基于阅读时间的二语习得者句子空隙处理研究
|
摘要
多年来，第一语言（以下简称一语）的句子处理问题一直是语言学和心理语言学的研究热点。第二语言习得研究(以下简称二语习得研究)则关注于个体的学习过程和结果，并致力于解释其达到某种语言水平的原因(Dussias,2003:531)。鉴于二语习得研究在侧重点上同一语句子处理研究有很大不同，加之研究者缺乏句子处理研究所需的技术资源和专业知识，因此，二语句子处理方面的研究一直未受到人们的关注。
无论在一语还是在二语中，如何处理语言输入都是习得语法体系的关键，这是因为目标语语法的构建是由语言输入来驱动的。而二语习得者如何实时处理目标语语言输入对于研究二语语法的发展尤为重要。此外，许多研究者(Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b; Felser&Roberts,2007; Juffs,2005; Papadopoulou,2005)指出，成年人二语习得难以获得成功正是由于二语习得者不佳的句法分析机制所致。
本研究针对近几年二语句子处理研究的现状，通过心理语言学的实验手段，考察中国英语学习者在线阅读两种填充词-空隙依赖结构(中间空隙和主语填充空隙)时所反映出的句法分析机制，比较其与英语本族人之间的区别，分析英语水平对句子处理过程的影响，结合现有相关理论进行讨论的同时提出作者自己的理论假设，并探讨研究结果对英语教学的启示。
本研究的理论框架为建立在原则与参数理论基础上的Prichett的句法分析理论以及Clifton&Frazier的活跃填充词假设。研究中采用的实验句是基于这些理论框架进行设计，并进而展开分析和讨论的。
实证研究由测试中间空隙效应和测试主语填充空隙效应两部分组成。为研究二语习得者处理句子空隙的能力，两部分实验句都遵循着将句法空隙处理(Syntactic Gap Processing)同词汇/语义联合(Lexical/Semantic Association)分开的原则。两部分实验步骤一致。
被试者为上海某高校非英语专业二年级学生，根据大学英语四级成绩分为高分组和低分组，每组各35人。另设由32名英语本族人组成的对照组。实验前，每位被试者均完成了工作记忆水平的测试，用以研究工作记忆对实验结果的影响。
本研究采用离线任务(offline task)和在线任务(online task)相结合的实验方法。离线任务要求被试者阅读由实验句改编而来的句子并回答问题，以考察被试是否具备理解这类语法结构的能力。在线阅读任务于离线任务后三星期进行，采用自控步速阅读法(Self-Paced Reading)的技术手段，收集被试者在线阅读实验句各部分所花时间及其对句子的理解情况。主要研究结果如下:
（一）在线阅读过程中，二语习得者所使用的句法分析机制同英语本族人有着本质的区别。本族人能觉察到实验句子中传达句法信息的功能词语，并善于利用它们建立深层句法表征；而二语习得者无法像本族人那样利用句子空隙进行句法分析，主要依靠句中的词汇/语义信息来完成对句子的理解。
（二）二语习得者的语法知识同其句法分析机制之间的关系不平衡。被试者在回答有关实验句的问题时准确率很高，表明他们具备了必要的词汇和语法知识，从而可以准确理解句子的含义。然而不同于本族人的是，他们在线阅读过程中，不能够利用实验句中的某些语法信息进行深入的句法分析。
（三）两个水平组的被试者在中间空隙效应的实验中差异不显著，他们不能利用实验句中的中间空隙来完成填充词的整合。然而，两组被试者在主语填充空隙效应的实验中表现却不同。高分组的被试者同本族人一样进行了主语空隙的分析，而低分组的被试者则没能进行这种空隙分析。
本研究对二语习得研究的贡献主要体现在以下几方面:
(一)现有的一些相关理论，比如输入处理理论(Input Processing Theory: VanPatten,1996,2000,2002,2004)，陈述性/程序性记忆模型(Declarative/ProceduralModel: Ullman,2001,2004,2006)以及浅结构假设(Shallow Structure Hypothesis:Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b)等理论，在探讨二语习得者处理目标语语言输入的过程时，都没有考虑到句法结构的不同为处理过程带来的影响。针对本研究的结果，作者提出了“空隙可及性等级”(GapAccessibility Hierarchy)的假设，解释了高分组被试者处理两种句法空隙时采用不同策略的原因，充实了二语句子处理理论研究的内容。
(二)本研究在实验方法上有所改进。首先，不同于以往二语句子处理研究选取同一语言水平被试者的模式，将英语语言水平作为被试间因素融入实验设计中，有助于揭示句法分析机制的发展轨迹。其次，采用了经过特殊设计的实验句，成功地将句法空隙处理同词汇/语义联合区分开，更加准确地反映了二语句子空隙处理的真实情况。
(三)本研究对英语教学有一定的启示。针对二语习得者语法知识同句法分析机制之间的不平衡关系，作者指出通过课堂教学帮助学习者改变先前不佳的句法处理策略的必要性，并探讨了“处理教学法”在我国开展的可行性。
For decades, first language (L1) sentence processing has been a popular area ofresearch among linguists and psycholinguists. On the other hand, Second LanguageAcquisition (SLA) research is primarily concerned with explaining how individualsacquire proficiency in a second language (L2) and focuses on both the learning processand individual outcomes (Dussias,2003:531). The divergent goals between SLA researchand sentence processing research, coupled with insufficient technical resources andmethodological expertise among SLA researchers, have kept L2research on sentenceprocessing in a peripheral situation.
However, the processing of input materials is crucially involved in the acquisition ofgrammatical system in both L1and L2, because the construction of the target grammarhas to be driven by the input, and the way L2learners process sentences in real time isimportant to a thorough understanding of the development of the L2grammar. Besides,many researchers in L2acquisition (Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b; Felser&Roberts,2007;Juffs,2005; Papadopoulou,2005) have raised the question of whether the incompleteacquisition broadly observed in L2learners is due to non-optimal parsing mechanismsemployed by the learners.
The present study arises out of the concern over the current situation in L2sentenceprocessing studies. Its objective is to investigate Chinese EFL learners’ parsingmechanism by examining their online reading of filler-gap dependencies that containIntermediate Gap and Subject Filled Gap, compare their parsing performance with that ofnative speakers of English, explore the role of proficiency levels in L2sentenceprocessing, evaluate the existing theoretical models and seek alternative explanations forthe L2sentence processing that bears insight to SLA research and foreign language teaching.
Prichett’s parsing theory which is based on Principles and Parameters frameworkand Clifton&Frazier’s Active Filler Hypothesis provide the theoretical framework forthe present study, within which the experimental sentences are designed and theassumptions and implications thereof are drawn.
The empirical study consists of two parts, with the first part testing IntermediateGap Effect and the second part the Subject Filled-Gap Effect. To explore how L2learnersprocess the two kinds of syntactic gaps, experimental sentences used for both parts aredesigned in such a way that the syntactic gap processing could be separated fromlexical/semantic association. The two parts of the empirical study follow roughly thesame procedure.
The participants of the present study are second-year university students grouped byCET4scores into two proficiency groups, the High Proficiency Group and the LowProficiency Group, with35students in each group. Thirty-two native speakers of Englishas a control group also participated in the present study. Each participant was asked tocomplete a working memory test at the beginning of the experiment, the purpose ofwhich was to provide data for the investigation of possible effect of working memorylevels on their online reading performance.
The methods employed in the empirical study included both an offline and an onlinetask. In the offline task, the participants were asked to read sentences that had beenadapted from the online reading task and answer the comprehension questions after eachsentence. The purpose of the offline task was to make sure that all participants were ableto comprehend the grammatical structures under investigation. The online reading taskwas implemented three weeks after the offline task and the technique involved is calledSelf-Paced Reading (SPR), which collects both the online accuracy scores (for the onlinecomprehension questions) and the reading time of each segment of the experimentalsentences. The principal results of the empirical study are summarized as follows.
(1) There are qualitative differences between L2learners and native speakers of English in terms of the parsing mechanism employed during the online reading task.Native speakers were sensitive to the syntactic information conveyed by certaingrammatical words and were able to make use of them in building the underlyingsyntactic representation. However, L2learners failed to employ syntactic gap analysislike the native speakers and mainly relied on the lexical/semantic information conveyedby the content words.
(2) There are discrepancies between L2learners’ grammatical knowledge and theirparsing mechanism. The learners from the two Proficiency Groups achieved high scoresin answering the comprehension questions in both the offline questionnaire and theonline reading task, indicating that both groups possessed the necessary lexical andgrammatical knowledge to arrive at the correct interpretation of the experimentalsentences. However, unlike the native speakers, they were unable to make use of thesyntactic information conveyed by certain grammatical words to facilitate the full parsingof the experimental sentences.
(3) The L2learners of the two proficiency groups performed similarly in theexperiment testing Intermediate Gap Effect in that they both failed to make use of theintermediate gap for filler integration. However, they differed in the experiment testingSubject Filled-Gap Effect in that learners from the High Proficiency Group showed asimilar pattern with native speakers while learners from the Low Proficiency Groupfailed to posit a subject gap.
The main contributions of the present study are summarized as follows.
(1) The present study sheds light on the development of new theories accounting forL2processing. The current theories, such as Input Processing Theory (Van Patten,1996,2000,2002,2004), Declarative/Procedural Model (Ullman,2001,2004,2006) andShallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b), have offered littleexplanation for the differences in processing difficulties between different grammaticalstructures during L2sentence processing. In light of the findings yielded from the presentstudy, the researcher has contributed to the further development of SLA theories by putting forward a tentative model “Gap Accessibility Hierarchy” hypothesis to accountfor the fact that learners from the High Proficiency Group adopted different parsingstrategies in processing the two kinds of syntactic gaps.
(2) The present study has recorded some improvement in research methodology onL2sentence processing. Firstly, the present study has included Proficiency Levels as abetween-subjects factor in the experimental design. This departs from the pattern ofprevious studies that only selected subjects of similar proficiency level, thus paving theway for further research on the developmental pattern of L2learners’ parsing mechanism.Secondly, with the design of experimental sentences improved, the present study hasmade a successful distinction between gap processing and lexical/semantic association,thus more accurately revealing the picture of L2sentence gap processing.
(3) It has pedagogical implications. In view of the discrepancies between L2learners’ grammatical knowledge and their parsing mechanism as found in the presentstudy, the researcher has posited a need to help the learners change their non-optimalparsing strategies through classroom instruction and explores the feasibility of“Processing Instruction” in China.
无论在一语还是在二语中，如何处理语言输入都是习得语法体系的关键，这是因为目标语语法的构建是由语言输入来驱动的。而二语习得者如何实时处理目标语语言输入对于研究二语语法的发展尤为重要。此外，许多研究者(Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b; Felser&Roberts,2007; Juffs,2005; Papadopoulou,2005)指出，成年人二语习得难以获得成功正是由于二语习得者不佳的句法分析机制所致。
本研究针对近几年二语句子处理研究的现状，通过心理语言学的实验手段，考察中国英语学习者在线阅读两种填充词-空隙依赖结构(中间空隙和主语填充空隙)时所反映出的句法分析机制，比较其与英语本族人之间的区别，分析英语水平对句子处理过程的影响，结合现有相关理论进行讨论的同时提出作者自己的理论假设，并探讨研究结果对英语教学的启示。
本研究的理论框架为建立在原则与参数理论基础上的Prichett的句法分析理论以及Clifton&Frazier的活跃填充词假设。研究中采用的实验句是基于这些理论框架进行设计，并进而展开分析和讨论的。
实证研究由测试中间空隙效应和测试主语填充空隙效应两部分组成。为研究二语习得者处理句子空隙的能力，两部分实验句都遵循着将句法空隙处理(Syntactic Gap Processing)同词汇/语义联合(Lexical/Semantic Association)分开的原则。两部分实验步骤一致。
被试者为上海某高校非英语专业二年级学生，根据大学英语四级成绩分为高分组和低分组，每组各35人。另设由32名英语本族人组成的对照组。实验前，每位被试者均完成了工作记忆水平的测试，用以研究工作记忆对实验结果的影响。
本研究采用离线任务(offline task)和在线任务(online task)相结合的实验方法。离线任务要求被试者阅读由实验句改编而来的句子并回答问题，以考察被试是否具备理解这类语法结构的能力。在线阅读任务于离线任务后三星期进行，采用自控步速阅读法(Self-Paced Reading)的技术手段，收集被试者在线阅读实验句各部分所花时间及其对句子的理解情况。主要研究结果如下:
（一）在线阅读过程中，二语习得者所使用的句法分析机制同英语本族人有着本质的区别。本族人能觉察到实验句子中传达句法信息的功能词语，并善于利用它们建立深层句法表征；而二语习得者无法像本族人那样利用句子空隙进行句法分析，主要依靠句中的词汇/语义信息来完成对句子的理解。
（二）二语习得者的语法知识同其句法分析机制之间的关系不平衡。被试者在回答有关实验句的问题时准确率很高，表明他们具备了必要的词汇和语法知识，从而可以准确理解句子的含义。然而不同于本族人的是，他们在线阅读过程中，不能够利用实验句中的某些语法信息进行深入的句法分析。
（三）两个水平组的被试者在中间空隙效应的实验中差异不显著，他们不能利用实验句中的中间空隙来完成填充词的整合。然而，两组被试者在主语填充空隙效应的实验中表现却不同。高分组的被试者同本族人一样进行了主语空隙的分析，而低分组的被试者则没能进行这种空隙分析。
本研究对二语习得研究的贡献主要体现在以下几方面:
(一)现有的一些相关理论，比如输入处理理论(Input Processing Theory: VanPatten,1996,2000,2002,2004)，陈述性/程序性记忆模型(Declarative/ProceduralModel: Ullman,2001,2004,2006)以及浅结构假设(Shallow Structure Hypothesis:Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b)等理论，在探讨二语习得者处理目标语语言输入的过程时，都没有考虑到句法结构的不同为处理过程带来的影响。针对本研究的结果，作者提出了“空隙可及性等级”(GapAccessibility Hierarchy)的假设，解释了高分组被试者处理两种句法空隙时采用不同策略的原因，充实了二语句子处理理论研究的内容。
(二)本研究在实验方法上有所改进。首先，不同于以往二语句子处理研究选取同一语言水平被试者的模式，将英语语言水平作为被试间因素融入实验设计中，有助于揭示句法分析机制的发展轨迹。其次，采用了经过特殊设计的实验句，成功地将句法空隙处理同词汇/语义联合区分开，更加准确地反映了二语句子空隙处理的真实情况。
(三)本研究对英语教学有一定的启示。针对二语习得者语法知识同句法分析机制之间的不平衡关系，作者指出通过课堂教学帮助学习者改变先前不佳的句法处理策略的必要性，并探讨了“处理教学法”在我国开展的可行性。
For decades, first language (L1) sentence processing has been a popular area ofresearch among linguists and psycholinguists. On the other hand, Second LanguageAcquisition (SLA) research is primarily concerned with explaining how individualsacquire proficiency in a second language (L2) and focuses on both the learning processand individual outcomes (Dussias,2003:531). The divergent goals between SLA researchand sentence processing research, coupled with insufficient technical resources andmethodological expertise among SLA researchers, have kept L2research on sentenceprocessing in a peripheral situation.
However, the processing of input materials is crucially involved in the acquisition ofgrammatical system in both L1and L2, because the construction of the target grammarhas to be driven by the input, and the way L2learners process sentences in real time isimportant to a thorough understanding of the development of the L2grammar. Besides,many researchers in L2acquisition (Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b; Felser&Roberts,2007;Juffs,2005; Papadopoulou,2005) have raised the question of whether the incompleteacquisition broadly observed in L2learners is due to non-optimal parsing mechanismsemployed by the learners.
The present study arises out of the concern over the current situation in L2sentenceprocessing studies. Its objective is to investigate Chinese EFL learners’ parsingmechanism by examining their online reading of filler-gap dependencies that containIntermediate Gap and Subject Filled Gap, compare their parsing performance with that ofnative speakers of English, explore the role of proficiency levels in L2sentenceprocessing, evaluate the existing theoretical models and seek alternative explanations forthe L2sentence processing that bears insight to SLA research and foreign language teaching.
Prichett’s parsing theory which is based on Principles and Parameters frameworkand Clifton&Frazier’s Active Filler Hypothesis provide the theoretical framework forthe present study, within which the experimental sentences are designed and theassumptions and implications thereof are drawn.
The empirical study consists of two parts, with the first part testing IntermediateGap Effect and the second part the Subject Filled-Gap Effect. To explore how L2learnersprocess the two kinds of syntactic gaps, experimental sentences used for both parts aredesigned in such a way that the syntactic gap processing could be separated fromlexical/semantic association. The two parts of the empirical study follow roughly thesame procedure.
The participants of the present study are second-year university students grouped byCET4scores into two proficiency groups, the High Proficiency Group and the LowProficiency Group, with35students in each group. Thirty-two native speakers of Englishas a control group also participated in the present study. Each participant was asked tocomplete a working memory test at the beginning of the experiment, the purpose ofwhich was to provide data for the investigation of possible effect of working memorylevels on their online reading performance.
The methods employed in the empirical study included both an offline and an onlinetask. In the offline task, the participants were asked to read sentences that had beenadapted from the online reading task and answer the comprehension questions after eachsentence. The purpose of the offline task was to make sure that all participants were ableto comprehend the grammatical structures under investigation. The online reading taskwas implemented three weeks after the offline task and the technique involved is calledSelf-Paced Reading (SPR), which collects both the online accuracy scores (for the onlinecomprehension questions) and the reading time of each segment of the experimentalsentences. The principal results of the empirical study are summarized as follows.
(1) There are qualitative differences between L2learners and native speakers of English in terms of the parsing mechanism employed during the online reading task.Native speakers were sensitive to the syntactic information conveyed by certaingrammatical words and were able to make use of them in building the underlyingsyntactic representation. However, L2learners failed to employ syntactic gap analysislike the native speakers and mainly relied on the lexical/semantic information conveyedby the content words.
(2) There are discrepancies between L2learners’ grammatical knowledge and theirparsing mechanism. The learners from the two Proficiency Groups achieved high scoresin answering the comprehension questions in both the offline questionnaire and theonline reading task, indicating that both groups possessed the necessary lexical andgrammatical knowledge to arrive at the correct interpretation of the experimentalsentences. However, unlike the native speakers, they were unable to make use of thesyntactic information conveyed by certain grammatical words to facilitate the full parsingof the experimental sentences.
(3) The L2learners of the two proficiency groups performed similarly in theexperiment testing Intermediate Gap Effect in that they both failed to make use of theintermediate gap for filler integration. However, they differed in the experiment testingSubject Filled-Gap Effect in that learners from the High Proficiency Group showed asimilar pattern with native speakers while learners from the Low Proficiency Groupfailed to posit a subject gap.
The main contributions of the present study are summarized as follows.
(1) The present study sheds light on the development of new theories accounting forL2processing. The current theories, such as Input Processing Theory (Van Patten,1996,2000,2002,2004), Declarative/Procedural Model (Ullman,2001,2004,2006) andShallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen&Felser,2006a, b), have offered littleexplanation for the differences in processing difficulties between different grammaticalstructures during L2sentence processing. In light of the findings yielded from the presentstudy, the researcher has contributed to the further development of SLA theories by putting forward a tentative model “Gap Accessibility Hierarchy” hypothesis to accountfor the fact that learners from the High Proficiency Group adopted different parsingstrategies in processing the two kinds of syntactic gaps.
(2) The present study has recorded some improvement in research methodology onL2sentence processing. Firstly, the present study has included Proficiency Levels as abetween-subjects factor in the experimental design. This departs from the pattern ofprevious studies that only selected subjects of similar proficiency level, thus paving theway for further research on the developmental pattern of L2learners’ parsing mechanism.Secondly, with the design of experimental sentences improved, the present study hasmade a successful distinction between gap processing and lexical/semantic association,thus more accurately revealing the picture of L2sentence gap processing.
(3) It has pedagogical implications. In view of the discrepancies between L2learners’ grammatical knowledge and their parsing mechanism as found in the presentstudy, the researcher has posited a need to help the learners change their non-optimalparsing strategies through classroom instruction and explores the feasibility of“Processing Instruction” in China.
引文
Altmann, G.,&Steedman, M.(1988). Interaction with context during human sentenceprocessing. Cognition,30:191-238.
Anderson, J. R.(1976). Language, Memory, and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R.(2000). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York:Freeman.
Ard, J.&Homburg, T.(1983). Verification of language transfer. In S. Gass&L.Selinker (Eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning (157-176). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Bates, E.,&MacWhinney, B.(1981). Second language acquisition from afunctionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In H.Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York academy of sciences. Native language andforeign language acquisition (190-214). New York: The New York Academy ofSciences.
Bates, E.,&MacWhinney, B.(1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E.Wanner&L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of Art (173-217).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, E.,&MacWhinney, B.(1987). Competition, variation, and language learning.In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (157-193). NewJersey: Erlbaum.
Benati, A.(2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction andoutput-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. LanguageTeaching Research,5:95-127.
Benati, A.(2004). The Effects of Processing Instruction and Its Components on theAcquisition of Gender Agreement in Italian. Language Awareness,2:67-80.
Berwick, R.&Weinberg, A.(1984). The Grammatical Basis of LinguisticPerformance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bever, T. G.,&B. McElree,(1988). Empty categories access their antecedents duringcomprehension. Linguistic Inquiry,19:35–43.
Bever, T.G.(1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In R. Hayes (Ed.),Cognition and Language Development (277-360). New York: Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Bialystok, E.(1990). The competence of processing: classifying theories of secondlanguage acquisition. TESOL quarterly,24:635-648.
Boland, J.E., Tanenhaus, M.K.&Garnsey, S.M.(1990). Evidence for the immediateuse of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory andLanguage,29:413-432.
Bresnan, J.&Kaplan, R.M.(1982). Introduction: Grammars as mental representationsof language. In Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of GrammaticalRelations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cadierno, T.(1995). Formal instruction from a processing prospective: aninvestigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal,79:179-193.
Cao, Y. H.(2004). A Psycholinguistic Study on Sentence Processing in ListeningComprehension. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Carlson, G. N.,&Tanenhaus, M. K.(1989). Introduction. In G. N. Carlson&M. K.Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing (1-26). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Carreiras, M.,&Clifton, C.(1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences inSpanish and English. Language and Speech,36:353–372.
Carreiras, M.,&Clifton, C.(1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses:Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition,27:826–833.
Carroll, D. W.(1999). Psychology of Language. New York: Brooks/Cole.
Carroll, S.(2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second languageacquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cheng, A.(1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: the acquisition ofSpanish ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.
Chomsky, N.(1972). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, N.1977. On wh-movement. In P.W.Culicover, T. Wasow&A. Akmajian(Eds.). Formal Syntax (71-132). New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N.(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Foris.
Chomsky, N.(1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H.&Felser, C.(2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners.Applied Psycholinguistics,27:3-42.
Clahsen, H.&Felser, C.(2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in languageprocessing. Applied Psycholinguistics,27:107-126.
Clark, H. H.&Clark, E. V.(1977). Psychology and Language. New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Clifton, C., Jr.,&Frazier, L.(1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distancedependencies. In G. N. Carlson&M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic Structure inLanguage Processing (273–317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Crain, S.&Fodor, J.D.(1985). How can grammars help parsers? In D.R. Dowty, L.Kartunnen, and A. Zwicky (eds.) Natural Language Parsing: Psychological,Computational and Theoretical Perspectives (95-128). Cambridge: CUP.
Cuetos, F.,&Mitchell, D.(1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictionson the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition,30:73–105.
Daneman, M. and Carpenter, P.(1980). Individual differences in working memoryand reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,19:450–66.
De Vincenzi, M.(1991). Filler-gap dependencies in a null-subject language:Referential and nonreferential WHs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,20:197–213.
Dowens, M.G.(2006). The shallow structure hypothesis of second language sentenceprocessing: What is restricted and why? Applied Psycholinguistics,27:49-52.
Duffield, N.(2006). How do you like your doughnuts? Applied Psycholinguistics,27:56.
Dussias, P.(2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in second language learners: Someeffects of bilinguality on L1and L2processing strategies. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,25:529-557.
Eckman, F.(1981). On predicting phonological difficulty in second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,4:18-30.
Ellis, N.C.(2002).‘Frequency effects and language processing: investigatingformulaic use and input in future expression’, Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition,24:143-188.
Felser, C.,&Roberts, L.(2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: across-modal priming study. Second Language Research,23:9-36.
Felser, C.,&Roberts, L.(2004). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths insecond language sentence processing. Poster presented at AMLaP,Aix-en-Provence, September2004.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R.,&Marinis, T.(2003). The processing of ambiguoussentences by first and second language learners of English. AppliedPsycholinguistics,24:453-489.
Fernández, E.(2003). Bilingual Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. and Ferraro, V.(2002). Good enough representations inlanguage comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science,11:11–15.
Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M.&Bever, T. G.(1968). Some syntactic determinants ofsentential complexity. Perception&Psycholinguistics.3:453-461.
Fodor, J. D.(1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language andCognitive Processes,4:155–209.
Fodor, J. D.(1993). Processing empty categories: A question of visibility. In G.Altmann,&R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: TheSecond Sperlonga Meeting (351–400). Hove: Erlbaum.
Fodor, J. D.(1995). Comprehending sentence structure. In L. R. Gleitman,&M.Liberman (Eds.), Language: An Invitation to Cognitive Science (209–246).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. D.(1998a). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,27:285–319.
Fodor, J. D.(1998b). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,27:339–374.
Fodor, J. D.(1999). Triggers for parsing with. In E. Klein&G. Martohardjano (Eds.),The Development of Second Language Grammars: A Generative Approach(373–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G.&Garrett, M.(1974). The Psychology of Language. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Foss, D. J.&Hakes, D. T.(1978). Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to thePsychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Frazier, L.&Clifton, C.(1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Frazier, L.&Rayner, K.(1982). Making and correcting errors during sentencecomprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguoussentences. Cognitive psychology,14:178-210.
Frazier, L.(1987). Sentence processing: review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention andPerformance, Vol, XII. The psychology of Reading (559-586). Hillsdale. NJ:Erlbaum.
Frazier, L.,&De Villiers, J.(1990). Language Processing and Language Acquisition.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frazier, L.,&Fodor, J. D.(1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsingmodel. Cognition,6:1-34.
Frenck-Mestre, C.,&Pynte, J.(1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while readingin second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A:119–148.
Friederici, A.(2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trendsin Cognitive Sciences,6:78–84.
Garman, M.(1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass S.(1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. LanguageLearning,29:327344.
Gass, S.(1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult L2learners. In R.Scarcella&S. Krashen (Eds.) Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley,MA: Newbury.
Gass, S.(1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectionalperspective. Applied Psycholinguistics,8:329-350.
Gass, S. M.(1997). Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Gazdar, G.(1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. LinguisticInquiry,12:155–184.
Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. K. Pullum&I. A. Sag.(1985). Generalized Phrase StructureGrammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibson, E.&Pearlmutter, N.(1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trendsin Cognitive Science,2:262-268.
Gibson, E.&Warren, T.(2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguisticstructure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax,7:55-78.
Gibson, E.(1998). Linguistic complexity; Locality and syntactic dependencies.Cognition,68:1-76.
Gibson, E.(2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory oflinguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz&W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image,Language and Brain,(95–126). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Gibson, E. and Schütze, C.T.(1999): Disambiguation preferences in noun phraseconjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language,40:263–79.
Gibson, E., Hickok, G.,&Shutze, C. T.(1994). Processing empty categories: Aparallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,23:381–405.
Gorrell, P.(1995). Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge: CUP.
Gregg, K.(2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P.Robinson,(Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (152-180).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, K.(2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. SecondLanguage Research,19:95–128.
Grodner, D., Gibson, E., Argaman, V. and Babyonyshev, M.(2003). Againstrepair-based reanalysis in sentence in comprehension. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch,32:141–66.
Hahne, A.(2001).What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence fromevent-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,30:251–266.
Hahne, A.,&Friederici, A.(2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,4:123–141.
Harrington, M.(1987). Processing transfer: language-specific processing strategies asa source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics,8:351-377.
Harrington, M.(2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson,(Ed.), Cognition andSecond Language Instruction (91-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L.,&Scheepers, C.(2000). Syntactic attachment andanaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M.Pickering,&C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for languageprocessing (259–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, V. M.&Foster, K. I.(1972). Perceptual Complexity and understandingsentence structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11:148-156.
Hulstijn, J.(2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing andacquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research,18:193-223.
Jackendoff, R.,&Culicover, P.(1971). A reconsideration of dative movement.Foundations of Language,7:392–412.
Juffs, A.&Harrington, M.(1995). Parsing effects in second language sentenceprocessing: subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,17:483-516.
Juffs, A.&Harrington, M.(1996). Garden-path sentences and error data in secondlanguage processing research. Language Learning,46:286-324.
Juffs, A.(1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in secondlanguage sentence processing. Language Learning,48:107-147.
Juffs, A.(2001). Psycho-linguistically oriented second language research. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics,21:207-220.
Juffs, A.(2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a secondlanguage. Transactions of the Philological Society,102:199-225.
Juffs, A.(2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement inEnglish as a second language. Second Language Research,21:121-151.
Just, M., P. Carpenter&J. Woolley.(1982). Paradigms and processes in readingcomprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111:228–238.
Keenan, E. L.,&Comrie, B.(1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.Linguistic Inquiry,8:63–100.
Kilbon, K.&Ito, T.(1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In B.MacWhinney&E. Bates (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing(257-291). New York: CUP.
Kilborn, K.(1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer.Language and Speech,32:1-23.
Kilborn, K.(1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a secondlanguage. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals(337-350).Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kimball, J. P.(1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition,2:15-47.
King, J.&Just, M.(1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role ofworking memory. Journal of Memory and language,30:580-602.
King, J. W.,&Kutas, M.(1995). Who did what and when? Using word-andclause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal ofCognitive Neuroscience,7:376–395.
Kintsch, W.(1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Klein, E.(1999). Just parsing through: notes on the state of L2processing researchtoday. In Klein, E. and Martohardjono, G.,(Eds.), The Development of SecondLanguage Grammars: A Generative Approach (197–216). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Lee, M.-W.(2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentenceprocessing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,33:51–73.
Liu, H., Bates, E.&Li, P.(1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers ofEnglish and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics,13:451-484.
Loftus, E. F.(1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. CognitivePsychology,7:560-572.
Love, T.,&D. Swinney,(1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis inobject-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with thecross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,25:5–24.
MacDonald, M. C.(Ed.).(1997). Lexical Representations and Sentence Processing.Hove: Psychology Press.
MacWhinney, B.(2001). The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain.In P.Robinson,(Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (69-90).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B.(2002). Extending the competition model. In R.R. Heredia&J.Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual Sentence Processing (31-57). New York: Elsevier.
MacWhinney, B.,&Bates, E.(1989). The Cross-linguistic Study of SentenceProcessing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E.,&Kliegl, R.(1984). Cue validity and sentenceinterpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of verbal learning andverbal behavior,23:127-150.
MacWhinney, B., Osman-Sagi, J.&Slobin, D.(1991). Sentence comprehension intwo clear cse-marking languages. Brain and Language,41:234-249.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C.,&Clahsen, H.(2005). Gaps in second languagesentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27:53-78.
McClelland, J.J., Rumelhart, D.E.,&Hinton, G.(1986). The appeal of paralleldistributed processing. In D.E. Rumelhart&J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Paralleldistributed processing (3-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nakano, Y., Felser, C. and Clahsen, H.(2002). Antecedent priming at trace positionsin Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,31:531–71.
Nicol, J. L.,&D. Swinney,(1989). The role of structure in coreference assignmentduring sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18:5–20.
Palmberg, R.(1987). Paterns of vocabulary development in foreign-language learners.Studies in Second Language Acquisition9:201-219.
Papadopoulou, D.(2005). Reading-times studies of second language ambiguityresolution. Second Language Research,21:98-120.
Papadopoulou, D.,&Clahsen, H.(2003). Parsing strategies in L1and L2sentenceprocessing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,24:501-528.
Paradis, M.(1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory:Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and ExplicitLanguage Learning (393-419). London: Academic Press.
Paradis, M.(1997). The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In A. De Groot&J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (31-354).Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Paradis, M.(2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Perrig, W.&Kintsch, W.(1985). Propositional and situational representations of text.Journal of Memory and Language,24:503-518.
Phillips, C.(1996). Order and Structure. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Pickering, M.&Barry, G.(1991). Sentence processing without empty categories.Language and Cognitive Processes,6:229-259.
Pickering, M.J.(1993). Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to Gorrelland to Gibson and Hickok. Language and Cognitive Processes,8:163-196.
Pickering, M.J.(1994). Processing local and unbounded dependencies: Aunifiedaccount. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,23:323-352.
Pienemann, M.(1998). Language Processing and Second Language Acquisition:Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pollard, C.,&Sag, I. A.(1994). Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Pritchett, B.L.(1992). Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance.University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Roberts, L.(2003). Syntactic Processing in Learners of English. Unpublished PhDDissertation, University of Essex, Colchester.
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C.,&Clahsen, H.(2006). Antecedent priming at tracepositions in children’s sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,35:175-188.
Sabourin, L.(2006). Does the shallow structures proposal account for qualitativedifferences in first and second language processing? Applied Psycholinguistics,27:81-84.
Sag, I. A.,&J. D. Fodor,(1995). Extraction without traces. In R. Aranovich, W.Byrne, S. Preuss,&M. Senturia (Eds.), Proceedings of the13th Annual Meetingof the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics(365–384). Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.
Sanford, A.,&Sturt, P.(2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: notnoticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science,6:382–386.
Scarcella, R.(1983). Discourse accent in second language performance. In S. Gass&L. Selinker (Eds.) Language transfer in Language Learning (157-176). Rowley,MA: Newbury House
Schacter, D. L.,&Tulving, E.(Eds.),(1994). Memory Systems. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Sharwood-Smith, M.(1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15:165-179.
Squire, L. R.,&Zola, S. M.(1996). Structure and function of declarative andnondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienceof the United States of America,93:13515–13522.
Stowe, L.(1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for online gap location.Language and Cognitive Processes,1:227-245.
Su, I-RU,(2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics,22:83–112.
Swanson, H. L.(1996). Individual and age related differences in children’s workingmemory. Memory and Cognition,24:70–82.
Tanenhaus, M.K.,&Rueswell, J. C.(1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. L. Miller&P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language and communication (217-262). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
Thompson, J.(1991). Foreign accents revisited: the English pronunciation of Russianimmigrants. Language Learning,41:177-204.
Townsend, D.&Bever, T.(2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habitsand rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Truscott, J.,&Sharwood Smith, M.(2004). Acquisition by processing: A modularperspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,7:1–20.
Ullman, M.(2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and secondlanguage: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language andCognition,4:105-122.
Ullman, M.(2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: thedeclarative/procedural model. Cognition,92:231-270.
Ullman, M.(2006). The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structurehypothesis. Applied Psycholinguistics,27:97-105.
Valian, V.(1990). Logical and psychological constraints on the acquisition of syntax.In L. Frazier&E. Williams (Eds.), Language Processing and LanguageAcquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Van Patten, B.(1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Chestnut Hill,NJ:Ablex.
Van Patten, B.(2000). Thirty years of input (or intake, the neglected sibling). In B.Swierzbin, F. Morris,M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee,&E. Tarone (Eds.), Social andCognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition (287–311). Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.
Van Patten, B.(2002). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning,52:4.
Van Patten, B.(Ed.)(2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, andCommentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Patten, B. and Cadierno, T.(1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15:225-43.
Van Patten, B. and Wong, W.(2004). Processing instruction and the French causative:a replication. In VanPatten, B.,(ed.), Processing Instruction, Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum,97-118.
Walenski, M.S.(2002). Relating Parsers and Grammars: On the structure andreal-time comprehension of English infinitival complements. Unpublished PhDDissertation. University of California, San Diego.
Wang Xuerong,(2007). A Comparative Study on the Effects of Processing Instructionand Traditional Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Subjunctive Mood inEFL Classroom. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Wanner, E.(1974). On Remembering, Forgetting, and Understanding Sentences. TheHague: Mouton.
Wanner, E.,&Maratsos, M.(1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M.Halle, J. Bresnan,&G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and PsychologicalReality (119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weber-Fox, C.,&Neville, H.(1996). Maturational constraints on functionalspecializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingualspeakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,8:231–256.
While, L.(1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition.Language Learning,35:47-62.
White, L.(1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
White, L.(1991). Second language competence v. second language performance: UGor processing strategies? In Eubank, L.,(ed.), Point Counterpoint: UniversalGrammar in the Second Language (167–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L.(2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J., P. M bius&C. Kim.(2001). Native and non-native processing ofEnglish wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. AppliedPsycholinguistics,22:509–540.
Wingfield, A.,&Titone, D.(1998). Sentence processing. In J. Gleason&N. Ratner(Eds.), Psycholinguistics (227-274). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.
Wong, W.(2004). The nature of processing instruction. In Van Patten, B.,(Ed.),Processing Instruction (33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Year, J.E.(2003). Sentence Processing within the Competition Model. WorkingPapers in TESOL&Applied Linguistics.8(2):1-27.
蔡金亭,吴一安.2006.从英语关系从句的习得看可及性层级假设.《现代外语》第4期，382391页。
蔡振光，董燕萍.2007.汉、英双语者句子理解策略的迁移.《现代外语》.第3期，251-261页。
陈春,周自强.2001.英语否定意义句子的理解与疑难浅析.《青海师专学报(社会科学)》第2期，91-93页。
陈存军.2001.歧义理解中原词信息的记忆研究.《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期，64-67页。
董燕萍，刘玉花.2006.英、汉语句子理解过程中的线索竞争.《外语教学与研究》第5期，257-264页。
董燕萍,王丽.2007.语言水平和信息抽象性在信息整合过程中的作用.《外语与外语教学》第4期，18-21页。
胡华.2002.句子的理解过程及其特点.《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期，98-106页。
蒋祖康.2000.“花园路径现象”研究综述.《外语教学与研究》第4期，246-252页。
李志雪.2003.试论句子理解中几个主要的心理语言学模型.《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期，16-20页。
王改燕.2006.英语关系子句的习得研究.《外语教学》第2期，5154页。
问芳莲，卢植.2000.歧义句理解过程中优先效应的实验研究.《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期，31-34页。
肖云南,吕杰.2005.中国学生对英语关系从句习得的实证研究.《外语教学与研究》第4期，259264页。
余林，舒华.1999.句子理解加工的新进展.《心理学动态》第4期，7-13页。
Anderson, J. R.(1976). Language, Memory, and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R.(2000). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York:Freeman.
Ard, J.&Homburg, T.(1983). Verification of language transfer. In S. Gass&L.Selinker (Eds.) Language Transfer in Language Learning (157-176). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Bates, E.,&MacWhinney, B.(1981). Second language acquisition from afunctionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In H.Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York academy of sciences. Native language andforeign language acquisition (190-214). New York: The New York Academy ofSciences.
Bates, E.,&MacWhinney, B.(1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E.Wanner&L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of Art (173-217).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, E.,&MacWhinney, B.(1987). Competition, variation, and language learning.In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (157-193). NewJersey: Erlbaum.
Benati, A.(2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction andoutput-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. LanguageTeaching Research,5:95-127.
Benati, A.(2004). The Effects of Processing Instruction and Its Components on theAcquisition of Gender Agreement in Italian. Language Awareness,2:67-80.
Berwick, R.&Weinberg, A.(1984). The Grammatical Basis of LinguisticPerformance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bever, T. G.,&B. McElree,(1988). Empty categories access their antecedents duringcomprehension. Linguistic Inquiry,19:35–43.
Bever, T.G.(1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In R. Hayes (Ed.),Cognition and Language Development (277-360). New York: Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Bialystok, E.(1990). The competence of processing: classifying theories of secondlanguage acquisition. TESOL quarterly,24:635-648.
Boland, J.E., Tanenhaus, M.K.&Garnsey, S.M.(1990). Evidence for the immediateuse of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory andLanguage,29:413-432.
Bresnan, J.&Kaplan, R.M.(1982). Introduction: Grammars as mental representationsof language. In Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of GrammaticalRelations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cadierno, T.(1995). Formal instruction from a processing prospective: aninvestigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal,79:179-193.
Cao, Y. H.(2004). A Psycholinguistic Study on Sentence Processing in ListeningComprehension. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Carlson, G. N.,&Tanenhaus, M. K.(1989). Introduction. In G. N. Carlson&M. K.Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing (1-26). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Carreiras, M.,&Clifton, C.(1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences inSpanish and English. Language and Speech,36:353–372.
Carreiras, M.,&Clifton, C.(1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses:Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition,27:826–833.
Carroll, D. W.(1999). Psychology of Language. New York: Brooks/Cole.
Carroll, S.(2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second languageacquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cheng, A.(1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: the acquisition ofSpanish ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.
Chomsky, N.(1972). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, N.1977. On wh-movement. In P.W.Culicover, T. Wasow&A. Akmajian(Eds.). Formal Syntax (71-132). New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N.(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Foris.
Chomsky, N.(1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H.&Felser, C.(2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners.Applied Psycholinguistics,27:3-42.
Clahsen, H.&Felser, C.(2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in languageprocessing. Applied Psycholinguistics,27:107-126.
Clark, H. H.&Clark, E. V.(1977). Psychology and Language. New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Clifton, C., Jr.,&Frazier, L.(1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distancedependencies. In G. N. Carlson&M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic Structure inLanguage Processing (273–317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Crain, S.&Fodor, J.D.(1985). How can grammars help parsers? In D.R. Dowty, L.Kartunnen, and A. Zwicky (eds.) Natural Language Parsing: Psychological,Computational and Theoretical Perspectives (95-128). Cambridge: CUP.
Cuetos, F.,&Mitchell, D.(1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictionson the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition,30:73–105.
Daneman, M. and Carpenter, P.(1980). Individual differences in working memoryand reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,19:450–66.
De Vincenzi, M.(1991). Filler-gap dependencies in a null-subject language:Referential and nonreferential WHs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,20:197–213.
Dowens, M.G.(2006). The shallow structure hypothesis of second language sentenceprocessing: What is restricted and why? Applied Psycholinguistics,27:49-52.
Duffield, N.(2006). How do you like your doughnuts? Applied Psycholinguistics,27:56.
Dussias, P.(2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in second language learners: Someeffects of bilinguality on L1and L2processing strategies. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,25:529-557.
Eckman, F.(1981). On predicting phonological difficulty in second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,4:18-30.
Ellis, N.C.(2002).‘Frequency effects and language processing: investigatingformulaic use and input in future expression’, Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition,24:143-188.
Felser, C.,&Roberts, L.(2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: across-modal priming study. Second Language Research,23:9-36.
Felser, C.,&Roberts, L.(2004). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths insecond language sentence processing. Poster presented at AMLaP,Aix-en-Provence, September2004.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Gross, R.,&Marinis, T.(2003). The processing of ambiguoussentences by first and second language learners of English. AppliedPsycholinguistics,24:453-489.
Fernández, E.(2003). Bilingual Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. and Ferraro, V.(2002). Good enough representations inlanguage comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science,11:11–15.
Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M.&Bever, T. G.(1968). Some syntactic determinants ofsentential complexity. Perception&Psycholinguistics.3:453-461.
Fodor, J. D.(1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language andCognitive Processes,4:155–209.
Fodor, J. D.(1993). Processing empty categories: A question of visibility. In G.Altmann,&R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: TheSecond Sperlonga Meeting (351–400). Hove: Erlbaum.
Fodor, J. D.(1995). Comprehending sentence structure. In L. R. Gleitman,&M.Liberman (Eds.), Language: An Invitation to Cognitive Science (209–246).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. D.(1998a). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,27:285–319.
Fodor, J. D.(1998b). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,27:339–374.
Fodor, J. D.(1999). Triggers for parsing with. In E. Klein&G. Martohardjano (Eds.),The Development of Second Language Grammars: A Generative Approach(373–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G.&Garrett, M.(1974). The Psychology of Language. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Foss, D. J.&Hakes, D. T.(1978). Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to thePsychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Frazier, L.&Clifton, C.(1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Frazier, L.&Rayner, K.(1982). Making and correcting errors during sentencecomprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguoussentences. Cognitive psychology,14:178-210.
Frazier, L.(1987). Sentence processing: review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention andPerformance, Vol, XII. The psychology of Reading (559-586). Hillsdale. NJ:Erlbaum.
Frazier, L.,&De Villiers, J.(1990). Language Processing and Language Acquisition.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frazier, L.,&Fodor, J. D.(1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsingmodel. Cognition,6:1-34.
Frenck-Mestre, C.,&Pynte, J.(1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while readingin second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A:119–148.
Friederici, A.(2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trendsin Cognitive Sciences,6:78–84.
Garman, M.(1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass S.(1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. LanguageLearning,29:327344.
Gass, S.(1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult L2learners. In R.Scarcella&S. Krashen (Eds.) Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley,MA: Newbury.
Gass, S.(1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectionalperspective. Applied Psycholinguistics,8:329-350.
Gass, S. M.(1997). Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Gazdar, G.(1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. LinguisticInquiry,12:155–184.
Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. K. Pullum&I. A. Sag.(1985). Generalized Phrase StructureGrammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibson, E.&Pearlmutter, N.(1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trendsin Cognitive Science,2:262-268.
Gibson, E.&Warren, T.(2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguisticstructure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax,7:55-78.
Gibson, E.(1998). Linguistic complexity; Locality and syntactic dependencies.Cognition,68:1-76.
Gibson, E.(2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory oflinguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz&W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image,Language and Brain,(95–126). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Gibson, E. and Schütze, C.T.(1999): Disambiguation preferences in noun phraseconjunction do not mirror corpus frequency. Journal of Memory and Language,40:263–79.
Gibson, E., Hickok, G.,&Shutze, C. T.(1994). Processing empty categories: Aparallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,23:381–405.
Gorrell, P.(1995). Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge: CUP.
Gregg, K.(2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P.Robinson,(Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (152-180).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, K.(2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. SecondLanguage Research,19:95–128.
Grodner, D., Gibson, E., Argaman, V. and Babyonyshev, M.(2003). Againstrepair-based reanalysis in sentence in comprehension. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch,32:141–66.
Hahne, A.(2001).What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence fromevent-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,30:251–266.
Hahne, A.,&Friederici, A.(2001). Processing a second language: Late learners’comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,4:123–141.
Harrington, M.(1987). Processing transfer: language-specific processing strategies asa source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics,8:351-377.
Harrington, M.(2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson,(Ed.), Cognition andSecond Language Instruction (91-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L.,&Scheepers, C.(2000). Syntactic attachment andanaphor resolution: Two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, M.Pickering,&C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for languageprocessing (259–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, V. M.&Foster, K. I.(1972). Perceptual Complexity and understandingsentence structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11:148-156.
Hulstijn, J.(2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing andacquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research,18:193-223.
Jackendoff, R.,&Culicover, P.(1971). A reconsideration of dative movement.Foundations of Language,7:392–412.
Juffs, A.&Harrington, M.(1995). Parsing effects in second language sentenceprocessing: subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,17:483-516.
Juffs, A.&Harrington, M.(1996). Garden-path sentences and error data in secondlanguage processing research. Language Learning,46:286-324.
Juffs, A.(1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in secondlanguage sentence processing. Language Learning,48:107-147.
Juffs, A.(2001). Psycho-linguistically oriented second language research. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics,21:207-220.
Juffs, A.(2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a secondlanguage. Transactions of the Philological Society,102:199-225.
Juffs, A.(2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement inEnglish as a second language. Second Language Research,21:121-151.
Just, M., P. Carpenter&J. Woolley.(1982). Paradigms and processes in readingcomprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111:228–238.
Keenan, E. L.,&Comrie, B.(1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.Linguistic Inquiry,8:63–100.
Kilbon, K.&Ito, T.(1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In B.MacWhinney&E. Bates (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing(257-291). New York: CUP.
Kilborn, K.(1989). Sentence processing in a second language: The timing of transfer.Language and Speech,32:1-23.
Kilborn, K.(1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a secondlanguage. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals(337-350).Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kimball, J. P.(1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition,2:15-47.
King, J.&Just, M.(1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role ofworking memory. Journal of Memory and language,30:580-602.
King, J. W.,&Kutas, M.(1995). Who did what and when? Using word-andclause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal ofCognitive Neuroscience,7:376–395.
Kintsch, W.(1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Klein, E.(1999). Just parsing through: notes on the state of L2processing researchtoday. In Klein, E. and Martohardjono, G.,(Eds.), The Development of SecondLanguage Grammars: A Generative Approach (197–216). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Lee, M.-W.(2004). Another look at the role of empty categories in sentenceprocessing (and grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,33:51–73.
Liu, H., Bates, E.&Li, P.(1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers ofEnglish and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics,13:451-484.
Loftus, E. F.(1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. CognitivePsychology,7:560-572.
Love, T.,&D. Swinney,(1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis inobject-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with thecross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,25:5–24.
MacDonald, M. C.(Ed.).(1997). Lexical Representations and Sentence Processing.Hove: Psychology Press.
MacWhinney, B.(2001). The competition model: the input, the context, and the brain.In P.Robinson,(Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (69-90).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B.(2002). Extending the competition model. In R.R. Heredia&J.Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual Sentence Processing (31-57). New York: Elsevier.
MacWhinney, B.,&Bates, E.(1989). The Cross-linguistic Study of SentenceProcessing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E.,&Kliegl, R.(1984). Cue validity and sentenceinterpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of verbal learning andverbal behavior,23:127-150.
MacWhinney, B., Osman-Sagi, J.&Slobin, D.(1991). Sentence comprehension intwo clear cse-marking languages. Brain and Language,41:234-249.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C.,&Clahsen, H.(2005). Gaps in second languagesentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27:53-78.
McClelland, J.J., Rumelhart, D.E.,&Hinton, G.(1986). The appeal of paralleldistributed processing. In D.E. Rumelhart&J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Paralleldistributed processing (3-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nakano, Y., Felser, C. and Clahsen, H.(2002). Antecedent priming at trace positionsin Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,31:531–71.
Nicol, J. L.,&D. Swinney,(1989). The role of structure in coreference assignmentduring sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18:5–20.
Palmberg, R.(1987). Paterns of vocabulary development in foreign-language learners.Studies in Second Language Acquisition9:201-219.
Papadopoulou, D.(2005). Reading-times studies of second language ambiguityresolution. Second Language Research,21:98-120.
Papadopoulou, D.,&Clahsen, H.(2003). Parsing strategies in L1and L2sentenceprocessing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,24:501-528.
Paradis, M.(1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory:Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and ExplicitLanguage Learning (393-419). London: Academic Press.
Paradis, M.(1997). The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In A. De Groot&J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (31-354).Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Paradis, M.(2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Perrig, W.&Kintsch, W.(1985). Propositional and situational representations of text.Journal of Memory and Language,24:503-518.
Phillips, C.(1996). Order and Structure. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Pickering, M.&Barry, G.(1991). Sentence processing without empty categories.Language and Cognitive Processes,6:229-259.
Pickering, M.J.(1993). Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to Gorrelland to Gibson and Hickok. Language and Cognitive Processes,8:163-196.
Pickering, M.J.(1994). Processing local and unbounded dependencies: Aunifiedaccount. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,23:323-352.
Pienemann, M.(1998). Language Processing and Second Language Acquisition:Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pollard, C.,&Sag, I. A.(1994). Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Pritchett, B.L.(1992). Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance.University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Roberts, L.(2003). Syntactic Processing in Learners of English. Unpublished PhDDissertation, University of Essex, Colchester.
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C.,&Clahsen, H.(2006). Antecedent priming at tracepositions in children’s sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,35:175-188.
Sabourin, L.(2006). Does the shallow structures proposal account for qualitativedifferences in first and second language processing? Applied Psycholinguistics,27:81-84.
Sag, I. A.,&J. D. Fodor,(1995). Extraction without traces. In R. Aranovich, W.Byrne, S. Preuss,&M. Senturia (Eds.), Proceedings of the13th Annual Meetingof the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics(365–384). Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.
Sanford, A.,&Sturt, P.(2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: notnoticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science,6:382–386.
Scarcella, R.(1983). Discourse accent in second language performance. In S. Gass&L. Selinker (Eds.) Language transfer in Language Learning (157-176). Rowley,MA: Newbury House
Schacter, D. L.,&Tulving, E.(Eds.),(1994). Memory Systems. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Sharwood-Smith, M.(1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15:165-179.
Squire, L. R.,&Zola, S. M.(1996). Structure and function of declarative andnondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienceof the United States of America,93:13515–13522.
Stowe, L.(1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for online gap location.Language and Cognitive Processes,1:227-245.
Su, I-RU,(2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics,22:83–112.
Swanson, H. L.(1996). Individual and age related differences in children’s workingmemory. Memory and Cognition,24:70–82.
Tanenhaus, M.K.,&Rueswell, J. C.(1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. L. Miller&P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language and communication (217-262). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
Thompson, J.(1991). Foreign accents revisited: the English pronunciation of Russianimmigrants. Language Learning,41:177-204.
Townsend, D.&Bever, T.(2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habitsand rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Truscott, J.,&Sharwood Smith, M.(2004). Acquisition by processing: A modularperspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,7:1–20.
Ullman, M.(2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and secondlanguage: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language andCognition,4:105-122.
Ullman, M.(2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: thedeclarative/procedural model. Cognition,92:231-270.
Ullman, M.(2006). The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structurehypothesis. Applied Psycholinguistics,27:97-105.
Valian, V.(1990). Logical and psychological constraints on the acquisition of syntax.In L. Frazier&E. Williams (Eds.), Language Processing and LanguageAcquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Van Patten, B.(1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Chestnut Hill,NJ:Ablex.
Van Patten, B.(2000). Thirty years of input (or intake, the neglected sibling). In B.Swierzbin, F. Morris,M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee,&E. Tarone (Eds.), Social andCognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition (287–311). Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.
Van Patten, B.(2002). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning,52:4.
Van Patten, B.(Ed.)(2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, andCommentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Patten, B. and Cadierno, T.(1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15:225-43.
Van Patten, B. and Wong, W.(2004). Processing instruction and the French causative:a replication. In VanPatten, B.,(ed.), Processing Instruction, Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum,97-118.
Walenski, M.S.(2002). Relating Parsers and Grammars: On the structure andreal-time comprehension of English infinitival complements. Unpublished PhDDissertation. University of California, San Diego.
Wang Xuerong,(2007). A Comparative Study on the Effects of Processing Instructionand Traditional Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Subjunctive Mood inEFL Classroom. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Wanner, E.(1974). On Remembering, Forgetting, and Understanding Sentences. TheHague: Mouton.
Wanner, E.,&Maratsos, M.(1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In M.Halle, J. Bresnan,&G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and PsychologicalReality (119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weber-Fox, C.,&Neville, H.(1996). Maturational constraints on functionalspecializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingualspeakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,8:231–256.
While, L.(1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition.Language Learning,35:47-62.
White, L.(1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
White, L.(1991). Second language competence v. second language performance: UGor processing strategies? In Eubank, L.,(ed.), Point Counterpoint: UniversalGrammar in the Second Language (167–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L.(2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J., P. M bius&C. Kim.(2001). Native and non-native processing ofEnglish wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. AppliedPsycholinguistics,22:509–540.
Wingfield, A.,&Titone, D.(1998). Sentence processing. In J. Gleason&N. Ratner(Eds.), Psycholinguistics (227-274). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.
Wong, W.(2004). The nature of processing instruction. In Van Patten, B.,(Ed.),Processing Instruction (33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Year, J.E.(2003). Sentence Processing within the Competition Model. WorkingPapers in TESOL&Applied Linguistics.8(2):1-27.
蔡金亭,吴一安.2006.从英语关系从句的习得看可及性层级假设.《现代外语》第4期，382391页。
蔡振光，董燕萍.2007.汉、英双语者句子理解策略的迁移.《现代外语》.第3期，251-261页。
陈春,周自强.2001.英语否定意义句子的理解与疑难浅析.《青海师专学报(社会科学)》第2期，91-93页。
陈存军.2001.歧义理解中原词信息的记忆研究.《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期，64-67页。
董燕萍，刘玉花.2006.英、汉语句子理解过程中的线索竞争.《外语教学与研究》第5期，257-264页。
董燕萍,王丽.2007.语言水平和信息抽象性在信息整合过程中的作用.《外语与外语教学》第4期，18-21页。
胡华.2002.句子的理解过程及其特点.《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期，98-106页。
蒋祖康.2000.“花园路径现象”研究综述.《外语教学与研究》第4期，246-252页。
李志雪.2003.试论句子理解中几个主要的心理语言学模型.《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期，16-20页。
王改燕.2006.英语关系子句的习得研究.《外语教学》第2期，5154页。
问芳莲，卢植.2000.歧义句理解过程中优先效应的实验研究.《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期，31-34页。
肖云南,吕杰.2005.中国学生对英语关系从句习得的实证研究.《外语教学与研究》第4期，259264页。
余林，舒华.1999.句子理解加工的新进展.《心理学动态》第4期，7-13页。