臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：台灣兒童複雜句的理解與表達之研究
作者：楊立勤 引用關係
作者(外文)：Li-chin Jennifer Yang
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：英語學系
指導教授：陳純音
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2013
主題關鍵詞：分枝方向；複雜句；語言習得；句型理解與表達；優選理論；branching direction；complex sentences；language acquisition；sentence comprehension and production；Optimality Theory
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:22
本論文研究主旨為探討台灣不同年齡之兒童對於含有名詞子句、關係子句 與副詞子句等中文複雜句的理解與表達。研究議題共有四項：(ㄧ)是否分枝方向是個會影響複雜句習得的因素；(二)三種複雜句的結構如何影響複雜句 的習得順序；(三)在複雜句習得方面，理解與表達的差異為何；(四)優選理論如何能解釋複雜句的習得。
為了尋求以上議題之答案，本研究進行了三個包含左分枝與右分枝結構的名詞子句、關係子句與副詞子句的實驗。每項實驗更細分成兩個測驗，亦即理解測驗與表達測驗。在各項測驗中，受試者針對電腦播放的圖片與語句或提問以口說回應。受試者人數為108 人，平均分佈於六個年齡組別，各組年齡分別為 3、4、5、6、7 歲之兒童組及大學生所組成之成人組。
結果顯示在各年齡層中，右分枝結構的名詞子句比左分枝結構的名詞子句容易，但此偏好在關係子句與副詞子句上卻是相反。此發現與 Huang (1982) 對於中文之無標記分枝方向的分析一致，也就是，中文裡分枝方向的偏好應依據詞頭之句法類目追溯至 X0 或 X’層。此外，結果也顯示雖然7歲兒童尚未習得三種複雜句，但6歲以前含名詞子句之複雜句的習得明顯比含有關係子句與含有副詞子句之複雜句更好。此發現與兒童語言習得中論元優先於修飾語 (Gasser & Smith, 1998; Mintz Gleitman, 2002; Naigles & Gelman, 1995; Smith & Sera, 1992; Waxman & Booth, 2001)、論元與其詞頭之語意相關(Pollard & Sage, 1987) 以及儉約原則相同。另外，大致說來，理解的表現比表達來得好，但是，當在處理無標記或已習得之結構時，受試者在理解與表達的表現相當，有時表達比理解更好。理解的表現比表達來得好，可能起因於在習得過程中，表達需依賴理解 (Keenan & MacWhinney, 1987)，或者表達時需要比理解時更多的工作記憶容量 (Mcdaniel et al., 2010)；而理解與表達的表現相當或者表達比理解好，可能是因為對於已經習得該語言的語言使用者而言，表達時能夠控制自己要說什麼，但理解時無法得知即將要聽到的是什麼 (Mcdaniel et al., 2010; Zeevat, 2001)。而各別從理解測驗與表達測驗所得到的結果來看，本研究證實在理解上 NVN-schema hypothesis (Bever, 1970) 與 Early Immediate Constituent hypothesis (Hawkins, 1994) 的有效性，以及在表達方面 Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory (Gibson, 1998) 的有效性。最後，綜合三個實驗所得之結果，本研究採用優選理論在句法上現有的限制與其他相關理論，建議以優選理論解釋複雜句習得可能是可行的，然而，仍有部份不足仍待未來相關研究或理論補足或改善。
綜合以上所論，本研究結果與分枝方向理論預期不同，而是支持 Huang (1982) 對中文 X’句法的分析。我們的發現也證明關係子句與副詞子句的屬性較為類似，因兩者之習得過程相同。此外，優選理論允許語言中有超過一個以上結構的可能性，可能是個較為實用的理論架構。
This dissertation aims at investigating (a) whether directionality is a factor influencing the acquisition of complex sentences in Mandarin, including complement clauses (CCs), relative clauses (RCs) and adverbial clauses (ACs), (b) how the constructions of the three complex sentence types affect the acquisition order of the complex sentences, (c) how the comprehension and production differ in acquiring complex sentences, and (d) how Optimality Theory (OT) can account for the acquisition of complex sentences.
In pursuit of answering to these research questions, three experiments concerning complex sentences with left- and right-branching CCs, RCs and ACs were conducted. Each experiments included two tasks, that is, the comprehension and production tasks, in which subjects of the study orally responded to the utterances or elicited questions matched with pictures broadcast by the computer. There were 108 subjects equally divided into five child groups (aged 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 years old) and one adult group (undergraduates), participating in each experiment.
The results showed that for each age group in complex sentences with CCs right-branching structures are easier than left-branching ones, while in complex sentences with RCs and those with ACs the preference of directionality reversed. This finding is compatible with Huang’s (1982) view in relation to the unmarked branching direction in Mandarin, in which the preference of directionality should trace back to X0 and X’ layers according to the syntactic category of the head. In addition, it is found that although 7-year-olds were not able to master the three complex sentence types, the fact that CC complex sentences were acquired better than those of RC or AC complex sentence type before the age of 6 was quite clear, a finding that is in agreement with the priority of arguments over modifiers in child acquisition (Gasser & Smith, 1998; Mintz Gleitman, 2002; Naigles & Gelman, 1995; Smith & Sera, 1992; Waxman & Booth, 2001), the associated semantics between the arguments and their heads (Pollard & Sage, 1987) as well as the language economy. Furthermore, our results also revealed that generally speaking, the comprehension task bears less difficulty than the production task; however, when tackling the unmarked or acquired constructions, Mandarin speakers tend to comprehend and produce equally well, sometimes even produce better than comprehend. This can be explained by the fact that production is dependent on comprehension in acquisition (Keenan & MacWhinney, 1987), the claim that the demand for working memory resource in production is higher than in comprehension (Mcdaniel et al., 2010) as well as the hypothesis that for a language user who has mastered the language, production may be easier than comprehension because he can control what he is going to say but not what he is going to hear (Mcdaniel et al., 2010; Zeevat, 2001). Moreover, the results obtained from the comprehension task and from the production task respectively demonstrated the validity of the NVN-schema hypothesis (Bever, 1970) and the Early Immediate Constituent hypothesis (Hawkins, 1994) in comprehension and that of the Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory (Gibson, 1998) in production. Finally, gathered the results from the three experiments, by adopting the existing OT constraints and relevant theories, it is suggested that OT might be a feasible theoretical framework to account for the acquisition of complex sentences although some deficiencies still await further modifications.
To conclude, the results refuted the branching direction theory claimed by Bever (1970), Dryer (1992) and Goodluck (1991) but supported the X’-structure of Chinese proposed by Huang (1982). Our findings also proved that the attributes of RCs and ACs were similar since they were acquired in the same way. Additionally, OT accounts, which allow the possibilities of more than one structure in a language, may be a more practical theoretical framework.
Ackema, P., & de Hoop, H. (2006). Introduction: Current issues in optimality theoretic syntax. Linguistics, 873-887.
Alexopoulou, T., & Keller, F. (2002). Resumption and locality: A crosslinguistic experimental study. Paper presented at the 38th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
_______. (2003). Linguistic complexity, locality and resumption. Paper presented at the WCCFL 22.
Ambridge, B., & Goldberb, E. (2008). The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (3), 357-389.
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. (2003). Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: the diversity of Wh-constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and language development (pp. 279-362). NY: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bloom, L., Rispoli, M., Gartner, B., & Hafitz, J. (1989). Acquisition of complementation. Journal of Child Language, 16, 101-120.
Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17, 189-216.
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language Production: Grammatical Encoding. In A. G. Morton (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). Academic Press.
Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Development of word order in German complement-clause constructions: Effects of input frequencies, lexical items, and discourse function. Language, 86 (3), 583-610.
Broadwell, G. A. (2002). Constraint Symmetry in Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, ed. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 57-75.
Broekhuis, H. & Dekkers, J. (2000). The minimalist program and optimality theory: derivations and evaluations. In J. Dekkers, F. v. d. Leeuw, & J. v. d. Weijer (Eds.), Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax and acquistion (pp. 386-422). NY: Oxford University Press.
Chang, H.-W. (1984). The comprehension of complex Chinese sentences by children: Relative clause. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 26 (1), 57-66.
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chapman, R. S., & Miller, J. F. (1975). Word order in early two and three word utterances: does production precede comprehension? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 355-371.
Chen, P. (1996). Pragmatic interpretations of structural topics and relativization in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 389-406.
Chen, B., Ning, A., Bi, H., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129, 61-65.
Cheng, Y.-Y. S. (1995). The Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Chinese. Unpublished mater thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chien, Y.-C., & Lust, B. (2006). Chinese children’s knowledge of the Binding Principles. In P. Li, L. H. Tan, E. Bates, & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of Asian Psycholinguistics (Vol. 1: Chinese, pp. 23-38). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1 (3), 225-295.
Chiu, H.-C. B. (1996). The Nature of Relative Clauses in Chinese-Speaking Children. NSC research report, National Taiwan Normal University.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 1, 26-58.
_______. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT.
_______. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
_______. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport: Praeger.
Clackson, K., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128-144.
Dabrowska, E. (2008). Questions with unbounded dependencies: A usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (3), 391-425.
Dabrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2009). The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (3), 571-597.
de Hoop, H., & Lamers, M. (2006). Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, Valency, and Transitivity (pp. 269-287). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
de Villiers, J. G., Tager-Flusberb, H. B., Hakuta, K., & Cohen, M. (1979). Children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8 (5), 499-518.
Dickey, M. W. (1996). Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns, in M. W. Dicky, & S. Tunstall (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19 (pp. 1-39).
Diessel, H. (2001). The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language, 77 (3), 433-455.
_______. (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. UK: Cambridge University Press.
_______. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43 (3), 449-470.
_______. (2007). A Construction-Based Analysis of the Acquisition of East Asian Relative Clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (2), 311-320.
_______. (2008). Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (3), 465-470.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 97-141.
_______. (2005). A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses. Language, 81 (4), 882-906.
Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68, 81-138.
_______. (2009). The Branching Direction Theory of Word Order Correlations Revisited. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of Language Today (pp. 185-208). London: Springer.
Ellison, T. M. (2000). Constraints on Null Pronouns. In J. Dekkers, F. Leeuw, & J. Weijer (Eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition (pp. 524-553). NY: Oxford University Press.
Felser, C, Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s Processing of Ambiguous Sentences: A Study of Relative Clause Attachment. Language Acquisition, 11 (3), 127-163.
Fikkert, P., & de Hoop, H. (2009). Language acquisition in optimality theory. Linguistics, 47 (2): 311-357.
Frazier, L, & Foder, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
Friedmann, N., & Costa, J. (2010). The child heard a coordinated sentence and wondered: On children’s difficulty in understanding coordination and relative clauses with crossing dependencies. Lingua, 120: 1502-1515.
Gasser, M. & Smith, L. B. (1998). Learning nouns and adjectives: A connectionist account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 269-306.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
Goodluck, H. (1991). Language Acquisition: A Linguistic Introduction. UK: Basil Blackwell.
_______. (2010). Object extraction is not subject to Child Relativized Minimality. Lingua, 120: 1516-1521.
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1-27.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.
Greenberg J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universal of Language (2nd edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28 (3), 373-422.
Gu, G. (2001). A study of resumptive pronouns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Government & Binding Theory. UK: Blackwell Publishers.
_______. (2007). Operator movement and topicalisation in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica, 41 (3-4), 279-325.
Haliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hendriks, P., & de Hoop, H. (2001). Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 1-32.
Hendriks, P., de Hoop, H., & Lamers, M. (2005). Asymmetries in language use reveal asmmetries in the grammar. In P. Dekker, & M. Franke (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam, 113-118.
Hendriks, P., & van Rij, J. (2011). Language acquisition and language change in bidirectional Optimality Theory. In A. Benz, & J. Mattausch (Eds.), Bidirectional Optimality Theory (pp. 97-124). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90 (1), 3-27.
Hsu, C.-C. N. (2006). Issues in Head-Final Relative Clauses in Chinese – Derivation, Processing, and Acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, US.
Hsu, C.-C. N., Hermon, G., & Zukowski, A. (2009). Young children’s production of head-final relative clauses: Elicited production data from Chinese children. Journal of East Asian Linguist, 18, 323-360.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-574.
Huang, C.-T. J., & Li, A. (1995). Recent generative studies in Chinese syntax. In Huang, & Li (Eds.), New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 49-95.
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A., & Li, Yafei. (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. NY: Cambridge University.
Huang, S. (2003). Doubts about complementation: A functionalist analysis. Language and Linguistics, 4 (2), 429-455.
Ji, S. (2010). The iconicity assumption and the functional distribution of English temporal adverbial clauses: A textual perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3163-3171.
Jiang, X. (2004). A Multi-dimensional Study of Chinese Reflexive Ziji: From BT to OT. Unpublished master thesis, College of English Language and Literature, Shanhai International Studies University, Mainland China.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
_______. (1979). Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language, 55 (2), 333-351.
Keenan, J., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Understanding the relation between comprehension and production. In H. W. Dechert, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 149-155). Norwook, N.J.: ABLEX.
Keller, F. (2000). Experimental Evidence for Constraint Competition in Gapping Constructions. In G. Muller, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Competition in Syntax (pp. 211-248). NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 1 (1), 95-119.
Lee, H. (2001). Markedness and Word Order Freezing. In Sells, P. (Ed.), Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax (pp. 63-127). USA: CSLI.
Lee, S. Y. (2008). Argument-Adjunct Asymmetry in the Acquisition of Inversion in Wh-Questions by Korean Learners of English. Language Learning, 58, 3, 625-663.
Legendre, G. (2001). Introduction to OT syntax. In G. Lengendre, S. Vikner, & J. Grimshaw. (Eds.), OT Syntax (pp. 1-27). MIT Press.
Legendre, G., Hagstrom, P., Vainikka, A., & Todorova, M. (2002). Partial constraint ordering in child French syntax. Language Acquisition, 10, 189-227.
Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., & Wilson, C. (1998). When is Less More? Faithfulness and Minimal Links in wh-Chians. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, & D. Pesetsky (Eds.) , Is the Best Good Enough? (pp. 249-289). UK: the MIT Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Y. (2008). Three sensitive positions and Chinese complex sentences: A comparative perspective. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 18 (2), 47-59.
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. USA: Blackwell.
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences, in T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 169-185). New York: Academic Press.
Lin, C-J. C. (2008). The Processing Foundation of Head-Final Relative Clauses. Language and Linguistics, 9 (4), 813-838.
Lin, C-J. C. & Bever, T. G. (2006). Subject Preference in the Processing of Relative Clauses in Chinese. Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Donald Baumer et al., 254-260.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2005). Syntactic structures of complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2005, 61-96.
Love, T. E. (2007). The Processing of Non-canonically Ordered Constituents in Long Distance Dependencies by Pre-school Children: A Real-time Investigation. J Psycholinguist Res, 36: 191-206.
Lust, B., & Chien, Y. C. (1984). The structure of coordination in first language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence for a universal. Cognition, 17, 49-83.
McDonald, M. C. (2000). Natural-Language Generator. In R. Dale, H. Moisl, & H. Somers (Ed.), Handbook of natural language processing (pp. 147-180). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466-490.
_______. (2008). Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition, 36 (1), 170-182.
Mattausch, J. (2004). On the optimization and grammaticalization of anaphora. Berlin: Humboldt University dissertation.
Mcdaniel, D. Mckee, C., & Garrett, M. F. (2010). Children’s sentence planning: Syntactic correlates of fluency variations. Journal of Child Language, 37, 59-94.
McKee, C., & McDaniel, D. (2001). Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 9, 113-156.
Mintz, T. H., & Gleitman, L. R. (2002). Adjectives really do modify nouns: The incremental and restricted nature of early adjective acquisition. Cognition, 84, 267-293.
Morimoto, Y. (2001). Verb Raising and Phrase Structure Variation in OT. In Sells, P. (Ed.), Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax (pp. 129-196). USA: CSLI.
Müller, G., & Sternefeld, W. (2000). The Rise of Competition in Syntax: A Synopsis. In G. Muller, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Competition in Syntax (pp. 1-68). NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Naigles, L. R., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). Overextensions in comprehension and production revisited: Preferential-looking in a study of dog, cat, and cow. Journal of Child Language, 22, 19-46.
Ning, L.-H. (2008). The grammar and processing of resumptive pronouns in Chinese relative clauses. Unpublished mater thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1987). An Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Pater, J. (2004). Bridging the gap between perception and production with minimally violable constraints. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 219-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pérez-Leroux, A. (1995). Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 4, 105-138.
Pesetsky, D. (1998). Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronunciation. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, & D. Pesetsky (Eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? (pp. 337-383). UK: the MIT Press.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraints in Generative Grammar.
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive pre-requisites for the development of grammar, in C. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development (pp. 175-208). NY: Hold, Rinehart and Winston.
Smith, L. B., & Sera, M. (1992). A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 99-142.
Smith, M. D. (1974). Relative clause formation between 29-36 months: A preliminary report. Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 8, 104-110.
Smolensky, P. (1996). On the Comprehension/Production Dilemma in Child Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 27 (4), 720-731.
Stevenson, S., & Smolensky, P. (2005). Optimality in sentence processing. In P. Smolensky, & G. Legendre (Eds.), The Harmonic Mind (pp. 827-860). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stromswold, K. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Su, Y.-C. J. (2004). Relatives of Mandarin children. Paper presented in the 2004 Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition in North America, the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
_______. (2006). Word order effect in children’s garden path of relative clauses. Concentric, 32(2), 33-57.
Tavakolian, S. L. (1977). Structural Principles in the Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tsai, Y.-T. (2011). An Optimality Theory Approach to the Analysis of the Reflexive Ziji in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished master thesis, Department of English, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Tsao, F.-F. (1990). Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A functional Perspective. Taipei: Student Book Co.
Verstaraete, J.-C. (2004). Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: the constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics, 42 (4), 819-853.
Wang, C.-H. (2010). Ordering patterns of clauses in conditional complex sentences in Chinese. Chinese Teaching in the World, 24 (4), 468-482.
Wang, Y.-F. (1996). The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Chinese spoken and written discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
_______. (1999). The information Sequences of Adverbial Clauses in Mandarin Chinese Conversation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 27 (2), 45-89.
_______. (2002). The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking in Mandarin Chinese discourse. Text, 22 (1), 141-172.
_______. (2006). The information structure of adverbial clauses in Chinese discourse. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 4 (1), 49-88.
Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 347-361.
Waxman, S., & Booth, A. E. (2001). Seeing pink elephants: Fourteen-month-olds’ interpretations of novel nouns and adjectives. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 217-242.
Wilson, C. (2001). Bidirectional Optimization and the Theory of Anaphora. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax (pp. 465-507). USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wong, C. H. (1992). Cantonese-speaking children’s Understanding of anaphora. Research on Chinese Linguistics in Hong Kong, 101-160.
Wong, L. Y. (2005). Adverbial clauses in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK.
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., & Andersen, E. (2011). Subject Preference, Head Animacy and Lexical Cues: A Corpus Study of Relative Clauses in Chinese. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and Producing Head-final Structures, Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 38 (pp. 173-193). Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). Relative clauses in Cantonese-English bilingual children. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (2), 277-300.
Yuan, B., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Resumptive pronouns in English-Chinese and Arabic-Chinese interlanguages. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (3), 219-237.
Zeevat, H. (2001). The Asymmetry of Optimality Theoretic Syntax and Semantics.
胡建華，潘海華 (2002)。＜NP顯著性計算與漢語反身代詞「自己」的指標＞，《當代語言學》，第1期，頁46-60。
潘海華，胡建華 (2002)。＜漢語複合反身代詞與英語反身代詞比較研究＞，《外語教學與研究》，第34卷，頁241-247.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：774（臺灣：766，外國：8） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2017497 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67810077
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上