臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討以 中文為母語的兒童對條件句之第一語言習得。主要研究五種中文條件句在標記性、語境、題型及年齡是否會影響兒童對此結構的習得。為了避免潛在的實驗效應，本研究採用兩種實驗題型，解釋測驗與模仿測驗。研究對象包含實驗組：依年齡三到七歲分為五組，每組18人，共90人；及對照組：18位中文為母語的成人。
實驗結果顯示，在條件句的習得中，標記性、語境、題型及年齡皆對兒童認知及表達造成影響。五種條件句可分為無標記性及標記性。對兒童而言，無標記性的句首條件副詞條件句最容易習得，而最讓兒童感到困難的則是標記性的句末條件副詞條件句。此現象同時印證了無標記條件句較標記條件句較早習得之假設。在語境方面，受試者在假設條件句表現地較反事實條件句佳，呼應文獻中兒童的認知發展模式為假設先於反事實。而題型效應則顯示受試者在解釋題型中明顯表現地比模仿測驗好，說明此結構的理解優先於表達。此外，模仿測驗的其他句型分析中，五種不同於標的句型大多來自於受試者較不熟悉的標記性條件句。而受試者最常使用插入策略，亦即插入無標記性的句首條件副詞。在年齡效應方面，六歲是兒童習得中文條件句的轉變期，同時也於此時達到成熟階段。

In first language acquisition, conditionals are regarded as one of the most complicated syntactic constructions, enjoying extensive discussion in the literature. However, few researchers have conducted an empirical study to investigate the competence and performance of Chinese children’s acquisition of conditional sentences. Therefore, the present study aims to probe into Chinese children’s development by investigating the markednesss issues, scenario differences, task effects, production analysis and age effects on the five types of conditionals. A comprehension task (i.e., interpretation task) and a production task (i.e., imitation task) were assigned to 90 Chinese children (aged 3-7), divided into five age groups, and a control group of 18 Chinese speaking adults.
The overall results indicated that the markedness, scenarios, tasks and age were determinant factors in the acquisition of Mandarin Chinese conditionals. The five types exhibited different degrees of difficulty. Type 2 (i.e., clause-initial adverbial conditionals) was found the easiest, and Type 1 (i.e., double adverbial conditionals) and Type 4 (i.e., non-wh-word conditionals) were relatively easier than Type 5 (wh-word conditionals) and Type 3 (i.e., clause-final adverbial conditionals). The results also showed that children performed better on the unmarked types (Types 1, 2 and 4) while the marked types (Types 3 and 5) were found challenging. Concerning the scenarios, it was found that the hypothetical conditionals were acquired prior to the counterfactual conditionals, a result in accord with the literature. As for the task effects, the subjects performed the comprehension task significantly better than the production task. With regard to the production data, it was found that most of the children’s production resulted from Type 3 and Type 5. In addition, Insertion was commonly used by most subjects and they tended to add an unmarked clause-initial conditional adverbial ruguo ‘if’ to produce typical conditional sentences. Finally, it was found that age six was a cutting point where our children performed significantly better than preschoolers and reached the adult grammar.

CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………. i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………..vi
LIST OF TABLES.……………………………………………………….…………...ix
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………xi

Chapter One Introduction…………………………………………………………...1
1.1 Motivation and Purpose………...……………………………………………1
1.2 Research Questions…………………………………………………..5
1.3 Significance of the Study.…………………………………………………….6
1.4 Organization of the Thesis….………………………………………………...6

Chapter Two Literature Review and Classification of Chinese Conditionals...…….7
2.1 Markedness Theory……..……………………………………………………7
2.2 Previous Theoretical Studies of Chinese Conditionals………………………9
2.2.1 Li and Thompson (1981)……………………………………………...9
2.2.2 Wu (1994)……………………………………………………………12
2.2.3 Cheng and Huang (1996)…………………………………………... 15
2.2.4 Chierchia (2000)……………………………………………………..19
2.2.5 Su (2005)……….……………………………………………………21
2.2.6 Summary…………………………………………………………….22
2.3 Previous Empirical Studies on L1 Acquisition of Conditionals…………….23
2.3.1 Reilly (1986)………………………………………………………...23
2.3.2 Harris, German and Mills (1996)……………………………………26
2.3.3 Crutchley (2004)…………………………………………………….29
2.3.4 Perner, Sprung and Steinkogler (2004)……………………………...32
2.3.5 Summary…………………………………………………………….35
2.4 Classification of Conditionals in Mandarin Chinese………………………..35
2.4.1 Double Adverbial Conditionals………………..…………………….36
2.4.2 Clause-initial Adverbial Conditionals………………..……………...38
2.4.3 Clause-final Adverbial Conditionals…………………...……………39
2.4.4 Non-wh-word Conditionals………………………...………………..41
2.4.5 Wh-word Conditionals…………………………………………...….42
2.4.6 Summary…………………………………………………………….43

2.5 Summary of Chapter Two…………………………………………………..43

Chapter Three Research Design…………………………………………………...45
3.1 Subjects……………………………………………………………………..45
3.2 Methods and Materials……………………………………………………...46
3.2.1 The Interpretation Task………………………………………………47
3.2.2 The Imitation Task..………………………………………………….50
3.3 Procedures…………………………………………………………………..53
3.3.1 Pilot Study…………...………………………………………………53
3.3.2 Formal Study………………………………………………………...54
3.3.3 Scoring and Statistical Analysis……………………………………..56
3.4 Summary of Chapter Three…………………………………………………58

Chapter Four Results and Discussion……………………………………………...59
4.1 Markedness Effects…………………………………………………………59
4.1.1 A Comparison of the Five Types of Chinese Conditionals……………59
4.1.2 A Comparison of the Unmarked vs. Marked Conditionals…………...62
4.1.3 General Discussion……………………………………………………64
4.2 Hypothetical vs. Counterfactual Conditionals………………………………69
4.2.1 Comparison of the Hypotheticals and Counterfactuals……………….69
4.2.2 A Second Look at the Hypothetical and Counterfactual Conditionals 71
4.2.3 General Discussion……………………………………………………73
4.3 Task Effects…………………………………………………………………76
4.3.1 The Results of the Interpretation vs. Imitation Tasks………………...76
4.3.2 General Discussion……………………………………………………79
4.4 Production Analysis………………...………………………………………82
4.4.1 Patterns Different from the Target Sentences in the Imitation Task….82
4.4.2 General Discussion……………………...…………………………….86
4.5 Age Effects…………………………………………………………………90
4. 6 Summary of Chapter Four………………………………………………….90

Chapter Five Conclusion…………………………………………………………..92
5.1 Summary of the Major Findings……………………………………………92
5.2 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research…....94

Bibilography………………………………………………………………………....96
Appendix A: The Scenarios Used in the Interpretation Task…………………......102
Appendix B: The Story Used in the Imitation Task……...…………………………115
Appendix C: Results of the Pilot Study……………………………………………129
Appendix D: Consent Form……...…………………………………………………130

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1986. Conditionals are context-bound. On Conditionals, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson, 333–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Athanasiadou, Angeliki and René Dirven. 1997. Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. On Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki, Athanasiadou and René Dirven, 63-96. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Au, Terry Kit-fong. 1992. Counterfactual reasoning. Language, Interaction and Social Cognition, ed. by Gũn R. Semin and Klaus Fiedler, 194-213. London: Sage.
Barrouillet, P., and Jean-François Lecas. 2002. Content and context effects in children’s and adults’ conditional reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55A (3):839-854.
Beck, S. R., Elizabeth. J. Robinson, Daniel J. Carroll and Ian A. Apperly. 2006. Children’s thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities. Child Development 77 (2):413-426.
Bloom, Lois, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter and Kathleen Fiess. 1980. Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language 7:235-261
Bloom, Paul. 1990. Syntactic distinctions in child language. Journal of Child Language 17:343-355.
Bowerman, Mellisa. 1986. First steps in acquiring conditionals. On Conditionals, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson, 285–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowey, A. Judith. 1986. Syntactic awareness and verbal performance from preschool to fifth grade. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 15 (4): 285-308.
Braine , M. D.S. and David. P. O’Brien 1991. A theory of if: a lexical entry, reasoning program and pragmatic principles. Psychology Review 98:182-203.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. London: Longman.
Brown, G. 1996. Language learning, competence and performance. Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Gillian B., Kirsten M., and John, W. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Casilde, A. Isabelli. 2004. The acquisition of null subject parameter properties in SLA: Some effects of positive evidence in a naturalistic context. Hispania 87 (1): 150-162.
Cairns, E. Charles. 1986. Word structure, markedness, and applied Linguistics. Markedness, ed. by Eckman, Fred R., Edith A. Moravcsil, and Jessica R. Wirth, 13-38. New York: Plenum Press.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chen, Chang-wei. 2003. An Empirical Study of Chinese-speaking Preschoolers’ use of Connective Devices in their L1 Narratives. M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Cheng, L. L-S and C-T. James Huang. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4:121-163.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2000. Chinese conditionals and the theory of conditionals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9:1-54.
Clancy, Patricia, Terry Jacobsen and Marilyn Silvia. 1976 The acquisition of conjunction: a crosslinguistic study. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 12:71-80.
Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Future time reference in conditional protases. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2:143-152.
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. On Conditionals, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, A., Meulen, J. S. Reilly, and C. A. Ferguson, 77-99. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Crutchley, Alison. 2004. If she had of shutted the cage, the rabbit wouldn’t escape: Past counterfactuals elicited from 6-to-11- year-old children. First Language 24: 209-239.
de Castro Campos, Maria Fausta P. 1981. On conditionals as dialogue constructs. Paper for Internationals Encounter in the Philosophy of Languages, State University of Campinas, Brazil.
Eckman, Fred R. 1977. Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning 27:315-330.
Eckman, Fred R., Edith A. Moravcsil and Jessica R. Wirth 1986. Markedness. New York: Plenum Press.
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2):337-362.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2003. Polysemy and conceptual blending. Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning and Language, ed. by Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd, and David Clarke, 79-94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge University Press.
Gerken, Louann, and Michele Shady. 1996. The picture selection task. Methods for Assessing Children's Syntax, ed. by Dana McDaniel, Cecile Mckee, and Helen Smith Cairns, 257-285. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language15(2):335-370.
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Grice, H. Paul. 1967. Logic and Conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard University.
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564-589.
Harris, P. L., Tim German, and Patrick Mills. 1996. Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition 61:233-259.
Harris, Paul and Hilary J. Leevers. 2000. Reasoning from false premises. Children’s Reasoning and the Mind, ed. by Peterson Mitchell and K. J. Riggs, 67-86. Hove: Psychology Press.
Hendriks, Petra and Jennifer Spenader. 2006. When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 13: 319-348.
Hickman, Maya and Phyllis Schneider. 1993. Children’s ability to restore the referential of cohesion of stories. First Language 13:169-202.
Hoop, Helen and Irene Krämer. 2006. Children’s optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects. Language Acquisition: 13(2):103-123.
Huang, Shuan-Fan and Kawai Chui. 1997. Is Chinese a pragmatic order language? Chinese languages and Linguistics IV: Typological Studies of languages in China:51-79. Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica.
Jesperson, Otto. 1940 A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1986. Conditionals and mental models. On Conditionals, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson, 55-76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karminloff-Stiff, Annette. 1979. A Functional Approach to Child Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kavanaugh, R.D., T. Goodrich and Paul L. Harris 1995. Counterfactual reasoning in two-year-olds. Paper presented at the VIIth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Kraków, Poland.
Krashen, Steven. 1991. The input hypothesis: An update. Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the Art, ed. by James E. Alatis, 409-431.Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Individual-level and stage-level predicates. Papers on Quantification, ed. by E. Back, A. Kratzer and B. Partee. University of Massachusetts: Amherst.
Liming, Y. 1990. The comprehensible output hypothesis and self-directed learning: A learner’s perspective. TESL Canada 8:9-26.
Lust, Barbara. 2006. Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lü, Shu-Xiang. 1942. Summary of the Chinese Grammar. Anthology of Lü Shu-Xiang. Beijing, China: Commercial Publisher.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese- A Functional
Reference Grammar. University of California Press.
Mackie, J. L. 1974. The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCabe, Anne E., Susan Evely, Rona Abramovitch, Carl Carter, and Derba J. Pepler. 1983. Conditional statements in young children’s spontaneous speech. Journal of Child Language 10:169-185.
Mitchell, P., and Lacohee, H. 1991. Children’s early understanding of false belief. Cognition 39: 107-127.
Perner, J., Manuel Sprung and Bettina Steinkogler. 2004. Counterfactual conditionals and false belief: a developmental dissociation. Cognitive Development 19: 179-201.
Piaget, Jean.1959. The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Reilly, Judy S. 1982. The acquisition of conditionals in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Reilly, Judy S. 1983. Acquisition of conditionals: The interaction of language and cognition. Paper presented at the Annual Boston University Conference on Child Language Development. Boston, MA.
Reilly, Judy S. 1986. The acquisition of temporals and conditionals. On Conditionals, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, A., Meulen, J. S. Reilly, and C. A. Ferguson, 309–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riggs, Kevin J., Donald M. Peterson, Elizabeth J. Robinson and Peter Mitchell. 1998. Are errors in false belief tasks symptomatic of a broader difficulty with counterfactually? Cognitive Development 13:73-90.
Riggs, Kevin J., Donald M. Peterson. 2000. Counterfactual thinking in preschool children: mental state and causal inferences. Children’s Reasoning and the Mind, ed. by Peterson Mitchell and K. J. Riggs, 87-99. Hove: Psychology Press.
Robinson, J. Elizabeth and Sarah Beck. 2000. What is difficult about counterfactual reasoning? Children’s Reasoning and the Mind, ed. by Peterson Mitchell and K. J. Riggs, 101-119. Hove: Psychology Press.
Roese, Neal J. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Review 121:133-148.
Roese, Neal J., and James M. Olson. 1995. What might have been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Russell, J. 1996. Agency: Its Role in Mental Development. Hove. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Rutherford W. 1982. Markedness in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning 32:85-108.
Safir, Ken. 1984. Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 603-608.
Sanz, Cristina and Kara Morgan-Short. 2004. Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning 54 (1):35-78.
Schachter, Jacquelyn C. 1971. Presupposition and counterfactual conditional sentences. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angles.
Schwartz, B and M. Gubala-Ryzak. 1992. Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research 8:1-38.
Shen, Cheng-Lan. 2006. An Empirical Study of Chinese-speaking children’s acquisition of topic constructions. M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, ed. by Nicolas Rescher, 98-112. Oxford: Blackwell.
Su, I-Wen. 2005. Conditional reasoning as a reflection of mind. Language and Linguistics 6 (4):655-680.
Sutter, C. Judith and Cynthia L. Johnson. 1990. School-age children’s metalinguistic awareness of grammaticality in verb form. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33:84-95.
Taylor, L. M., and Peter Mitchell. 1997. Judgments of apparent shape contaminated by knowledge of reality: viewing circles obliquely. British Journal of Psychology 88:653-670.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1982. The double nominative construction in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14:275-297.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1990. Sentence and clause structure in Chinese: A functional perspective. Taipei: Student Book Company.
Wang, Yu-fang. 1996. The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Chinese spoken and written discourse. Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Williams, Edwin.1981. Language Acquisition, Markedness, and Phrase Structure. Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, ed. by Susan L. Tavakolian, 8-34. London: The MIT Press.
Wu, Cynthia H.-F. 1994. “If triangles were circles, …” – A Study of Counterfactuals in Chinese and in English. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing.
Yeh, Hui-chen. 2000. Temporal and Conditional Clauses in Chinese Spoken Discourse: A Function-based Study. 14th International Symposium on Pacific Asia Conference, Waseda University. Tokyo, Japan.