臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文旨在探討以英語為母語者對於中文關係子句的學習情況。本研究包括了三個實驗。實驗一主要研究二語學習者對於主語關係子句及賓語關係子句的產出與接受度，主要研究議題包括空位影響，母語及題型效應。實驗二旨在研究受試者對於空位關係子句及非空位關係子句的表現，研究議題包括指示量詞位序的影響，母語轉移及題型效應。實驗三深入探究了受試者對於指示量詞前置與指示量詞後置的賓語關係子句的理解，同時也探討了受試者的習得表現是否受到語境效應的影響。實驗一與實驗二都採用了句子生成測驗及可接受度測驗。實驗三採用了理解測驗，該測驗分為三部分，每部分包含不同的語境類型。本研究共招募了二十位在國立台灣師範大學國語中心學習中文的英語為母語的學生及二十位母語人士。
首先，實驗一發現對於二語學習者來說，賓語關係子句比主語關係子句更容易產出及接受，且他們的習得表現受到空位的影響。再者，根據實驗二的結果可見，空位關係子句相較於非空位關係子句更容易產出及接受，指示量詞位序影響受試者的表現。實驗一及實驗二皆發現二語學習者在產出時受到母語影響，但題型效應並不顯著。實驗三發現，受試者對指示量詞前置的賓語關係子句與指示量詞後置的賓語關係子句的理解難度一致。指示量詞前置的賓語關係子句可能存在非限定與限定的理解。最後，研究發現受試者對不同位序的指示量詞之關係子句的理解受到語境效應影響。

The current empirical research aimed at investigating English-speaking learners’ acquisition of Chinese relative clauses (RCs). Three studies were conducted. Study I examined the L2 learners’ production and preference of SRCs and ORCs, and addressed issues, such as gap condition, L1 transfer and task effect. Study II explored the subjects’ performance on gapped and gapless ORCs, and explored issues including DCL positions, L1 transfer and task effect. Study III further investigated the subjects’ interpretation of DCL-first and DCL-second ORCs and discussed contextual effect. Both Study I and Study II conducted two tasks: a sentence-making (SM) task and an acceptability judgement (AJ) task. Study III conducted an interpretation (IT) task which included three parts in different contexts (i.e., context-free, biasing and supporting). A total of twenty L2 learners and twenty Mandarin native speakers participated in our research.
The overall results obtained from Study I revealed that ORCs were easier than SRCs for the L2 learners to produce and accept, and their performance was affected by the gap condition of RCs. In addition, it was found in Study II that gapped ORCs were easier than gapless ORCs, and the performance was influenced by DCL positions. Moreover, the L2 learners’ L1 knowledge was found to affect their production in Studies I and II, but the effect of tasks was not significant. In Study III, DCL-first ORCs were found as difficult as DCL-second ORCs for the L2 learners to interpret. The non-restrictive and restrictive interpretations of DCL-first ORCs were found possible. Finally, the contextual effect indeed existed in the L2 learners’ interpretation of ORCs with DCL phrases in different positions.

CHINESE ABSTRACT i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT ii
CHINESE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ix

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Theoretical Background 4
1.2.1 L1 Influence 4
1.2.2 Task Effect 5
1.2.3 Contextual Effect 6
1.3 Research Questions 7
1.4 Significance of the Present Study 8
1.5 Organization of the Thesis 9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Chinese RC Types 10
2.1.1 SRCs vs. ORCs 11
2.1.2 Gapped RCs vs. Gapless RCs 13
2.1.3 DCL-First RCs vs. DCL-Second RCs 15
2.2 A Typological Comparison of Chinese and English RCs 19
2.3 Previous Empirical Studies of DCL Position in Chinese RCs 23
2.3.1 Xu (2009) 23
2.3.2 Li (2013) 27
2.3.3 Wu & Sheng (2014) 29
2.3.4 Xu (2014) 32
2.3.5 Summary of Empirical Studies 34
2.4 Summary of Chapter Two 37
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN 38
3.1 Study I 38
3.1.1 Subjects 38
3.1.2 Methods and Materials 39
3.1.2.1 A Sentence-Making (SM) Task 40
3.1.2.2 An Acceptability Judgment (AJ) Task 43
3.1.3 Procedure 44
3.2 Study II 45
3.2.1 Subjects 46
3.2.2 Methods and Materials 46
3.2.2.1 The Sentence-Making (SM) Task 46
3.2.2.2 The Acceptability Judgement (AJ) Task 47
3.2.3 Procedure 48
3.3 Study III 48
3.3.1 Subjects 49
3.3.2 Methods and Materials 49
3.3.3 Procedure 53
3.4 Summary of Chapter Three 54
CHAPTER FOUR STUDY I 55
4.1 SRCs vs. ORCs 55
4.2 Gap Influence 59
4.3 L1 Influence 63
4.4 Task Effect 65
4.4 Summary of Chapter Four 67
CHAPTER FIVE STUDY II 68
5.1 Gapped ORCs vs. Gapless ORCs 68
5.2 DCL Position influence 73
5.3 L1 Influence 78
5.4 Task Effect 81
5.5 Summary of Chapter Five 81
CHAPTER SIX STUDY III 83
6.1 ORCs Interpretation 83
6.2 DCL Phrase Ambiguity Resolution 87
6.3 Contextual Effect 92
6.4 Summary of Chapter Six 94
CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION 95
7.1 Summary of Major Findings 95
7.2 Pedagogical Implications 97
7.3 Limitations of the Current Study and Suggestions for Future Research 98
REFERENCES 100
APPENDIX A TEST ITEMS OF THE SENTENCE-MAKING TASK IN STUDY I 105
APPENDIX B TEST ITEMS OF THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK IN STUDY I 106
APPENDIX C TEST ITEMS OF THE SENTENCE-MAKING TASK IN STUDY II 108
APPENDIX D TEST ITEMS OF THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK IN STUDY II 109
APPENDIX E TEST ITEMS OF THE INTERPRETATION TASK IN STUDY III 111
APPENDIX F THE CONSENT FORM 119
APPENDIX G THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE STUDY 120

Bever, T. G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Eds.), Cognition and the Development of Language, 279-360. NY: John Wiley.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of Syntax. MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. MA: MIT Press.
Chao, Y.-R. 1968. A Grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Champman, R., and J. Miller. 1975. Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension? Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 18.2:355-371.
Chapman, R. 1978. Comprehension strategies in children. In J. F. Kavanagh, and W. Strange (Eds.), Speech and Language in the Laboratory, School, and Clinic, 308-317. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, E. 1993. The lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chan, Y. W. 2004. Syntactic transfer: Evidence from the interlanguage of Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal 60.3:56-74.
Cerella, J. 1990. Aging and information-processing rate. In J. E. Birren, and K. W.
Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, 201-221. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Corder, S. P. 1976. The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL 5:161-170.
Cui, Liang-Xi. 2008. HSK Dongtai Zuowen Yuliaoku [HSK Dynamic Writing Corpus].
http:/ / 202.112.195.192:8060/ hsk / login.asp.
Del Gobbo, F. 2003. Appositives at the Interface. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California Irvine.
Dekydtspotter, L., and S. D. Outcalt. 2005. A syntactic bias in scope ambiguity resolution in the processing of English-French cardinality interrogatives: Evidence for informational encapsulation. Language Learning 55.1:1-36.
Ding, Sheng-Shu. 1961. Xiandai Hanyu Yufa Jianghua [Mandarin Chinese Grammar]. Beijing, China: The Commercial Press Library.
Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68.1:81-138.
Du, Hui-Ming. 2016. Positioning of DCL phrases and RCs in L2 Chinese by English native speakers. ms., National Taiwan Normal University.
Du, Hui-Ming. 2017. Chinese-Speaking children’s positioning of DCL phrases and RCs. ms., National Taiwan Normal University.
Felser, C., T. Marinis, and H. Clahsen. 2003. Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition 11.3:127-163.
Foley, C., and S. Flynn. 2013. The role of the native language. In J. Herschensohn, and M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 97-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, J. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (Eds.), Universal of Language, 73-113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68.1:1-76.
Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz., and W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain, 95-126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, E., and H. Wu. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28.1: 125-155.
Hashimoto, A. 1971. Mandarin Syntactic Structures. Union 8, Princeton University.
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendriks, P., and C. Koster. 2010. Production and comprehension asymmetries in language acquisition. Lingua 120.8:1887-1897.
Hsiao, F., and E. Gibson. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90: 3-27.
Hsu, Chun-Chieh. 2008. Revisit Relative Clause Islands in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 9.1:23-48.
Hsu, N., G. Hermon, and A. Zukowski. 2009. Young children’s production of head-final relative clauses. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18.4:323-360.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li., and Yafei Li (henceforth HLL). 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, Shenai., A. Gavarro, M. Vernice, and M.T. Guasti. 2016. The acquisition of Chinese relative clauses: Contrasting two theoretical approaches. Journal of Child Language 43.1:1-21.
Keshavarz, M. H. 1994. Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Publication.
Kubota, R. 1998. An investigation of Ll-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 7:69-100.
Larsen-Freeman, D., and M. Long. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. London, UK: Longman.
Li, Jin-Man. 2013. Eryu shijiaoxia hanyu guanxicongju de liangci fenbu kaocha [The distribution of classifiers in Chinese relative clauses: A second language perspetive]. Modern Foreign Languages 36.2:166-173.
Lin, C., and T. Bever. 2010. Garden path and the comprehension of head-final relative clauses. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose and J. Packard (Eds.), Processing and Producing Head- final Structures, 241-275. The Netherlands: Springer.
Lin, Chien-Jer Charles. 2010. Comprehending Chinese relative clauses in context: Thematic patterns and grammatical functions. In Processing of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics 1, 413-428. MA: Harvard University.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2003. On the restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies 33.1:199-240. Lightbown, P. M., and N. Spada. 2013. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Grady, W. 1997. Syntactic Development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Papadopoulou, D., and H. Clahsen. 2003. Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25.4:501–28.
Pan, H.-Y., and C. Felser. 2011. Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self- paced reading. Lingua 121.2:221–236.
Pan, H.-Y., S. Schimke, and C. Felser. 2015. Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism 19.3:298-313.
Race, David. S., and Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2003. The use of ‘that’ in the production and comprehension of object relative clause. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 946-951. Chicago: Cognitive Science Society.
Rice, R. E. 1980. The Impacts of Organizational and Interpersonal Computer-Mediated
Communication. In M. Williams (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 15, 221-249. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.
Richards, J. C. 1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching 25.3:77- 85.
Schmidt, R. W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11.2:129-158.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10.2:209-23.
Slobin, D., and T. G. Bever. 1982. Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12.3:229-265.
Sorace, Antonella and Frank, Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115.11:1497-1524.
Sprouse, Jon. 2007. Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics 1:117-128.
Unsworth, S. 2007. L1 and L2 acquisition between sentence and discourse: Comparing production and comprehension in child Dutch. Lingua 117.11:1930-1958.
Walliman, N. 2011. Research Theory, Research Methods: The Basics. New York, United States of America: Routledge publications.
Wen, Z., M. Mota, and A. McNeill. 2015. Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Wu, Fu-Yun, and Ya-Nan, Sheng. 2014. Zhiliangci de qianzhi youshi ji binyu guanxicongju de chanchu youshi: hanyu eryuxuexi shijiao [Pre-RC determiner phrase bias and production preference for object relatives: Perspectives from L2 Chinese learning]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 46.3:401-411.
Xu, Yi. 2009. The Syntax, Processing and Second Language Acquisition of Chinese Relative Clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Xu, Yi. 2014. Processing relative clauses in Chinese as a second language. Second Language Research 30.4:439-461.
Yin, Xiao-Hui. 2009. Hanyu zhiliangci jiegou he guanxixiaoju de weixu yanjiu [A study on the positions of Chinese demonstrative classifiers and relative clauses]. MA thesis, Beijing Language University.
Yip, Po-Ching and Rimmington, Don. 2004. Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. UK: Psychology Press.
Yip, V., and S. Mathews. 2007. Relative clauses in Cantonese-English bilingual children: Typological challenges and processing motivations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29.2:277-300.
Yan, Jing and S. Matthews. 2017. Relative clauses in English- Mandarin bilingual children language transfer and development in Singapore. Chinese Language and Discourse 8.1:1-17.
Zhang, Niina. 2001a. Sell nonrestrictive relatives. ms., ZAS Berlin.
Zhang, Niina. 2001b. On the absence of nonrestrictive relatives. ms., ZAS Berlin.
Zhang, Lan. 2007. The Two Positions of Chinese Relative Clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina.
Zhao, Ya-Ling. 2015. Liuxuesheng hanyu guanxicongju de xideyanjiu [A study on L2 learners’ acquisition of Chinese relative clauses]. MA thesis, Anhui University.
Zhu, De-Xi. 1982. Yufa jiangyi [Grammar Finder]. Beijing, China: The Commercial Press Library.