侷限。載於劉正光(主編)，構式語法研究（頁54-67）。上海：上海外語出版社。

鄧守信（2010）。對外漢語教學語法。北京：北京語言大學出版社。

蘇丹潔（2010）。試析構式-語塊教學法—以存現句教學實驗為例。漢語學習，2，83-90。

蘇丹潔（2011）。構式語塊教學法的實質—以兼語句教學及實驗為例。語言教學與研究，2，16-22。

Ariel, M. (2000). The development of person agreement markers: from pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds). Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 197-260). Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Langauge and Information)

Aqel, I. M. (2013). The effect of using grammar-translation method on acquiring English as a foreign language. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(12), 2469-2476.

Assalahi, H. M. (2013). Why Is the Grammar-translation Method Still Alive in the Arab World? Teachers' Beliefs and Its implications for EFL Teacher Education. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 589-599

Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28-55.

Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 418-429.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Bybee, J.. & Thompson, S. (2000). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 65-85.

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 711-733.

Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson and N. Ellis (eds.) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 216-236). New York: Routledge,

Chang, S‐C. (2011). A Contrastive Study of Grammar Translation Method and CommunicativeApproach in Teaching English Grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2). 13‐24.

Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1992). Second Language Acquisition &Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ellis, N. C. (2008). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 216-236). John Wiley & Sons. John Wiley & Sons.

Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira–Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370-385.

Goldberg, A. (1992). Argument structure constructions, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley

Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to
language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224.

Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. (2008). Construction learning and second language acquisition. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 197-215). New York: Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 199-244.

Halliday, M. A. (1970). Language structure and language function. New Horizons in Linguistics, 1, 140-165.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holme, R. (2010). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 23(1), 115-133.

Leech, Goeffrey. (1982) English Grammar for Today. London: The Macmillan Press.

Lin, A. F. P., & Chen, C. Y. D. (2010). Acquiring Double Object Verbs in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 7(3), 109-146.

Liu, F. H. (2006). Dative constructions in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 7(4), 863-904.

Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (2000). Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Langauge and Information)

Matamoros-González, J. A., Rojas, M. A., Romero, J. P., Vera-Quiñonez, S., & Soto, S. T. (2017). English language teaching approaches: A comparison of the grammar-translation, audiolingual, communicative, and natural approaches. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11), 965-973.

Marefat, H. (2005). The impact of information structure as a discourse factor on the acquisition of dative alternation by L2 learners. Studia linguistica, 59(1), 66-82.

Newson D. (1998). Translation and Foreign Language Learning. In K. Malmkjær (ed.), Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation (pp.63-68), Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.

Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108-127.

Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2017). Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition, 168, 276-293.

Peter Robison & Nick C. Ellis. (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistic and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siregar, R. (2018). Grammar based translation method in translation teaching. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 6(2). 148-154.

Su, D., & Tao, H. (2018). Teaching the shi…de construction with authentic materials in elementary Chinese. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 111-140.

Tenuta, A. M., & Oliveira, A. L. A. M. (2015). The functional/cognitive principle of information structure in texts: discourse pressures and syntactic devices for English as L2 learners. Linguagem em (Dis) Curso, 15(1), 117-135.

Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York: NY: Routledge.

教材

國立臺灣師範大學國語中心（2015）。當代中文課程課本1。台北：聯經。

國立臺灣師範大學國語中心（2015）。當代中文課程課本2。台北：聯經。

國立臺灣師範大學國語中心（2016）。當代中文課程課本3。台北：聯經。

謝佳玲（主編）（2017）。新版實用視聽華語1(第三版)。台北：正中書局。

國立臺灣師範大學（主編）（2017）。新版實用視聽華語2(第二版)。台北：正中書局。