過去漢語詞類系統經常沿襲西方語言學的傳統劃分模式與命名，劃分標準則多採以語義、句法和詞形等綜合判斷的折衷主義 (eclecticism) ，易造成「就 (預設) 詞類推論劃分標準」的作法，缺乏漢語詞類發現程序的具體操作，亦忽略漢語的語言特性及跨語言的對應關係，將傳統的漢語詞類系統運用於華語教學上，產生諸多負遷移之影響。
本文檢視Jackendoff (1977) 、Wierzbicka (2000) 、Croft (1991) 等學者從生成語法、原型理論及型態句法的角度提出詞類劃分的不同模組，進一步探討三者應用於劃分漢語詞類時的適切性和優缺點。本文採Croft (1991) 的主要詞類劃分模組，輔以Hengeveld (1992) 語言詞類類型劃分，初步建立劃分漢語詞類之架構。並討論劃分漢語詞類的先備條件，藉以釐清漢語詞法與句法的界面，以便於句法層面上討論劃分漢語詞類的句法測試程序，並說明本文提出的詞類之句法測試如何處理漢語詞類兼類與名物化問題。
詞類本為理論語言學運作的基本單位，應用於教學上時，則產生依不同教學法、不同程度或不同學習對象所訂定的權宜分類，因此目前華語教材的詞類表仍是眾家紛紜，詞類的劃分標準、詞類的數目、詞類術語 (terminology) 及詞類於教材語法點中之編寫等形同雜集，此現象不利於漢語教學語法 (pedagogical grammar) 之建構。教學語法的編寫須考量L1與L2跨語言之間的對應關係，詞類於跨語言間的不對應性是造成L2學習者負遷移的常見因素，對於L1與L2可相對應之詞類 (如三大詞類) ，卻經常能達到正遷移之效，因此完善漢語詞類系統可助語法教學事半功倍之力。
鑑於此，本文從L2學習者於漢語詞類使用的偏誤現象著眼，探討對外漢語教材詞類標記之使用現況，並以本文提出的漢語詞類劃分架構為軸，建立基於教學語法理念的漢語詞類系統與個別詞類的編寫要點，冀於日後能將漢語詞類的教學語法推廣納為華語教學領域內，以提升對外華語教材素質與教學品質。

With respect to Western languages there has been a long tradition of categorizing words for the purpose of grammatical description. The field of Chinese linguistics commonly follows these Western categorization conventions and tries to apply criterions such as semantics, syntax, morphology and other such conventions, when definining Chinese word classes. As a consequence of this and because of the absence of a convincing discovery procedure and the lack of inter-language corresponding relations, there is an intrinsic risk of negative transfers when teaching Chinese as a second language.
This thesis inspects various models of Parts of Speech such as the ones proposed by Jackendoff (1977), Wiezbicka (2000), Croft (1991) or Hengeveld (1992) containing different approachs to grammar theory such as Generative Grammar, Prototype Theory and Markedness Theory. This thesis adopts mainly Croft’s major parts-of-speech model and compares it to Hengeveld’s WFM principle of differentiating parts-of-speech systems with the objective of establishing the basic foundations of a proper Chinese part-of-speech system. In order to attain this goal, the thesis proposes Chinese wordhood tests and syntactic diagnostic tests, and explains in greater detail how the syntactics tests could be used to analyze Chinese peculiarities such as zero diversion and nominalization.
The traditional theoretical linguistics model usually begins with the definition of a parts-of-speech system and when this methodology is applied to teach Chinese as a second language, it is modified to various expedient classification systems according to different teaching methodologies, student levels and learning targets. Therefore, at present the utilization of grammatical categories in Chinese textbooks is still a disparate mix of models that handicaps the goal to establish a more suitable Chinese pedagogical grammar. The asymmetry of inter-language parts-of-speech systems is the main factor for negative transfers, and to reverse the situation we should aim to perfect and establish a symetric Chinese parts of speech system and the theories that sustain it, with the clear objective of reaching the high desirable positive transfer scenario.
In consideration of these facts, the thesis tackles the common errors of Chinese parts of speech aimed to L2 learners and discusses the actual status quo of parts of speech in Chinese teaching textbooks. The thesis establishes the ideal model of a Chinese parts of speech system and the necessary principles required to compile particular word classes using a strong pedagogical grammar base. The purpose of this thesis is to bring into the TCSL field an accurate Chinese parts-of-speech system in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of Chinese textbooks and Chinese language instructions.

Anward, J. (2000). A Dynamic Model of Part-of-speech Differentiation. In B. C. Petra M. Vogel (Ed.), Approaches to Typology of Word Classes (pp. 3-45). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical Categories: verbs, nouns,and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1968 ). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaun (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184-221). MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht.
Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cook, V. J. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Oxford: Bazil Blackwell.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (2000). Parts of speech as typological universals and as language particular categories. In B. C. Petra M. Vogel (Ed.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (pp. 65–102). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Curme, G. O. (1935). Parts of Speech and Accidence. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.
Dixon, R. (1995). Complement Clauses and Complement Strategies. In J. Lyons & F. R. Palmer (Eds.), Grammar and Meaning (pp. 175-220). Cambrige: Cambrige Univerisity Press.
Duanmu, S. (1998). Wordhood in Chinese. In J. L. Packard (Ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient Chinese (pp. 135-196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Emonds, J. (1985). A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Foris: Dordrecht.
Gil, D. (2000). Syntactic Categories, Cross-linguistic Variation and Universal Grammar. In B. C. Petra M. Vogel (Ed.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (pp. 173-216). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a Functional-typological Introduction (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An Introduction (Vol. 1). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Word classes and parts of speech. In P. B. Baltes & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 16538-16545). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax: a generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hengeveld, K. (1992). Parts of speech. In M. Fortescue, P. Harder & L. Kristoffersen (Eds.), Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective (pp. 29-55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hengeveld, K. (2007). Parts-of-speech systems and morphological types. ACLC Working Papers 2007(1), 31-48.
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Huang, J. C.-T. (1984). Phrase strcture, lexical integrity and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 19(2), 53-78.
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jesperson, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
Kapatsinski, V., & Riordan, B. (2005). Homography in Russian and English (Publication. Retrieved http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/busey/q551/Phenomenology/Homonymy%20BV_2.pdf, from Indiana University:
Lakoff, G. (1987). 女人、火與危險事物:範疇所揭示之心智的奧秘《Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About The Mind》. 台北: 桂冠圖書公司.（梁玉玲、楊靜寬、王稼鈞，1994（中譯本））.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (2003). Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Little, D. (1994). Words and their Properties: Arguments for a Lexical Approach to Pedagogical Grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Odlin, T., & Natalicio, D. (1982). Some Characteristcs of Word Classification in a Second Language. The Modern Language Journal, 66(1), 34-38.
Rijkhoff, J. (2000). When can a language have adjectives? An implicational universal. In B. C. Petra M. Vogel (Ed.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Robins, R. H. (1990). A Short History of Linguistics (3rd ed.). London and New York: Longman.
Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Schachter, P. (1985). Parts-of-Speech Systems. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. 1, pp. 3-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts : an essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP. .
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic Categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teng, S.-h. (1975). A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Teng, S.-h. (1990). Chinese Grammatical Categories. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Chinese Language, Singapore.
Teng, S.-h. (1997). Towards a pedagogical grammar of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 32(3), 29-40.
Teng, S.-h. (2003). Grammatical descriptions in L2 Chinese. 世界漢語教學( 1), 75-86
Whaley, L. J. (1997). Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language Newbury Park: Sage.
Wierzbicka, A. (2000). Lexical prototypes as a universal basis for cross-linguistic identification of "parts of speech". In B. C. Petra M. Vogel (Ed.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (pp. 285-317). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

丁邦新譯（2002）。中國話的文法（增訂版）。台北：學生書局（趙元任，1968）
王力（1954）。中國語法理論。北京：中華書局。
王力（1985）。中國現代語法。北京：商務印書館。
王海棻（1991）。馬氏文通與中國語法學。合肥：安徽教育出版社。
史有為（1996）。詞類問題的癥結及其對策--漢語詞類柔性處理試探。胡明揚（編），詞類問題考察（頁56-92）。北京：北京語言文化大學出版社。
朱德熙（1980）。現代漢語語法研究。北京：商務印書館。
朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。北京：商務印書館。
朱德熙（1984）。關於向心結構的定義。中國語文（6），401-403。
朱德熙（1985）。語法答問。北京：商務印書館。
朱德熙（1991）。詞義和詞類。語法研究和探索(五)。北京：語文出版社。
呂必松（2006）。試論二合的生成機制與組合漢語（二）（國際漢語教育學會專稿）。檢自：http://www.isclp.org/mjjt/9.html
呂叔湘（1954）。關於漢語詞類的一些原則性問題。中國語文（9）。選自《呂叔湘集》，2001。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
呂叔湘（1979）。漢語語法分析問題。北京：商務印書館。
呂叔湘（1981）。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
李英哲、盧卓群（1997）。漢語連詞發展過程中的若干特點。湖北大學學報（4），49-55。
李靜延（2003）。從形容詞狀語探討漢語狀語。台北：國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
沈家煊（2000）。認知語法的概括性。外語教學與研究（1）。
汪小寧（1996）。實詞•虛詞•中詞─現代漢語基本詞類劃分新探。安慶師範學院學報(社會科學版) （3），68-70。
邢福義（2003）。詞類辨難。北京：商務印書館。
周國光（2004）。關於現代漢語句法結構系統的理論思考。華南師範大學學報（2），23-34。
易荷梅（2007）。現代漢語「離合詞」的研究及其在教學上之運用的探討。台北：國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
施關淦（1981）。「這本書的出版」中「出版」的詞性。中國語文通訊（4），8-12。
胡明揚（編）（1996）。詞類問題考察。北京：北京語言文化大學出版社。
胡裕樹、范曉（1994）。動詞形容詞的「名物化」與「名詞化」。中國語文（2），81-85。
徐通鏘（2001）。對比和漢語語法研究的方法論。語言研究，4（45），1-7。
高名凱（1953）。關於漢語的詞類分別。中國語文 (10).。
袁毓林（2000）。一個漢語詞類的準公理系統。語言研究（4），1-28。
國家對外漢語教學領導小組辦公室漢語水平考試部（1994）。漢語水平等級標準與語法等級大綱（徵求意見稿）。北京：北京語言學院出版社。
張誼生（2000）。現代漢語副詞研究。上海：學林出版社。
郭銳（2002）。現代漢語詞類研究。北京：商務印書館。
陳立元（2005）。漢語把字句的教學語法。台北：國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文，台北。
陳俊光（2007）。對比分析與教學應用。台北：文鶴出版有限公司。
湯廷池（1992）。漢語詞法句法三集。台北：學生書局。
湯廷池（2000）。漢語語法論集。台北：金字塔出版社。
程工（1999）。語言共性論。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
齊滬揚（編）（2005）。對外漢語教學語法。上海：復旦大學出版社。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（1996）。實用現代漢語語法。臺北：師大書苑出版暨發行 。
劉沛騏（2003）。現代漢語動名兼類和名物化用法之探討。台北：國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文，台北。
劉蘭英&孫全洲（1998）。語法與修辭（上冊）。台北市：新學識文教出版。
鄧守信（2008）。對外漢語教學語法。台北：文鶴出版社（出版中）。
黎錦熙（1960）。語法再討論--詞類區分和名詞問題。中國語文（1）。
錢乃榮（2002 ）。現代漢語概論。台北：師大書苑。
戴會林（2006）。對外漢語教學中的詞類偏誤研究綜述。宿州教育學院學報，9（3），109-111。

辭典與教材

鄧守信、孫珞編（2004）。今日台灣。台中：東海大學華語中心
葉德明主編（2007）。新版實用視聽華語（第一至第四冊）。台北：正中書局
葉德明主編 (1991) 實用視聽華語（第一、二冊）。台北：正中書局
劉珣（2002）新實用漢語課本（第一至三冊）。北京：北京語言文化大學出版社
劉月華等主編（1997）中文聽說讀寫（第一至二冊）。Boston: Cheng & Tsui Company
黃仲珊 & 張陵馨 (編) (1998) 語言與修辭學辭典。 台北： 書林出版公司.