臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討以英語為外語的學習者(English as a foreign language learners, EFL learners)對於句法理論中孤島限制(island constraints)的語言認知是否會受到母語的影響。英文疑問詞的移位現象是形成疑問句的必要條件，而中文則否，這是中文和英文的疑問句句法最大差異之一。但是Ross (1967)發現英文裡的移位現象並非毫無限制，至少有六種句法結構會限制移位現象，並將此六種結構命名為「孤島限制」。而中文在形成疑問句的過程中並不會產生疑問詞移位現象，所以疑問詞的移位現象在被認為是「疑問詞原位」(wh-in-situ)的中文裡，則預期不會被任何孤島限制所影響。不過，由於兩個疑問附加語 (wh-adjuncts)「為什麼」why和「怎麼樣」how在中文和英文的相似表現，因此在孤島限制的環境下，此兩個疑問附加語並不會受到孤島限制的影響。
鑒於上述的相似與相異處，本研究探討兩個假設。第一個假設是當以中文為母語的英語學習者在處理包含孤島限制的英語句子時，中文會影響甚至妨礙英語學習者的語言認知；第二個假設則是以中文和英文在疑問附加語的相似表現為基礎，當以中文為母語的英語學習者在處理疑問附加語包孕在孤島限制的英語句子時，中文可以幫助英語學習者的語言認知。
在北台灣的某所大學中，計有六十六名主修英語的大學生被隨機挑選來參與此項研究。兩項測驗由研究者自行設計，讓受試者根據所提供的中文翻譯來判斷英文句子是否合乎語法。另外，為了探討受試者所具備的特定文法知識，研究者在兩項測驗結束後進行半開放式訪談(semi-structured interview)。
研究結果顯示在判斷包含孤島限制的英文句子是否合乎語法時，以中文為母語的英語學習者並未受到母語的顯著影響，因為以中文為母語的英語學習者能判斷出語法正確與否。此外，在判斷包含孤島限制的英文句子是否合乎語法上，擁有較長的英語學習時間以及較廣泛的學術閱讀經驗的英語學習者表現得比英語學習時間較短以及學術閱讀經驗較少的英語學習者好。但是，只要英文句子包含超過一個以上的句法特徵，以中文為母語的英語學習者在判斷語法正確與否就很有可能被中文所影響。
至於兩個疑問附加語「為什麼」why和「怎麼樣」how，在閱讀完所提供的情境之後，以中文為母語的英語學習者有能力判斷出相對應於包含疑問附加語的孤島限制之英文句子較為合適的中文解釋。並且，研究結果也顯示，以中文為母語的英語學習者傾向用疑問詞來修飾最靠近疑問詞的子句，此種傾向和Chomsky的經濟原則(economy conditions)相符合(1991, 1993)。

This thesis aims to investigate whether or not Chinese EFL (English as a foreign language) learners’ perception on English sentences would be influenced by their L1 with respect to syntactic island constraints. Ross (1967) discovers that not all movements in English are free and terms this phenomenon as ‘syntactic island constraint’. Specifically, six kinds of configurations – complex noun phrase islands, wh-islands, sentential subject islands, coordinate structure islands, adjunct islands, left-branch islands – will block wh-movements even though the movements are otherwise required in English. On the other hand, Chinese, being genetically distant from English, is perceived as a wh-in-situ language. One would thus expect that Chinese is not constrained by islands since no movement has to take place. As a matter of fact, this is really the case, except for two wh-adjuncts weishenme ‘why’ and zenmeyang ‘how’. In particular, the two adjuncts are not felicitous in island contexts, suggesting that Chinese and English are similar as far as the two adjuncts are concerned. Granted the similarity and difference, two assumptions are tested in this paper. The first is that Chinese learners of English might be influenced, or even obstructed by their native language when dealing with English sentences containing syntactic islands. The second one is that Chinese learners of English would be helped by their L1 when learning English sentences because the two languages behave alike with respect to the aforementioned wh-adjuncts under the island contexts. Sixty-six students who are majoring in English in a college in northern Taiwan are randomly selected to participate in the study. Based on the Chinese translation provided, two self-designed tests are administrated to the participants in order to judge the grammaticality. A semi-structured interview, aiming to explore certain grammatical knowledge possessed by the participants, is later conducted after the tests are carried out. The research findings suggest that Chinese EFL learners are not influenced by their L1 in judging the sentences with syntactic island constraints when the two languages exhibit differences in this regard because they are able to judge the grammaticality in the sentences with an island embedded. Besides, Chinese EFL learners who have longer years of English learning and more extensive academic reading have a better performance than those who have shorter years of English learning and less extensive academic reading. However, the research findings imply that their grammaticality judgment is likely to be influenced by their L1 as long as the sentences contain more than one syntactic features. As for the two adjuncts, Chinese EFL learners are capable of judging the appropriate Chinese interpretations based on the English sentences with wh-adjuncts embedded in an island constraint after reading the context provided. In addition, the results in acceptability judgment test show the fact that Chinese EFL learners have the tendency to view the wh-word as the modifier of the nearest clause, which can be accounted by Chomsky’s economy conditions (1991, 1993).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
ACKOWLEDGMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation of the Study 1
1.2 Significance of the Study 4
1.3 Research Questions 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEWS 6
2.1 Syntactic Islands 6
2.1.1 Islands in English 7
2.1.1.1 Complex NP Islands 8
2.1.1.2 Wh-Islands 9
2.1.1.3 Sentential Subject Islands 9
2.1.1.4 Coordinate Structure Islands 10
2.1.1.5 Adjunct Islands 12
2.1.1.6 Left-Branch Islands 13
2.1.1.7 Interim Summary 15
2.1.2 Islands in Chinese 15
2.1.3 Comparison of Syntactic Islands in English and in Chinese 21
2.2 Language Transfer 22
2.2.1 Language Transfer in SLA 22
2.2.2 Language Transfer and Universal Grammar 25
2.2.3 Studies on Wh-interrogatives in Terms of Language Transfer 27
2.2.3.1 Language Performance of ESL or EFL Learners 29
2.2.3.2 Language Performance of Learners with Chinese as Second Language 31
2.3 Literature on Empirical Studies 32
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 36
3.1 Participants 36
3.2 Instruments 37
3.3 Data Collection 42
3.3.1 Pilot Study 42
3.3.2 Formal Study 43
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 45
4.1 Results of Grammatical Judgment Test 45
4.1.1 CNP Islands 47
4.1.2 Sentential Subject Islands 51
4.1.3 Wh-Islands 53
4.1.4 Adjunct Islands 57
4.1.5 Coordinate Structure Islands 59
4.1.6 Comparison of Each Island Constraint 61
4.1.7 Distractors without Islands Embedded 65
4.1.8 Interim Summary 68
4.2 Results of Acceptability Judgment Test 69
4.2.1 Why in islands 71
4.2.2 How in islands 75
4.2.3 Interim Summary 82
4.3 Results of Semi-Structured Interview 83
4.3.1 Five General Interview Questions 84
4.3.2 Interim Summary 91
4.3.3 Some Test Questions to be Reconsidered 92
4.4 Discussion of Research Questions 99
4.4.1 Research Question 1 100
4.4.2 Research Question 2 103
4.4.3 Research Question 3 105
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 107
5.1 Summary of Main Findings 107
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 109
5.3 Theoretical Implications 110
5.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for the Future Research 111
REFERENCES 113
APPENDICES 121
Appendix A: Grammatical and Acceptability Judgment Test (Chinese Version) 121
Appendix B: Grammatical and Acceptability Judgment Test (English Version) 125
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form (Chinese Version) 130
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form (English Version) 131
Appendix E: Interview Questions (For Senior) 132
Appendix F: Interview Questions (For Sophomore) 133
Appendix G: Transcribing Data of Semi-Structured Interview (Chinese Version) 134

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Test Items in Grammatical Judgment Test. 38
Table 2. Distractors in Grammatical Judgment Test (With Island Constraints) 39
Table 3. Distractors in Grammatical Judgment Test (Without Island Constraints) 39
Table 4. Item Distribution of Acceptability Judgment Test 40
Table 5. Response Distribution of CNP Island Constraint. 48
Table 6. Response Distribution of Sentential Subject Island Constraint. 51
Table 7. Response Distribution of Wh-Island Constraint. 55
Table 8. Response Distribution of Adjunct Island Constraint. 57
Table 9. Response Distribution of Coordinate Island Constraint. 60
Table 10. Response Distribution of Distractors with Islands Embedded. 66
Table 11. Response Distribution of ‘why’ in an island. 73
Table 12. Response Distribution of ‘how’ in an island. 80

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Overall Distributions of Five Types of Island Constraints for 4th Group. 46
Figure 2. Overall Distributions of Five Types of Island Constraints for 2nd Group. 46
Figure 3. Correct Responses of Five Types of Island Constraints. 62
Figure 4. Incorrect Responses for Five Types of Island Constraints. 63
Figure 5. Overall Distribution of ‘why’ and ‘how’ for 4th Participants. 70
Figure 6. Overall Distribution of ‘why’ and ‘how’ for 2nd participants. 71

REFERENCES
Baciu, I., &; Crăiniceanu, I. (2007). Blocking effects in the double object construction. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, (1), 181-188.
Birner, B. &; Ward. G. (1994). Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. In Susanne, G et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 93-102). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). NY: Pearson education.
Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Malden, MA : Blackwell Pub.
Chan, A. Y-W. (2004). Syntactic Transfer: Evidence from the Interlanguage of Hong Kong Chinese ESL Learners. Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 56-74.
Chen, J. (1999). The role of first language transfer and second language proficiency in the writing of Chinese learners of English as a second language. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Cho, K. S. and Krashen, S. (1995). Becoming a dragon: progress in English as a second language through narrow free voluntary reading. California Reader, 29, 9-10.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Janua Linguarum 4.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1991) Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. In R. Friedin, (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 417-454). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Christophersen, P. (1939). The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.
Constantino, R. (1994). Pleasure reading helps, even if students don't believe it. Journal of Reading, 37, 504-505.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 160–170.
Corver, N. (1990). The syntax of left branch extractions. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, Netherlands.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dugarova, E. (2011). English Speakers’ L2 Chinese Wh-topicalization: Movement or Base-Generation? In Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011), ed. Julia Herschensohn and Darren Tanner, 45-53. Somerville, MA: Cascasilla Proceedings Project.
Dulay, H., &; Burt, M. (1974a). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 129-136.
Dulay, H., &; Burt, M. (1974b). Natural sequences in children second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Gass, S. M. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory: The Role of Language Transfer. In Flynn, S &; O’Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 384-403). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-330.
Eckman, F. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195-216.
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: the effect of bookbased programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411.
Emonds, J., &; Whitney, R. (2006). Double Object Constructions. The Blackwell companion to syntax, 73-144.
Eubank, L. (1993/94). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition, 3, 183–208.
Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In Hoekstra, T.&; Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, (pp. 369–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. (1965). Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Massachusetts Institute of Technology; also published by Garland Publishing, New York (1998).
Huang, C-T.J., Li, Y.H.A.,&; Li, Y.(2009). The Syntax of Chinese. England: Cambridge.
Huang, W-L. (1997). The Instruction and the Development of Interrogative Construction in EFL Child Learners in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman.
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 121–51.
Juffs, A., &; Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483–516.
Kellerman, E., &; Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon
Kellerman, E. (1995). Cross-linguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125-150.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lai, H. Y. (2008). The Acquisition of Wh-Movement by Adult Chinese Speakers of L2 English (Unpublished master’s thesis). DaYeh University, Taiwan.
Lee, J. H. (2009). A Subject-Object Asymmetry in the Comprehension of wh-Questions by Korean Learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 31 (1), 136-155.
Li, C. N., &; Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, J. W. (2002). Selectional restrictions of tenses and temporal reference of Chinese bare sentences. Lingua, 113(3), 271-302.
Lin, J. W. (2006). Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23(1), 1-53.
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in geography, 117-132.
Oldin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. &; Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436-486). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Perlmutter, D. M. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Pilgreen, J. and Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained silent reading with English as a second language high school students: impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly, 22, 21-23.
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Ross, J. R. (1986). Infinite syntax! Norwood: Ablex.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24(2), 205-214.
Schachter, J. &; Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments: Why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 379-92.
Schwartz, B. &; Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40-72.
Sjöholm, K. (1976). A comparison of the test results in grammar and vocabulary between Finnish- and Swedish-speaking applicants for English. In H. Ringbom &; R. Palmberg (Eds.), Errors made by Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns in the learning of English. Abo, Finland: Department of English, Abo Akademi.
Smith, C. &; Erbaugh, M. (2001). Temporal information in sentences of Mandarin. In New views in Chinese syntactic research: International Symposium on Chinese Grammar for the New Millennium. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Jiaoyu Chuban she.
Smith, C. &; Erbaugh, M. (2005). Temporal interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, 43, 713-756.
Takita, K., Fuji, C., Kabuto, Y., Watanabe, E., &; Fujii, T. (2007). Category-Based Unselective Binding: Evidence From Japanese. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1 (2), 91-98.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994a). On nominal islands and LF extractions in Chinese. Natural Language &; Linguistic Theory, 12, 121–175.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994b). On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.
Vainikka, A. &; Young-Scholten, M. (l996a). The early stages of adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12(2), 140-176.
Vainikka, A. &; Young-Scholten, M. (1996b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12 (1), 7-39.
van Riemsdijk, H. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of
prepositional phrases. Lisse, The Netherlands: The Peter de Ridder Press.
White, L. (1988). Island Effects in Second Language Acquisition. In Flynn, S. &; O’Neil, W. (Eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 144-172). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
White, L &; Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of nonnative language acquisition: Competence and processing. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., &; O’Neil, W. (Eds), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 111-29). Erlbaum.
Wiland, B. (2010). Overt evidence from Left-Branch Extraction in Polish for punctuated paths. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(2), 335-347.
Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-Board Rule Application, Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 31-43.
Yuan, B. (2004). Negation in French–Chinese, German–Chinese and English–Chinese Interlanguages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102 (2), 169-197.
Yuan, B. (2007). Behaviours of wh-words in English speakers’ L2 Chinese wh-questions: Evidence of no variability, temporary variability and persistent variability in L2 grammars. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 277-289.
Wood, F. T. (1956). Gerund versus infinitive. ELT Journal, 11(1), 11-16.