中国英语学习者岛屿限制知识研究
|
摘要
岛屿限制现象指的是某些句子结构如主语、复杂名词短语(如关系从句和名词补语从句)和状语等结构中的成分不能移位。生成语言学主要运用自足的句法原则即邻接原则来描述并解释这一语言现象,该原则规定移位不能超越两个以上界限节点。然而,句法中有许多邻接原则无法解释的反例：目的状语从句和呈现型关系从句中的成分似乎可以移位,并非所有补语从句中的成分都可移位。还有的岛屿现象普遍语法没有涉及,如双宾构式中接受者不能移位,有的岛屿限制与语篇有关。
这些现象却似乎可以用背景构式中的成分不能移位这一理论结合加工难度来解释。背景化程度低的目的状语从句和呈现型关系从句中的成分移位要比背景化程度高的时间状语从句和关系从句中成分移位所形成的疑问句可接受程度高,补语从句是否构成岛屿也由其背景化程度高低决定。双宾构式中的接受者不能移位也是由于其背景化程度高。该理论符合涌现论的基本观点,即语言现象来源于大脑中非语言的因素及其互动,对于岛屿限制现象似乎比邻接原则具有更强的描写和解释能力,
在二语习得领域,探讨邻接原则对二语学习者是否可及一直是研究的热点。因为这种隐性的句法知识不可能来自学习者的经验,违反岛屿限制的句子在实际的语言输入中极其少见；并且对于二语学习者来说,如果他们的母语不涉及移位现象,那么这种知识就只能借助先天的普遍语法来解释。然而,迄今为止还未有二语习得研究以涌现理论为指导。
涌现论和先天论关于岛屿限制现象提出了不同的假设。受此争辩启发,本次研究通过实证方法来调查中国英语学习者的岛屿限制知识,以检验哪种理论假设能构更好的描述和解释这种语法知识。
此次研究的调查对象共有四组：1)中低水平组,受试均为来自南京某高校的一年级67名非英语专业大学生；2)中高水平组,成员均为来自同一高校的54名三年级英语专业大学生；3)高水平组,成员为南京某高校英语专业文学文化方向的16博士生；4)本族语组,成员为11名南京某高校海外教育学院的美国留学生。所有受试均非语言学专业。
所使用的研究工具包括语法判断测试卷、否定测试和对划线部分提问任务。语法判断题用来调查受试的岛屿限制知识,由36句实验句和28句控制句组成。实验句包括四种类型的岛屿限制句,分别为状语从句、关系从句、补语从句和双宾语句。其中状语从句又可分为目的、时间、和原因三类；关系从句分为呈现型和非呈现型两类；补语从句根据主句的动词分为三类,双宾句涉及接受者、主题、目标移位三类。部分句子根据普遍语法理论和涌现论都不可接受,还有部分句子普遍语法理论认为不可接受,但涌现论却认为可以接受。否定测试根据上述实验句修改而成,用来调查学习者的句子信息结构知识并探讨岛屿限制知识和信息结构特点之间的关系。对划线部分提问任务也由状语从句、关系从句、补语从句组成,以映证语法判断结果。
本研究获得了以下发现：
1.中国英语学习者认为状语从句、关系从句和部分补语从句中的成分移位会使句子不可接受,并且知道不同类型的岛屿限制句可接受程度不同。他们认为涉及目的状语从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他状语的更可接受,涉及呈现型关系从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他关系从句的更可接受,涉及补语从句中成分移位的句子可接受程度因主句的动词不同而不同,涉及接受者移位的双宾句不可接受。
2.英语本族语者同样知道状语从句、关系从句和部分补语从句,并且知道不同类型的岛屿限制句可接受程度不同。他们也认为涉及目的状语从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他状语的更可接受,涉及呈现型关系从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他关系从句的更可接受,涉及补语从句中成分移位的句子可接受程度因主句的动词不同而不同,涉及接受者移位的双宾句不可接受。
3.随着英语水平的提高,受试对岛屿限制现象更加敏感。对于中低英语水平受试,高英语水平受试认为以上各类岛屿限制句的可接受程度更低。
4.中国英语学习者岛屿限制知识和句子信息结构特点知识之间具有显著的相关性,说明信息结构特征至少可以部分解释岛屿限制知识。
因为邻接原则并不预测受试会认为不同类型的状语从句、关系从句和补语从句可接受程度不同,所以本次研究结论不支持邻接原则而支持背景构式中成分不能移位的假设。本研究为涌现论和构式语法提供了来自二语学习者的实证依据,对语言学界解决形式与功能两派的争论有重要意义。从二语习得角度来说,传统的关于岛屿限制现象的研究大都以普遍语法为指导,本研究受BCI理论启发,为二语习得研究提供了新的视角,可以深化我们对中介语特征和本质的认识,促进二语习得理论发展。从外语教学角度来说,本研究结果将为中国的英语教师和学习者探索和认清外语学习规律提供参考,他们可以借鉴本次研究的某些成果以提高教学效率。
The term "island constraints" refers to the grammatical phenomena that elements in a construction such as a subject clause, an adjunct, or a relative clause (RC) cannot move out of the construction. In generative linguistics, the phenomena are accounted for by the subjacency principle, which means that no constituent can move across more than one bounding node at a time. The subjacency principle is claimed to be autonomous, domain-specific and innate.
Recently, the subjacency principle has been challenged by an emergentist theory: back-grounded constructions are islands (BCI). According to BCI, island constraints are said to be determined by information structure properties of constructions. For instance, non-presentational RCs, and time adjuncts are predicted to be islands because they are back-grounded in a sentence; presentational RCs, and purpose or reason adjuncts are sometimes not islands because they are fore-grounded.
In SLA, a large number of studies have been conducted to test second language learners'knowledge of island constraints within the generative framework to see whether they have access to Universal Grammar (UG). However, no SLA studies have been based on BCI.
Inspired by the debate between the nativist subjacency principle and the emergentist BCI hypothesis, this study examined the Chinese EFL learners'knowledge of island constraints in order to see which theory best accounts for such knowledge.
The subjects included both Chinese EFL (English as a foreign language) learners and English natives. They were asked to take a grammaticality judgment test, which consisted of some sentences whose island status UG and BCI do not agree upon. They also took a negation test and completed a question formulation task.
The study yielded the following results:
1) Chinese EFL learners know that adjuncts, RCs, and some complement clauses are islands. More importantly, they treat the subtypes of the islands differently. They think that extractions from purpose clauses are more acceptable than those from time and reason adjuncts, those from presentational RCs are more acceptable than those from non-presentational RCs, those from factive or manner-of-speaking verb complements are more acceptable than those from bridge verb complements, and those of the recipient argument in active ditransitives are unacceptable.
2) Native English speakers consider adjuncts, RCs, and some complement clauses as islands and treat the subtypes of the islands differently. Similar to Chinese EFL learners, they rendered extractions from purpose clauses, presentational RCs, and factive or manner-of-speaking verb complements more acceptable than those from reason and time adjuncts, non-presentational RCs and bridge verb complements respectively. They also consider extractions of the recipient argument in active ditransitives unacceptable.
3) The Chinese EFL learners'sensitivity to the island-hood of adjunct clauses, RCs, sentential complements, and recipient arguments increases as their language proficiency rises, implying that L2learners can acquire the intricate knowledge if their English proficiency is high enough.
4) The Chinese EFL learners' knowledge of island constraints is related to their knowledge of information structure of sentences, suggesting that the grammatical knowledge is derived from non-grammatical factors.
Although UG predicts that language learners should have knowledge of island constraints, it does not predict that they treat different types of adjuncts, RCs, and complements differently. The fact that Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers tend to accept extractions ruled out by UG but predicted by the BCI hypothesis lends support to BCI, and thus adds weight to BCI or emergentist theories but pose threat to UG and UG-based SLA studies. The findings are of value in improving the description and explanation of L2learners' linguistic competence.
这些现象却似乎可以用背景构式中的成分不能移位这一理论结合加工难度来解释。背景化程度低的目的状语从句和呈现型关系从句中的成分移位要比背景化程度高的时间状语从句和关系从句中成分移位所形成的疑问句可接受程度高,补语从句是否构成岛屿也由其背景化程度高低决定。双宾构式中的接受者不能移位也是由于其背景化程度高。该理论符合涌现论的基本观点,即语言现象来源于大脑中非语言的因素及其互动,对于岛屿限制现象似乎比邻接原则具有更强的描写和解释能力,
在二语习得领域,探讨邻接原则对二语学习者是否可及一直是研究的热点。因为这种隐性的句法知识不可能来自学习者的经验,违反岛屿限制的句子在实际的语言输入中极其少见；并且对于二语学习者来说,如果他们的母语不涉及移位现象,那么这种知识就只能借助先天的普遍语法来解释。然而,迄今为止还未有二语习得研究以涌现理论为指导。
涌现论和先天论关于岛屿限制现象提出了不同的假设。受此争辩启发,本次研究通过实证方法来调查中国英语学习者的岛屿限制知识,以检验哪种理论假设能构更好的描述和解释这种语法知识。
此次研究的调查对象共有四组：1)中低水平组,受试均为来自南京某高校的一年级67名非英语专业大学生；2)中高水平组,成员均为来自同一高校的54名三年级英语专业大学生；3)高水平组,成员为南京某高校英语专业文学文化方向的16博士生；4)本族语组,成员为11名南京某高校海外教育学院的美国留学生。所有受试均非语言学专业。
所使用的研究工具包括语法判断测试卷、否定测试和对划线部分提问任务。语法判断题用来调查受试的岛屿限制知识,由36句实验句和28句控制句组成。实验句包括四种类型的岛屿限制句,分别为状语从句、关系从句、补语从句和双宾语句。其中状语从句又可分为目的、时间、和原因三类；关系从句分为呈现型和非呈现型两类；补语从句根据主句的动词分为三类,双宾句涉及接受者、主题、目标移位三类。部分句子根据普遍语法理论和涌现论都不可接受,还有部分句子普遍语法理论认为不可接受,但涌现论却认为可以接受。否定测试根据上述实验句修改而成,用来调查学习者的句子信息结构知识并探讨岛屿限制知识和信息结构特点之间的关系。对划线部分提问任务也由状语从句、关系从句、补语从句组成,以映证语法判断结果。
本研究获得了以下发现：
1.中国英语学习者认为状语从句、关系从句和部分补语从句中的成分移位会使句子不可接受,并且知道不同类型的岛屿限制句可接受程度不同。他们认为涉及目的状语从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他状语的更可接受,涉及呈现型关系从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他关系从句的更可接受,涉及补语从句中成分移位的句子可接受程度因主句的动词不同而不同,涉及接受者移位的双宾句不可接受。
2.英语本族语者同样知道状语从句、关系从句和部分补语从句,并且知道不同类型的岛屿限制句可接受程度不同。他们也认为涉及目的状语从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他状语的更可接受,涉及呈现型关系从句的岛屿限制句比涉及其他关系从句的更可接受,涉及补语从句中成分移位的句子可接受程度因主句的动词不同而不同,涉及接受者移位的双宾句不可接受。
3.随着英语水平的提高,受试对岛屿限制现象更加敏感。对于中低英语水平受试,高英语水平受试认为以上各类岛屿限制句的可接受程度更低。
4.中国英语学习者岛屿限制知识和句子信息结构特点知识之间具有显著的相关性,说明信息结构特征至少可以部分解释岛屿限制知识。
因为邻接原则并不预测受试会认为不同类型的状语从句、关系从句和补语从句可接受程度不同,所以本次研究结论不支持邻接原则而支持背景构式中成分不能移位的假设。本研究为涌现论和构式语法提供了来自二语学习者的实证依据,对语言学界解决形式与功能两派的争论有重要意义。从二语习得角度来说,传统的关于岛屿限制现象的研究大都以普遍语法为指导,本研究受BCI理论启发,为二语习得研究提供了新的视角,可以深化我们对中介语特征和本质的认识,促进二语习得理论发展。从外语教学角度来说,本研究结果将为中国的英语教师和学习者探索和认清外语学习规律提供参考,他们可以借鉴本次研究的某些成果以提高教学效率。
The term "island constraints" refers to the grammatical phenomena that elements in a construction such as a subject clause, an adjunct, or a relative clause (RC) cannot move out of the construction. In generative linguistics, the phenomena are accounted for by the subjacency principle, which means that no constituent can move across more than one bounding node at a time. The subjacency principle is claimed to be autonomous, domain-specific and innate.
Recently, the subjacency principle has been challenged by an emergentist theory: back-grounded constructions are islands (BCI). According to BCI, island constraints are said to be determined by information structure properties of constructions. For instance, non-presentational RCs, and time adjuncts are predicted to be islands because they are back-grounded in a sentence; presentational RCs, and purpose or reason adjuncts are sometimes not islands because they are fore-grounded.
In SLA, a large number of studies have been conducted to test second language learners'knowledge of island constraints within the generative framework to see whether they have access to Universal Grammar (UG). However, no SLA studies have been based on BCI.
Inspired by the debate between the nativist subjacency principle and the emergentist BCI hypothesis, this study examined the Chinese EFL learners'knowledge of island constraints in order to see which theory best accounts for such knowledge.
The subjects included both Chinese EFL (English as a foreign language) learners and English natives. They were asked to take a grammaticality judgment test, which consisted of some sentences whose island status UG and BCI do not agree upon. They also took a negation test and completed a question formulation task.
The study yielded the following results:
1) Chinese EFL learners know that adjuncts, RCs, and some complement clauses are islands. More importantly, they treat the subtypes of the islands differently. They think that extractions from purpose clauses are more acceptable than those from time and reason adjuncts, those from presentational RCs are more acceptable than those from non-presentational RCs, those from factive or manner-of-speaking verb complements are more acceptable than those from bridge verb complements, and those of the recipient argument in active ditransitives are unacceptable.
2) Native English speakers consider adjuncts, RCs, and some complement clauses as islands and treat the subtypes of the islands differently. Similar to Chinese EFL learners, they rendered extractions from purpose clauses, presentational RCs, and factive or manner-of-speaking verb complements more acceptable than those from reason and time adjuncts, non-presentational RCs and bridge verb complements respectively. They also consider extractions of the recipient argument in active ditransitives unacceptable.
3) The Chinese EFL learners'sensitivity to the island-hood of adjunct clauses, RCs, sentential complements, and recipient arguments increases as their language proficiency rises, implying that L2learners can acquire the intricate knowledge if their English proficiency is high enough.
4) The Chinese EFL learners' knowledge of island constraints is related to their knowledge of information structure of sentences, suggesting that the grammatical knowledge is derived from non-grammatical factors.
Although UG predicts that language learners should have knowledge of island constraints, it does not predict that they treat different types of adjuncts, RCs, and complements differently. The fact that Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers tend to accept extractions ruled out by UG but predicted by the BCI hypothesis lends support to BCI, and thus adds weight to BCI or emergentist theories but pose threat to UG and UG-based SLA studies. The findings are of value in improving the description and explanation of L2learners' linguistic competence.
引文
1 For a review, seen Huang Yan (2000).
See Bley-Vroman and Chaudron (1994) for a detailed introduction.
1 There is controversy in language acquisition on the difficulty of object and subject extractions. Some researchers (Schachter & Yip 1990; Juffs & Harrington,1995; White & Juffs,1998) found that subject extraction is more difficult than object extraction. Others (e.g., Lee,2009) found subject Wh-questions are easier than object Wh-questions.
Al-Banyan, A. A. M. (1996). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in language acquisition:A cross-linguistic perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Allen, J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In Macwhinney, B (Ed.), Emergentist approaches to language:Proceedings of the 28th Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp.115-152). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ambridge, B., & Goldberg, A. (2008). The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19,3,349-381
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language,51,23-54.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun antecedent. New York:Routledge.
Belikova, A & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis or not?-Island constraints revisited. Studies in SLA,31,199-223.
Berwick, R & Weinberg, A. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlanguage competence. New York:Springer.
Bley-Vroman, R.W., Felix, S.W., & Ioup, G L. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research,4,1-32.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 41-68). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Chaudron, C. (1994). Elicited imitation as a measure of second language competence. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.), Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.245-261). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borsley, R. D. (1996). Modern Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Brown, G, & Yule, G (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cao, Y., & Yu, L. [曹勇衡,俞理明],2009,英语长距离依赖结构“中间空隙效应”研究.现代外语,(1)：68-75.
Casillas, G. (2008). The insufficiency of three types of learning to explain language acquisition. Lingua,118,4,636-641.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse:Consciousness and time. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Chaudron, C. (2003). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.762-828). Oxford: Blackwell
Chomsky, N. (1973). "Conditions on Transformations," in S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston,.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris:Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language:Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries:the framework. In:R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step, essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp.89-155). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale:A Life in Language. Cambridge (pp.1-52). MA:The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). On Phases, in C. P. Otero, et al. (Eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chung, S. & McCloskey, J. (1983). On the Interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry,14,4,704-713.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A' -dependencies. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics,27,3-42.
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. M. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp.273-317). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London:Macmillan.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's Universal Grammar:An introduction. Blackwell.
Cowan, R., & Hatasa, Y. A. (1994). Investigating the validity and reliability of native speaker and second-language learner judgments about sentences. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.), Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.287-302). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax:Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Davies, W., & Kaplan, T. (1998). Native speaker vs L2 learner grammaticality judgments. Applied Linguistics,19,2,183-203.
De Bot, K. (2008). Introduction:second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal,92,2,166-178.
Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention:A cognitive theory of island constraints. Cognitive Linguistics,2,1-63.
Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of Wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Acquisition,26,4,443-472.
Edwards, C. D. (1998). Universal grammar access by adult L2 learners:A reassessment of past research with a retest of Schachter's classic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13,161-86.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring the implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.27,141-172.
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning,48,631-664.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing:a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24,2,143-188.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism:The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.) The handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.63-103). Blackwell Publishing Group.
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics,27,1-24.
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics,27,164-194.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence:Implications for Applied Linguistics-introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics,27,4, 558-589.
Elman, J., (1999). The emergence of language:A conspiracy theory. In:B. MacWhinney, (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp.1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure: the syntax-discourse interface. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2006). Bridge phenomena. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp.284-294). Maiden:Blackwell.
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,19,677-758.
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Munte, T. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies:An ERP study of topicalization and Wh-movement in German. Brain and Language,87,345-354.
Felser, C., & Robrets, L. (2007). Processing Wh-dependencies in a second language; a cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research,23,1,9-36.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O' Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions:The case of LET ALONE. Language,64,501-538.
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121-158). San Diego:Academic Press.
Fodor, J. D. (1992). Islands, learnability and lexicon. In H. Goodluck and M. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints:Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 109-180). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Fodor, J. D. (1983). Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy,6,163-223.
Frank, R. (2006). Phase theory and Tree Adjoining Grammar. Lingua,116,145-202.
Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MIT.
Gass, S. M. (1980). L2 data:Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly, 14,4,443-452.
Gass, S. M. (1994). The reliability of second language grammaticality judgments. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.) Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303-322). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity:locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68,1-76.
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long distance dependencies. Syntax,7,55-78.
Givon, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse:A quantitative cross language study. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in inter-language grammars:a prosodic approach. Second Language Research,22,243-268.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions:a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions:a new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences,7,5,219-224.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work:The nature of generalization in language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Goodluck, H. (1991). Language acquisition:A linguistic introduction. Blackwell.
Goss, N, Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Two heads may be better than one: Mental activity in second-language grammatically judgments. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.) Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.263-86). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Gregg, K. R. (2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,19,2:95-128.
Grimshaw, J. (1986). Subjacency and the S/S'parameter. Linguistic Inquiry,17,2, 364-369.
Grosu, A. (1972). The strategic content of island constraints. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University.
Grosu, A. (1973). On the status of the so-called Right Roof Constraint. Language,49,2, 294-311.
Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering:a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics,21,2,203-225.
Gundel, J., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.) The handbook of pragmatics (pp.175-196). Oxford:Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A. (1999) Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language,75,2,244-285.
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax. Oxford:Blackwell.
Hawkins, R. (2008a). The nativist perspective on second language acquisition. Lingua 118,4:465-477.
Hawkins, R. (2008b). Can innate linguistic knowledge be eliminated from theories of SLA? Lingua 118,4,613-619.
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The 'failed functional features hypothesis'. Second Language Research,13,3,187-226.
Herschensohn, J. R. (2000). The second time around:Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Huang, C.-T. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. (2010). Theory of locality in syntactic movement:from GB to Minimalism. Handout 1, Beijing.
Hopper, P.J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In:M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language:Cognitive and functional approaches (pp.155-175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Huang, Y. (2000). Discourse anaphora:Four theoretical models. Journal of pragmatics, 32,151-176.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2001). Book review. [Review of the book Focus:Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, (eds.),]. Journal of Pragmatics,33,1651-1663.
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of Wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research,21,121-151.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing:Subject and object asymmetries in Wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,17,483-516.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of Subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition,39,215-258.
Johnson, J. S., Shenkman, K. D., Newport, E. L., & Medin, D. L. (1996). Indeterminacy in the grammar of adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language,35, 335-352.
Kang, A. (2001). The subjacency principle:Acquisition level facilitated ESL and EFL settings. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Kansas.
Kay P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:The What s X doing Y? construction. Language,75,1-33.
Keller, F. (1999). Book review. [Review of the book The empirical base of linguistics: grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology by Schutze, C]. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information,8,114-121.
Kim, J., & Sells, P. (2007). English syntax:An introduction. CS LI Publications.
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes,8,573-633.
Kluender, R. (1992). Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (Eds.) Island constraints:Theory, acquisition and processing (pp.223-258). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. Ⅱ:Descriptive application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent endstate grammar. Second Language Research,14,359-375.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity theory and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,18,141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27,4,590-619.
Lee, J. (2009). A subject-object asymmetry in the comprehension of Wh-questions by Korean learners of English. Applied Linguistics,31,1,136-155.
Li, X. (1998). Adult L2 accessibility to UG:An issue revisited. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O' Neill. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.89-110). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Longa, V. ML, & Lorenzo, G. (2008). What about a (really) minimalist theory of language acquisition? Linguistics,46,3,541-570.
MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. (2006). Emergentism—use often and with care. Applied Linguistics, 27,4,729-740.
Mandell, P. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticality judgment tests in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research,15,1,73-99.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,53-78.
Marras, A. (2006). Emergence and reduction:Reply to Kim. Synthese,151,561-569.
Martohardjono, G (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language:A cross-linguistic study of 3 languages with and without overt movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Martohardjono, G (1998). Measuring competence in L2 acquisition:commentary on Part 2. In S. Flynn, G Martohardjono, & W. O'Neill. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.151-157). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Mellow, J. D. (2004). Connectionism, HPSG signs and SLA representations:specifying principles of mapping between from and function. Second Language Research,20, 2,131-165.
Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax:a case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics,27,4,645-670.
Mellow, J. D. (2008a). The emergence of complex syntax:A longitudinal case study of the ESL development of dependency resolution. Lingua,118,4,499-521.
Mellow, J. D. (2008b). How big is minimal? Lingua,118,4,632-635.
Munnich, E, Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks:What they measure and how they relate to each other. In E. Tarone, et al. (Eds.) Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.227-243). Hillsdale NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Murphy, V. A. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgment task Second Language Research,13,1,34-65
Netto, G. (1995). Accessibility to universal grammar in non-native grammars: the acquisition of Wh-movement by Malay learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom),
Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language,79,4, 682-707.
Nunes, J., & Uriagereka, J. (2000). 'Cyclicity and extraction domains', Syntax,3, 20-43.
O' Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry:An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O' Grady, W. (2003). The Radical middle:Nativism without University Grammar. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (43-62). Blackwell Publishing Group.
O' Grady, W. (2008a). The emergentist program. Lingua,118,4,447-464.
O' Grady, W. (2008b). Innateness, universal grammar, and emergentism. Lingua,118,4, 620-631.
O' Grady, W., Nakamura, M., & Ito, Y. (2008). Want-to contraction in second language acquisition:An emergentist approach. Lingua,118,4,478-498.
Ozaki, S. (1999). Acquisition of subjacency by nonnative speakers in two different contexts. Master's thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez (Puerto Rico),.
Parisse, C. (2005). New perspectives on language development and the innateness of grammatical knowledge. Language Sciences,27,383-401.
Perez-Leroux, A. T., & Li, X. (1999). Selectivity in the acquisition of complex NP islands. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.) The development of second language grammars:A generative approach (pp.147-168). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Phillips, C. (2006). The real time status of island phenomena. Language,82,4,795-823.
Pinker, S. (1996). Language learnability and language development revisited. Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language:What's special about it? Cognition,95,201-236.
Plaza-pust, C. (2008). Dynamic systems theory and Universal Grammar:Holding a turbulent mirror to development in grammars. The Modern Language Journal,92, 2,250-269.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prevost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research,16,103-133.
Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Subjacency in a principle-based parser. In R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Principle-based parsing:Computation and psycholinguistics (pp.301-345). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Prince, E. (1992). The EPG Letter:subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thomason, & W. Mann (Eds.) Discourse description:Discourse analysis of a fundraising text (pp.295-325). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2006). Minimalist syntax revisited, http://courses.essex.ac.uk/lg/lg514
Rice, C. M. (1999). Post-critical period age of arrival and its relationship to ultimate attainment in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom).
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables, in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saad, N. A. (2009). The acquisition and processing of Wh-movement by Najidi learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory:A formal introduction (second edition). CSL1 Publications.
Schachter, J. (1989b). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp.73-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments:Why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12,379-92.
Schwabe, K., & Winkler, S. (2007). On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research,12,40-72.
Schiitze, C. (1996). Empirical base of linguistics:Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Inter-language. International Review of Applied Linguistics,10, 209-231.
Shim, R. (1995). The sensitive period for second language acquisition:An experimental study of age effects on universal grammar and language transfer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Smith, N.V., & Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). The mind of a savant:language learning and modularity. Oxford:Blackwell.
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.) Bilinguistic and socio linguistic accounts of syntactic variation (pp. 55-80). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.375-409). San Diego, CA:Academic.
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MIT.
Szabolcsi, A. (2006). Strong vs. weak islands. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp.479-531). Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Taboada, M., & Wiesemann, L. (2010). Subjects and topics in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,42,1816-1828
Takami, K. (1989). Preposition stranding:Arguments against syntactic analyses and an alternative functional explanation. Lingua,76,299-335.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language:A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Tremblay, A. (2005). Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies,24, 1,129-167.
Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production:Beyond the representational deficit and processing constraints debate. Second Language Research,23,3,289-327.
Truswell, R. (2007a). A semantic constraint on Wh-movement Extended:events and extraction from in order clauses. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV,1-19. http://www.sole.leidenuniv.nl/
Truswell, R. (2007b). Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua,117, 1355-1377.
Tsimpli, I.M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from Wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,23,2,215-242.
Uziel, S. (1993). Resetting Universal Grammar parameters:Evidence from Second Language Acquisition of subjacency and the Empty Category principle. Second Language Research,9,49-83.
Van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of LI and L2 acquisition:An introduction. The Modern Language Journal,92,2,179-199.
Van Valin, R., & Lapolla, R. (1997). Syntax:Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, R. (1998). The acquisition of Wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language:Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ward, G., & Birner, B. (2004). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.153-174). Blackwell.
Ward, G., & Birner, B. (2006). Discourse and information structure. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.) The Hand Book of Discourse Analysis (pp. 129-137). Mainstreet, Malden, MA, USA:Blackwell.
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp.144-172). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12,121-133.
White, L. (1992). Subjacency violations and empty categories in L2 acquisition. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints (pp.445-464). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
White, L., & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on Wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native, language acquisition:Competence and processing. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O' Neill. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.111-129). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
White, L. (2003a). On the nature of Inter-language representation:Universal Grammar in the second language. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.19-42). Malden, MA:Blackwell.
White, L. (2003b). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (2010). Changing perspectives on Universal Grammar and crosslinguistic variation in L2 acquisition. The 4th national symposium on SLA in China, Soochow University.
Wong, B. E., (1999). Acquisition of Wh-movement in English questions and relative clauses by speakers of Malay. PhD dissertation, University of Essex (United Kingdom).
Wu,H.[吴红岩],2004,成人二语习得中邻接原则的可及性研究.外语教学与研究(6)：451-456.
Xu, L. (1990). Remarks on LF movement in Chinese questions. Linguistics,28, 355-382.
Yusa, N. (1999). Multiple-specifiers and Wh-island effects in L2 acquisition. In E. C. Klein, & G. Martohardjono (Eds.) The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp.289-315). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yusa, N. (1998). A minimalist approach to Second Language Acquistion. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O'Neill (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.215-238). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Zhou, G., & Cai, J[周光磊,蔡金亭],2007,二语习得中的语法判断方法.解放军外国语学院学报(4)：54-59.
See Bley-Vroman and Chaudron (1994) for a detailed introduction.
1 There is controversy in language acquisition on the difficulty of object and subject extractions. Some researchers (Schachter & Yip 1990; Juffs & Harrington,1995; White & Juffs,1998) found that subject extraction is more difficult than object extraction. Others (e.g., Lee,2009) found subject Wh-questions are easier than object Wh-questions.
Al-Banyan, A. A. M. (1996). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in language acquisition:A cross-linguistic perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Allen, J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In Macwhinney, B (Ed.), Emergentist approaches to language:Proceedings of the 28th Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp.115-152). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ambridge, B., & Goldberg, A. (2008). The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19,3,349-381
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language,51,23-54.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun antecedent. New York:Routledge.
Belikova, A & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis or not?-Island constraints revisited. Studies in SLA,31,199-223.
Berwick, R & Weinberg, A. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlanguage competence. New York:Springer.
Bley-Vroman, R.W., Felix, S.W., & Ioup, G L. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research,4,1-32.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 41-68). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Chaudron, C. (1994). Elicited imitation as a measure of second language competence. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.), Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.245-261). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Borsley, R. D. (1996). Modern Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Brown, G, & Yule, G (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cao, Y., & Yu, L. [曹勇衡,俞理明],2009,英语长距离依赖结构“中间空隙效应”研究.现代外语,(1)：68-75.
Casillas, G. (2008). The insufficiency of three types of learning to explain language acquisition. Lingua,118,4,636-641.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse:Consciousness and time. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Chaudron, C. (2003). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.762-828). Oxford: Blackwell
Chomsky, N. (1973). "Conditions on Transformations," in S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston,.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris:Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language:Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries:the framework. In:R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step, essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp.89-155). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale:A Life in Language. Cambridge (pp.1-52). MA:The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). On Phases, in C. P. Otero, et al. (Eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chung, S. & McCloskey, J. (1983). On the Interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry,14,4,704-713.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A' -dependencies. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics,27,3-42.
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. M. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp.273-317). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London:Macmillan.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's Universal Grammar:An introduction. Blackwell.
Cowan, R., & Hatasa, Y. A. (1994). Investigating the validity and reliability of native speaker and second-language learner judgments about sentences. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.), Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.287-302). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax:Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Davies, W., & Kaplan, T. (1998). Native speaker vs L2 learner grammaticality judgments. Applied Linguistics,19,2,183-203.
De Bot, K. (2008). Introduction:second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal,92,2,166-178.
Deane, P. (1991). Limits to attention:A cognitive theory of island constraints. Cognitive Linguistics,2,1-63.
Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of Wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Acquisition,26,4,443-472.
Edwards, C. D. (1998). Universal grammar access by adult L2 learners:A reassessment of past research with a retest of Schachter's classic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13,161-86.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring the implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.27,141-172.
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning,48,631-664.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing:a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24,2,143-188.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism:The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.) The handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.63-103). Blackwell Publishing Group.
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics,27,1-24.
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics,27,164-194.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence:Implications for Applied Linguistics-introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics,27,4, 558-589.
Elman, J., (1999). The emergence of language:A conspiracy theory. In:B. MacWhinney, (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp.1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure: the syntax-discourse interface. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2006). Bridge phenomena. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp.284-294). Maiden:Blackwell.
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,19,677-758.
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Munte, T. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies:An ERP study of topicalization and Wh-movement in German. Brain and Language,87,345-354.
Felser, C., & Robrets, L. (2007). Processing Wh-dependencies in a second language; a cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research,23,1,9-36.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O' Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions:The case of LET ALONE. Language,64,501-538.
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121-158). San Diego:Academic Press.
Fodor, J. D. (1992). Islands, learnability and lexicon. In H. Goodluck and M. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints:Theory, acquisition and processing (pp. 109-180). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Fodor, J. D. (1983). Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy,6,163-223.
Frank, R. (2006). Phase theory and Tree Adjoining Grammar. Lingua,116,145-202.
Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MIT.
Gass, S. M. (1980). L2 data:Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly, 14,4,443-452.
Gass, S. M. (1994). The reliability of second language grammaticality judgments. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.) Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303-322). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity:locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68,1-76.
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long distance dependencies. Syntax,7,55-78.
Givon, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse:A quantitative cross language study. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in inter-language grammars:a prosodic approach. Second Language Research,22,243-268.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions:a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions:a new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences,7,5,219-224.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work:The nature of generalization in language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Goodluck, H. (1991). Language acquisition:A linguistic introduction. Blackwell.
Goss, N, Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Two heads may be better than one: Mental activity in second-language grammatically judgments. In Tarone, et al. (Eds.) Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.263-86). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Gregg, K. R. (2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,19,2:95-128.
Grimshaw, J. (1986). Subjacency and the S/S'parameter. Linguistic Inquiry,17,2, 364-369.
Grosu, A. (1972). The strategic content of island constraints. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University.
Grosu, A. (1973). On the status of the so-called Right Roof Constraint. Language,49,2, 294-311.
Grosz, B., Joshi, A., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering:a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics,21,2,203-225.
Gundel, J., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.) The handbook of pragmatics (pp.175-196). Oxford:Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A. (1999) Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language,75,2,244-285.
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax. Oxford:Blackwell.
Hawkins, R. (2008a). The nativist perspective on second language acquisition. Lingua 118,4:465-477.
Hawkins, R. (2008b). Can innate linguistic knowledge be eliminated from theories of SLA? Lingua 118,4,613-619.
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y-H. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The 'failed functional features hypothesis'. Second Language Research,13,3,187-226.
Herschensohn, J. R. (2000). The second time around:Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Huang, C.-T. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. (2010). Theory of locality in syntactic movement:from GB to Minimalism. Handout 1, Beijing.
Hopper, P.J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In:M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language:Cognitive and functional approaches (pp.155-175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Huang, Y. (2000). Discourse anaphora:Four theoretical models. Journal of pragmatics, 32,151-176.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2001). Book review. [Review of the book Focus:Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, (eds.),]. Journal of Pragmatics,33,1651-1663.
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of Wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research,21,121-151.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing:Subject and object asymmetries in Wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,17,483-516.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of Subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition,39,215-258.
Johnson, J. S., Shenkman, K. D., Newport, E. L., & Medin, D. L. (1996). Indeterminacy in the grammar of adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language,35, 335-352.
Kang, A. (2001). The subjacency principle:Acquisition level facilitated ESL and EFL settings. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Kansas.
Kay P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:The What s X doing Y? construction. Language,75,1-33.
Keller, F. (1999). Book review. [Review of the book The empirical base of linguistics: grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology by Schutze, C]. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information,8,114-121.
Kim, J., & Sells, P. (2007). English syntax:An introduction. CS LI Publications.
Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes,8,573-633.
Kluender, R. (1992). Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (Eds.) Island constraints:Theory, acquisition and processing (pp.223-258). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. Ⅱ:Descriptive application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent endstate grammar. Second Language Research,14,359-375.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity theory and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,18,141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27,4,590-619.
Lee, J. (2009). A subject-object asymmetry in the comprehension of Wh-questions by Korean learners of English. Applied Linguistics,31,1,136-155.
Li, X. (1998). Adult L2 accessibility to UG:An issue revisited. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O' Neill. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.89-110). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Longa, V. ML, & Lorenzo, G. (2008). What about a (really) minimalist theory of language acquisition? Linguistics,46,3,541-570.
MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. (2006). Emergentism—use often and with care. Applied Linguistics, 27,4,729-740.
Mandell, P. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticality judgment tests in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research,15,1,73-99.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,53-78.
Marras, A. (2006). Emergence and reduction:Reply to Kim. Synthese,151,561-569.
Martohardjono, G (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language:A cross-linguistic study of 3 languages with and without overt movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Martohardjono, G (1998). Measuring competence in L2 acquisition:commentary on Part 2. In S. Flynn, G Martohardjono, & W. O'Neill. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.151-157). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Mellow, J. D. (2004). Connectionism, HPSG signs and SLA representations:specifying principles of mapping between from and function. Second Language Research,20, 2,131-165.
Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax:a case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics,27,4,645-670.
Mellow, J. D. (2008a). The emergence of complex syntax:A longitudinal case study of the ESL development of dependency resolution. Lingua,118,4,499-521.
Mellow, J. D. (2008b). How big is minimal? Lingua,118,4,632-635.
Munnich, E, Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1994). Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks:What they measure and how they relate to each other. In E. Tarone, et al. (Eds.) Research methodology in Second Language Acquisition (pp.227-243). Hillsdale NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Murphy, V. A. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgment task Second Language Research,13,1,34-65
Netto, G. (1995). Accessibility to universal grammar in non-native grammars: the acquisition of Wh-movement by Malay learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom),
Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language,79,4, 682-707.
Nunes, J., & Uriagereka, J. (2000). 'Cyclicity and extraction domains', Syntax,3, 20-43.
O' Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry:An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O' Grady, W. (2003). The Radical middle:Nativism without University Grammar. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (43-62). Blackwell Publishing Group.
O' Grady, W. (2008a). The emergentist program. Lingua,118,4,447-464.
O' Grady, W. (2008b). Innateness, universal grammar, and emergentism. Lingua,118,4, 620-631.
O' Grady, W., Nakamura, M., & Ito, Y. (2008). Want-to contraction in second language acquisition:An emergentist approach. Lingua,118,4,478-498.
Ozaki, S. (1999). Acquisition of subjacency by nonnative speakers in two different contexts. Master's thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez (Puerto Rico),.
Parisse, C. (2005). New perspectives on language development and the innateness of grammatical knowledge. Language Sciences,27,383-401.
Perez-Leroux, A. T., & Li, X. (1999). Selectivity in the acquisition of complex NP islands. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.) The development of second language grammars:A generative approach (pp.147-168). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Phillips, C. (2006). The real time status of island phenomena. Language,82,4,795-823.
Pinker, S. (1996). Language learnability and language development revisited. Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language:What's special about it? Cognition,95,201-236.
Plaza-pust, C. (2008). Dynamic systems theory and Universal Grammar:Holding a turbulent mirror to development in grammars. The Modern Language Journal,92, 2,250-269.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prevost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research,16,103-133.
Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Subjacency in a principle-based parser. In R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Principle-based parsing:Computation and psycholinguistics (pp.301-345). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Prince, E. (1992). The EPG Letter:subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thomason, & W. Mann (Eds.) Discourse description:Discourse analysis of a fundraising text (pp.295-325). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2006). Minimalist syntax revisited, http://courses.essex.ac.uk/lg/lg514
Rice, C. M. (1999). Post-critical period age of arrival and its relationship to ultimate attainment in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom).
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables, in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saad, N. A. (2009). The acquisition and processing of Wh-movement by Najidi learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory:A formal introduction (second edition). CSL1 Publications.
Schachter, J. (1989b). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp.73-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments:Why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12,379-92.
Schwabe, K., & Winkler, S. (2007). On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research,12,40-72.
Schiitze, C. (1996). Empirical base of linguistics:Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Inter-language. International Review of Applied Linguistics,10, 209-231.
Shim, R. (1995). The sensitive period for second language acquisition:An experimental study of age effects on universal grammar and language transfer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Smith, N.V., & Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). The mind of a savant:language learning and modularity. Oxford:Blackwell.
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.) Bilinguistic and socio linguistic accounts of syntactic variation (pp. 55-80). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.375-409). San Diego, CA:Academic.
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MIT.
Szabolcsi, A. (2006). Strong vs. weak islands. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp.479-531). Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Taboada, M., & Wiesemann, L. (2010). Subjects and topics in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,42,1816-1828
Takami, K. (1989). Preposition stranding:Arguments against syntactic analyses and an alternative functional explanation. Lingua,76,299-335.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language:A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Tremblay, A. (2005). Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies,24, 1,129-167.
Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production:Beyond the representational deficit and processing constraints debate. Second Language Research,23,3,289-327.
Truswell, R. (2007a). A semantic constraint on Wh-movement Extended:events and extraction from in order clauses. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV,1-19. http://www.sole.leidenuniv.nl/
Truswell, R. (2007b). Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua,117, 1355-1377.
Tsimpli, I.M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from Wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research,23,2,215-242.
Uziel, S. (1993). Resetting Universal Grammar parameters:Evidence from Second Language Acquisition of subjacency and the Empty Category principle. Second Language Research,9,49-83.
Van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of LI and L2 acquisition:An introduction. The Modern Language Journal,92,2,179-199.
Van Valin, R., & Lapolla, R. (1997). Syntax:Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, R. (1998). The acquisition of Wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language:Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ward, G., & Birner, B. (2004). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.153-174). Blackwell.
Ward, G., & Birner, B. (2006). Discourse and information structure. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.) The Hand Book of Discourse Analysis (pp. 129-137). Mainstreet, Malden, MA, USA:Blackwell.
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp.144-172). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12,121-133.
White, L. (1992). Subjacency violations and empty categories in L2 acquisition. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints (pp.445-464). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
White, L., & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on Wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native, language acquisition:Competence and processing. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O' Neill. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.111-129). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
White, L. (2003a). On the nature of Inter-language representation:Universal Grammar in the second language. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.19-42). Malden, MA:Blackwell.
White, L. (2003b). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (2010). Changing perspectives on Universal Grammar and crosslinguistic variation in L2 acquisition. The 4th national symposium on SLA in China, Soochow University.
Wong, B. E., (1999). Acquisition of Wh-movement in English questions and relative clauses by speakers of Malay. PhD dissertation, University of Essex (United Kingdom).
Wu,H.[吴红岩],2004,成人二语习得中邻接原则的可及性研究.外语教学与研究(6)：451-456.
Xu, L. (1990). Remarks on LF movement in Chinese questions. Linguistics,28, 355-382.
Yusa, N. (1999). Multiple-specifiers and Wh-island effects in L2 acquisition. In E. C. Klein, & G. Martohardjono (Eds.) The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp.289-315). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yusa, N. (1998). A minimalist approach to Second Language Acquistion. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O'Neill (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp.215-238). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Zhou, G., & Cai, J[周光磊,蔡金亭],2007,二语习得中的语法判断方法.解放军外国语学院学报(4)：54-59.