标记与英语主题句习得
|
摘要
标记概念,最早由布拉格学派提出。语言学家们从不同角度对标记进行了定义和诠释。种种定义共有一个基本观点,即,一些语言特征,相较于其他语言特征,更为普遍。这些普遍的语言特征被视为无标记特征,其他语言特征则被视为有标记特征。
本文运用语言学的标记理论,研究中国大学生英语主题句的习得,包括主题化结构(topicalization),左移位结构(left dislocation),提升结构(raising),分裂句结构(cleft),it外置结构(it extraposition),存现句(existential there)和被动句结构(passive)。
研究者们从语言类型学的视角对此问题进行过探讨,指出英汉两种语言的类型学差异会导致汉语主题句句法特征的单向性迁移。具体地说,汉语属于主题突出语言,主题是句子构成的基本单位；而英语属于主语突出语言,主语是句子构成的关键成分。母语为汉语的学生在习得英语主题结构时,就会迁移汉语主题句的句法特征。这种迁移在习得中起主导作用并且影响持久。然而,一次只关注一种英语主题结构并且只强调汉语主题特征的迁移的做法,实际上忽略了英语主题结构之间的差异所造成的习得影响,进而将英语主题句的句法结构对习得的影响最小化。
与语言类型学的角度不同,本研究运用一种全新的标记理论探讨英语主题句的句法结构在习得中的作用。首先,基于汉英两种语言的类型学差异,本文认为标记是一个适用于个体语言的概念。其次,本文将标记理论应用于英语主题句的句法分析,而不用于英语主题句的语用分析。再次,对于汉语主题句与英语主题句的标记性,本文采用不同的判别标准。对于汉语主题句,采用频率标准；对于英语主题句,本文认为标记性可根据它们对应的词汇投射结构的转换次数来计算。频率标准最早由格林伯格(Greenberg)提出,而对于英语主题句标记性的判别采用了乔姆斯基(Chomsky)标记理论。在这样的理论基础上,本文得到一个关于英语主题句的标记等级和一个汉语主题句标记性的简单对分(有标和无标主题句)。
本文的实验研究包括一项翻译任务和一项写作任务。翻译任务由19句中文句子组成,要求实验参与者将它们翻译成相应的英语主题句式。写作任务要求被试对一连环图画发挥想象,进行描述。这一连环图画含有三幅以时间为序的图片,以及三位卡通人物。参加实验的96位被试来自于中国某所重点大学,他们正在修读大学英语二段、三段或四段的课程。
实验结果表明,标记在英语主题句的习得中起着尤为重要的作用。一方面,英语主题结构的标记等级和它们对于被试的难度等级存在一一对应关系；另一方面,英语主题结构的标记性决定习得者中介语的特征,具体地说：英语主题句的标记性越强,被试就越倾向用普遍句法模式来替换主题句。反之,英语主题句的标记性越弱,被试就越倾向使用主题句。曲线图显示了习得者中介语受英语主题句标记性的影响而呈现出的不同特征。曲线图的横轴表示标记性,由左往右,标记性增强；纵轴表示被试使用英语主题句的情况,由下往上,数量增加。
研究还发现,习得过程中,汉语主题-述语特征的迁移较易受标记性弱的英语主题句激发,而标记性强的英语主题句的习得很少会触发迁移。这表明,习得难度主要由英语句法结构的标记等级决定,汉语主题突显特征的迁移在习得中只起着次要作用。标记的重要性揭示二语句法习得是一双向的过程,其中英语结构的句法特征,相较于汉语结构,起着更为重要的作用。
另外,研究发现,如果两个英语主题结构有相同的标记性,但一个在汉语中有相似的结构,另一个在汉语中没有对应的结构,那么,前者会因为负迁移给习得者造成习得困难。
标记理论在本研究中的运用表明语言学理论能对习得者的语言学知识做出统一描述,并能揭示许多其他理论无法准确解释的二语习得过程。鉴于标记在英语主题句习得中的重用作用,我们要重视对有标记英语结构的教学,同时还要竭力培养习得者分析和使用有标记英语结构的能力。
The notion of markedness, originating with the Prague school phonology, has been defined in quite a number of different ways. Yet, underlying all of the definitions is the notion that some linguistic features are more "basic" in relation to others, which are "special". The more basic linguistic features are considered unmarked and the special linguistic features marked.
This dissertation takes the linguistic theory of markedness as its theoretical pillar and investigates the acquisition of English topic-related syntactic structures on the part of Chinese college students, namely, topicalization, left dislocation, raising, cleft, it extraposition, existential there and passivized constructions.
Previous researchers address the issue from a typological perspective (Schachter & Rutherford,1979; Rutherford,1983; Yip,1995; Han,2000). They point out that there is a syntacticization process of interlanguage progressing from topic-comment to subject-predicate for Chinese learners and that in this process the transfer of Chinese topic-comment features is dominant and persistent. In considering just one type of English topic constructions at a time and highlighting the transfer of typological topic-comment patterns from Chinese to English, the typological perspective pays no attention to the different influences on acquisition brought about by the syntactic differences between those structures and accordingly minimizes the effect that the syntactic dimension of the various English topic-related constructions can have on acquisition.
Bearing the inherent limitations of the typological perspective in mind, we aim to unveil the influence of the syntactic mechanisms of English topic sentences on acquisition by adopting a unique perspective of markedness. First, we hold that markedness is a language-particular notion—what is marked in one language may be unmarked in another. Second, without considering the pragmatic aspect of topic sentences, we apply the markedness analysis to the syntactic aspect of topic constructions only. Third, we make use of different criteria to determine the markedness status of Chinese topic constructions and English topic constructions. For the Chinese topic constructions, frequency is used as the main criterion; for the English topic constructions, we take their markedness to be measured roughly by the number of movements necessary for their derivation from lexical projections. While frequency is obviously a criterion suggested by Greensberg (1966), the criterion employed to evaluate markedness of English topic-related structures is apparently taken from Chomsky (1973,1989). On this premise, we derive a markedness hierarchy of the various English topic-related constructions and a markedness dichotomy of corresponding topic constructions in Chinese.
The experimental study consists of two elicitation tasks, namely, a Translation Task and an Essay-writing Task. The Translation Task involves 19 Chinese sentences to be translated into various English topic constructions. The Essay-writing Task invites the participants to describe three pictures which are in a chronological sequence and contain three different animal characters. The participants in the current study are 96 Chinese learners of English. They are non-English majors in a Chinese university with different language backgrounds, ranging in proficiency from LevelⅡto Level V of a 4-level integrated course program offered by the university.
The results reveal that markedness plays an important role in the acquisition of English topic-related constructions. On the one hand, the difficulty degree of these topic constructions for Chinese learners generally corresponds to their degree of markedness. On the other, learners' interlanguage would exhibit characteristics traceable to the markedness of these topic constructions, namely, the more marked the topic constructs are, the more probably the learners would use the universal syntactic pattern and the less probably the learners would use the marked topic constructions and vice versa. This is better illustrated by a curve diagram with the horizontal axis marking a continuum of English topic constructs in terms of markedness and the vertical axis the production of the topic constructs by Chinese learners.
It is also revealed that topic-comment transfer from Chinese to learners' interlanguage is likely to be triggered by somewhat marked and more marked yet not most marked topic constructions. This indicates that markedness hierarchy within English the target language mainly influences degree of difficulty in acquisition and determines interlanguage patterns, and that Chinese topic-comment transfer plays just a secondary part. Put differently, in learners'syntactic development of a second language the target language system predominates in the interaction with the native language system.
The present research has both theoretical and pedagogical implications for second language acquisition. Theoretically, the application of markedness theory into the present study attests that particular approaches to linguistic theory could provide a uniform account of learners'linguistic knowledge and inform us greatly about how second languages are learned. Pedagogically, given the importance of markedness in acquisition of English topic structures, great importance should be attached to marked English structures in teaching practice and learners'ability to analyze and use marked English structures should be enhanced.
本文运用语言学的标记理论,研究中国大学生英语主题句的习得,包括主题化结构(topicalization),左移位结构(left dislocation),提升结构(raising),分裂句结构(cleft),it外置结构(it extraposition),存现句(existential there)和被动句结构(passive)。
研究者们从语言类型学的视角对此问题进行过探讨,指出英汉两种语言的类型学差异会导致汉语主题句句法特征的单向性迁移。具体地说,汉语属于主题突出语言,主题是句子构成的基本单位；而英语属于主语突出语言,主语是句子构成的关键成分。母语为汉语的学生在习得英语主题结构时,就会迁移汉语主题句的句法特征。这种迁移在习得中起主导作用并且影响持久。然而,一次只关注一种英语主题结构并且只强调汉语主题特征的迁移的做法,实际上忽略了英语主题结构之间的差异所造成的习得影响,进而将英语主题句的句法结构对习得的影响最小化。
与语言类型学的角度不同,本研究运用一种全新的标记理论探讨英语主题句的句法结构在习得中的作用。首先,基于汉英两种语言的类型学差异,本文认为标记是一个适用于个体语言的概念。其次,本文将标记理论应用于英语主题句的句法分析,而不用于英语主题句的语用分析。再次,对于汉语主题句与英语主题句的标记性,本文采用不同的判别标准。对于汉语主题句,采用频率标准；对于英语主题句,本文认为标记性可根据它们对应的词汇投射结构的转换次数来计算。频率标准最早由格林伯格(Greenberg)提出,而对于英语主题句标记性的判别采用了乔姆斯基(Chomsky)标记理论。在这样的理论基础上,本文得到一个关于英语主题句的标记等级和一个汉语主题句标记性的简单对分(有标和无标主题句)。
本文的实验研究包括一项翻译任务和一项写作任务。翻译任务由19句中文句子组成,要求实验参与者将它们翻译成相应的英语主题句式。写作任务要求被试对一连环图画发挥想象,进行描述。这一连环图画含有三幅以时间为序的图片,以及三位卡通人物。参加实验的96位被试来自于中国某所重点大学,他们正在修读大学英语二段、三段或四段的课程。
实验结果表明,标记在英语主题句的习得中起着尤为重要的作用。一方面,英语主题结构的标记等级和它们对于被试的难度等级存在一一对应关系；另一方面,英语主题结构的标记性决定习得者中介语的特征,具体地说：英语主题句的标记性越强,被试就越倾向用普遍句法模式来替换主题句。反之,英语主题句的标记性越弱,被试就越倾向使用主题句。曲线图显示了习得者中介语受英语主题句标记性的影响而呈现出的不同特征。曲线图的横轴表示标记性,由左往右,标记性增强；纵轴表示被试使用英语主题句的情况,由下往上,数量增加。
研究还发现,习得过程中,汉语主题-述语特征的迁移较易受标记性弱的英语主题句激发,而标记性强的英语主题句的习得很少会触发迁移。这表明,习得难度主要由英语句法结构的标记等级决定,汉语主题突显特征的迁移在习得中只起着次要作用。标记的重要性揭示二语句法习得是一双向的过程,其中英语结构的句法特征,相较于汉语结构,起着更为重要的作用。
另外,研究发现,如果两个英语主题结构有相同的标记性,但一个在汉语中有相似的结构,另一个在汉语中没有对应的结构,那么,前者会因为负迁移给习得者造成习得困难。
标记理论在本研究中的运用表明语言学理论能对习得者的语言学知识做出统一描述,并能揭示许多其他理论无法准确解释的二语习得过程。鉴于标记在英语主题句习得中的重用作用,我们要重视对有标记英语结构的教学,同时还要竭力培养习得者分析和使用有标记英语结构的能力。
The notion of markedness, originating with the Prague school phonology, has been defined in quite a number of different ways. Yet, underlying all of the definitions is the notion that some linguistic features are more "basic" in relation to others, which are "special". The more basic linguistic features are considered unmarked and the special linguistic features marked.
This dissertation takes the linguistic theory of markedness as its theoretical pillar and investigates the acquisition of English topic-related syntactic structures on the part of Chinese college students, namely, topicalization, left dislocation, raising, cleft, it extraposition, existential there and passivized constructions.
Previous researchers address the issue from a typological perspective (Schachter & Rutherford,1979; Rutherford,1983; Yip,1995; Han,2000). They point out that there is a syntacticization process of interlanguage progressing from topic-comment to subject-predicate for Chinese learners and that in this process the transfer of Chinese topic-comment features is dominant and persistent. In considering just one type of English topic constructions at a time and highlighting the transfer of typological topic-comment patterns from Chinese to English, the typological perspective pays no attention to the different influences on acquisition brought about by the syntactic differences between those structures and accordingly minimizes the effect that the syntactic dimension of the various English topic-related constructions can have on acquisition.
Bearing the inherent limitations of the typological perspective in mind, we aim to unveil the influence of the syntactic mechanisms of English topic sentences on acquisition by adopting a unique perspective of markedness. First, we hold that markedness is a language-particular notion—what is marked in one language may be unmarked in another. Second, without considering the pragmatic aspect of topic sentences, we apply the markedness analysis to the syntactic aspect of topic constructions only. Third, we make use of different criteria to determine the markedness status of Chinese topic constructions and English topic constructions. For the Chinese topic constructions, frequency is used as the main criterion; for the English topic constructions, we take their markedness to be measured roughly by the number of movements necessary for their derivation from lexical projections. While frequency is obviously a criterion suggested by Greensberg (1966), the criterion employed to evaluate markedness of English topic-related structures is apparently taken from Chomsky (1973,1989). On this premise, we derive a markedness hierarchy of the various English topic-related constructions and a markedness dichotomy of corresponding topic constructions in Chinese.
The experimental study consists of two elicitation tasks, namely, a Translation Task and an Essay-writing Task. The Translation Task involves 19 Chinese sentences to be translated into various English topic constructions. The Essay-writing Task invites the participants to describe three pictures which are in a chronological sequence and contain three different animal characters. The participants in the current study are 96 Chinese learners of English. They are non-English majors in a Chinese university with different language backgrounds, ranging in proficiency from LevelⅡto Level V of a 4-level integrated course program offered by the university.
The results reveal that markedness plays an important role in the acquisition of English topic-related constructions. On the one hand, the difficulty degree of these topic constructions for Chinese learners generally corresponds to their degree of markedness. On the other, learners' interlanguage would exhibit characteristics traceable to the markedness of these topic constructions, namely, the more marked the topic constructs are, the more probably the learners would use the universal syntactic pattern and the less probably the learners would use the marked topic constructions and vice versa. This is better illustrated by a curve diagram with the horizontal axis marking a continuum of English topic constructs in terms of markedness and the vertical axis the production of the topic constructs by Chinese learners.
It is also revealed that topic-comment transfer from Chinese to learners' interlanguage is likely to be triggered by somewhat marked and more marked yet not most marked topic constructions. This indicates that markedness hierarchy within English the target language mainly influences degree of difficulty in acquisition and determines interlanguage patterns, and that Chinese topic-comment transfer plays just a secondary part. Put differently, in learners'syntactic development of a second language the target language system predominates in the interaction with the native language system.
The present research has both theoretical and pedagogical implications for second language acquisition. Theoretically, the application of markedness theory into the present study attests that particular approaches to linguistic theory could provide a uniform account of learners'linguistic knowledge and inform us greatly about how second languages are learned. Pedagogically, given the importance of markedness in acquisition of English topic structures, great importance should be attached to marked English structures in teaching practice and learners'ability to analyze and use marked English structures should be enhanced.
引文
Adjemian, C.1976. On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning,26: 297-320.
Agnes, M. (ed.).1999. Webster's New World Dictionary. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Anderson, R.1983. Transfer to somewhere. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Andrews, E.1990. Markedness Theory, the Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language. London:Duke University Press.
Ard, J.1975. Raising and Word Order in Diachronic Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.
Ard, J. & Hamburg, T.1983. Verification of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.1987. Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language Learning 37:385-407.
Bates, E.1976. Language and Context:The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Battistella, E.1990. Markedness:The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Battistella, E.1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bell, R.1974. Error analysis:a recent pseudo-procedure in applied linguistics. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 25-6:35-9.
Benson, Cathy.2002. Transfer/Cross-linguistic influence. ELT Journal,56 (1),68-70.
Bhardwaj, M.1986. Reference to space by a Punjabi acquirer of English. Nijmegen: ESF Working paper.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow:Longman.
Bley-Vroman, R.1988. The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In Rutherford & Sharwood Smith (eds.). Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Bley-Vroman, R.1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R., S. Felix, & G. Ioup.1988. The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research 4:1-32.
Brown, G. & Yule, G.1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R.1973. A First Language:the Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Callies, Marcus.2009. Information Highlighting in Advanced Learner English. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cazden, C., E. Cancino, E. Rosansky, & J. Schumann.1975. Second Language Acquisition in Children, Adolescents and Adults. Final Report. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education.
Chafe, W. L.1972. Discourse structure and human knowledge. In J. B. Carroll & R. O. Freedle (eds.). Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Washington, D.C.:Winston.
Chafe, W. L.1976. Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C. N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New York:Academic Press.
Chao, Y. R.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chiu, Bonnie Hui-Chun.1993. The Inflectional Structure of Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles:University of California.
Chomsky, N.1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of The Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1973. Conditions on Transformations. In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York:Holt.
Chomsky, N.1976. Reflections on Language. London:Temple Smith.
Chomsky, N.1977. On Wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (eds.). Formal Syntax. New York:Academic Press, Inc.
Chomsky, N.1981a. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, N.1981b. Markedness and Core Grammar. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Core Grammar. Pisa:Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.
Chomsky, N.1981c. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein & Lightfoot (eds.). Explanation in Linguistics:the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London and New York:Longman.
Chomsky, N.1982. The Generative Enterprise:A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, N.1986. Knowledge of Language:Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N.1988. Language and Problem of Knowledge:the Nicaraguan Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1989. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10:43-74.
Chomsky, N.1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Occasional Papers in Linguistics,1. Cambridge:MIT.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H.1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8.3,425-504.
Chomsky, N. & Morris H.1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York:Harper and Row.
Chu, C. C.1998. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Clark, H.1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child, In Moore (ed.). Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York:Academic Press.
Clark. H. & E. Clark.1978. Universals, relativity, and language processing, In Greenberg. J. (ed.). Universals of Human Language:Method and Theory. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Collins, C.1991. Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.
Comrie, B.1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology:Syntax and Morphology. Oxford:Blackwell.
Comrie, B.1986. Markedness, grammar, people and the world. In F. R. Eckman, E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (eds.). Markedness. New York:Plenum Press.
Corder, S. P.1967. The significance of the learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,9:149-59.
Corder, S. P.1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:149-59.
Corder, S. P.1978. Language-learner language. In J. Richards (ed.). Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning:Issues and Approaches. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Cornish, Francis.2004. Focus of attention in discourse. In Lachlan Mackenzie and Maria Gomez-Gonzalez (eds.). A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Creider, C.1979. On the explanation of transformations. In Talmy Givon (ed.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12. New York:Academic Press.
Croft, W.1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.2003. Typology and Universals.2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Davison, A.1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language,60:797-846.
Dik, S. C.1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
Dik, S. C.1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht:Foris Publications.
Dryer, M.1980. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25:123-195.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1972. Goofing, an indicator of children's second language strategies. Language Learning 22:234-52.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23: 245-58.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1974a. You can't learn without goofing. In Richards (ed.). Error Analysis. London:Longman.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1974b. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning,24:37-53.
Dulay. H. & Burt, M.1978. Some remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In Ritchie (ed.). Second Language Acquisition Research. New York:Academic Press.
Eckman, F.1977. Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning,27:315-330.
Eckman, F.1985. Some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the markedness differential hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,7:289-307.
Eckman, F.1991. The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,13:23-41.
Eckman, F, Bell, L. & D. Nelson.1988. On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Lingustics 9:1-20.
Ellis, R.1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R.1999. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Emonds, J.1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Emonds, J.1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Euen Hyuk Jung.2004. Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning,54 (4):713-38.
Fathman, A.1975. Language background, age, and the order of acquisition of English structures. In Burt and Dulay (eds.). On TESOL 75. Washington, D.C.:TESOL.
Felix, S.1980. Interference, interlanguage and related issues. In S. Felix (ed.). Second Language Development:Trends and Issues. Tubingen:GunterNarr.
Flege, J. & Davidian, R.1984. Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics,5:323-47.
Frawley, W.1981. The Complement Hierarchy:Evidence for Language Universals from L2. Paper presented at Winter LSA.
Fuller, J. W. & Gundel, J. K.1987. Topic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning,37:1-18.
Gair, J. W.1988. Kinds of markedness. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (eds.). Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Gass, S. M.1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning,29:327-44.
Gass, S. M.1980. An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (eds.). Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Gass, S. M.1983. The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly,17:273-91.
Gass, S. M.1984. A review of interlanguage syntax:language transfer and language universals. Language Learning,34:115-31.
Gass, S. M.1988. Integrating research areas:a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics 9:198-217.
Gass, S. M.1989. Language universals and second language acquisition. Language Learning 39:497-534.
Gass, S.1995. Universals, SLA, and language pedagogy. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. S. Smith (eds.). The Current State of Inter language.31-42. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gass, S. M. & J. Ard.1984. Second language acquisition and the ontology of language universals. In Rutherford (ed.). Typological Universals and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (eds.).1989. Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (eds.).1983. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts:Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L.2008. Second Language Acquisition:An Introductory Course. New York:Routledge.
George, H.1972. Common Errors in Language Learning:Insights from English. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Givon. T.1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology:an archaeologist's field trip. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistics Society.
Givon, T.1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York:Academic Press.
Givon, T.1990. Syntax:A Functional Typological Introduction (Vol.2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givon, T.1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goodluck, H.1991. Language Acquisition:A Linguistic Introduction. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Graffi, G.2001.200 Years of Syntax:A Critical Survey. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Greenberg, Joseph.1966. Language Universals. The Hague:Mouton.
Groat, Erich.1995. On the redundancy of syntactic representations. MS. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.
Grosu, A.1982. Approaches to Island Phenomena. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
Gruber, J. S.1967. Topicalization in child language. Foundations of Language,3: 37-65.
Gundel, J. K.1976. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington, Indiana.
Gundel, J. K.1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53,543-559.
Gundel, J. K.1985. Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83-107.
Gundel, J. K.1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.). Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gundel, J. K.1999. Topic, focus, and the grammar-pragmatic interface. In J. Alexander, N. Han and M. Minnick Fox (eds.). Proceedings of the 23rd. Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol.6.1.
Hajicova, E.2002. Prague School Circle Papers. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hakuta. K.1979. Some common goals for first and second language acquisition research. Paper presented at 13th annual TESOL convention, Boston.
Halliday, M. A. K.1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part Ⅱ. Journal of Linguistics,3:199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K.2002. On Grammar. New York:Continuum.
Hammarberg, B.1979. On intralingual, interlingual and developmental solutions in interlanguage. In Hyltenstam & Linnarud (eds.). Interlanguage Workshop at the Fifth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.
Hammerly, H.1991. Fluency and Accuracy:Toward Balance in Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Han, Z. H.2000. Persistence of the implicit influence of NL:the case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics 21:78-105.
Han, Z. H.2004. Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Haspelmath, M.2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42:25-70.
Hatch, E.1983. Psycholinguistics:A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Hawkins, J. A.1983. Word order universals. New York:Academic Press.
Hawkins, J. A.1988. On generative and typological approaches to Universal Grammar. Lingua,74:85-100.
Hawkins, R.1987. Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 learners. Second Language Research 3:20-55.
Hawkins, R.2001. Second Language Syntax:A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Hernandez-Chavez, E.1977. The Acquisition of Grammatical Structures by a Mexican-American Child. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California. Berkeley.
Hockett, C. F.1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York:McMillan.
Hockett, C. F.1963. The problem of universals in language. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Lanugage. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Hornby, Peter.1971. Surface structure and the topic-comment distinction:a developmental study. Child Development,42:1975-1988.
Hornstein, N. & D. Lightfoot (eds.).1981. Explanation in Linguistics:the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London:Longman.
Huang, J.1971. A Chinese Child's Acquisition of English Syntax. M.A. Thesis, UCLA.
Huang, C. T. James.1982. Logic Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA:MIT dissertation.
Huang, C. T. James.1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry,15,531-574.
Huebner, Thomas G. 1979. Order-of-acquisition vs. dynamic paradigm:a comparison of method in interlanguage research. TESOL Quarterly 13:1.
Hyams, N.1986. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht:D. Reidel.
Hyltenstam, K.1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27:383-411.
Hyltenstam, K.1982. Language, typology, language universals, markedness and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Second European-North American Workshop of Second Language Acquisition Research, Gohrde, Germany.
Hyltenstam, K.1984. The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition:the case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen (ed.). Second Language:a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Jakobson, R.1936. Contributions to the General Theory of Case:General Meanings of the Russian Cases. Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies,59-103,1984.
Jakobson, R.1939. Zero Sign. Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies,151-60,1984.
Jakobson, R.1968. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. Allan R. Keiler (trans.). The Hague:Mouton.
Jakobson, R.1972. Human Communication. In Selected Writings Ⅶ:Contributions to Comparative Mythology:Studies in Linguistics and Philology,1972-1982. The Hague:Mouton,1985.
Jakobson, R. & Pomorska, K.1983. Dialogues with Krystyna Pomorska. Cambridge: MIT Press.
James, C.1980. Contrastive Analysis. Essex:Longman Group Ltd.
Jeffers, R. & I. Lehiste.1979. Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Jespersen, Otto.1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part Ⅶ: Syntax. Copenhagen:Ejnar Munksgaard.
Jin, Hong Gang.1994. Topic-prominence and subject-prominence in L2 acquisition. Language Learning 44:101-122.
Jones, A.1991. Review of studies on the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Unpublished paper. Tokyo:Temple University Japan.
Jordens, P.1995. Prominence in applied linguistics. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (eds.). The Current State of Inter language:Festschrift. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kamimoto, T., A. Shimura, & E. Kellerman.1992. A second language classic reconsidered—the case of Schachter's avoidance. Second Language Research 8: 231-77.
Keenan. E.1975. Variation in universal grammar. In R. Fasold & Roger Shuy (eds.) Analyzing Variation in Language. Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Press.
Keenan, E. & B. Comrie.1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 55:333-351.
Keenan, E. & Dryer, M.2007. Passive in the world's languages. In T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. Ⅰ:Clause Structure). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B.1976. Topic as a discourse notion:a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In C. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. London/New York:Academic Press.
Kellerman, E.1977. Towards a characterization of the strategies of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2:58-145.
Kellerman, E.1979. Transfer and Non-transfer:where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2:37-57.
Kellerman, E.1983. Now you see it, now you don't. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Kellerman, E.1987. Aspects of Transferability in Second Language Acquisition. Chapter 1:Cross-linguistic Influence:A Review. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nijmegen.
Kellerman, E.1992. Another look at an old classic:Schachter's avoidance. Lecture notes, Tokyo:Temple University Japan.
Kim, Kyu-Hyun.1995. Wh-clefts and left-dislocation in English conversation:cases of topicalization. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (eds.). Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Kiss, E.1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language,74 (2): 245-273.
Klein, E.1988. A contrastive analysis of focus phenomena in English and German on a functional basis and some implications for a didactic grammar. Die Neueren Sprachen,87 (4):371-386.
Klein, W.1986. Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Krifka, M.2007. Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds.). Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6 (13-56). Potsdam:Universitatsverlag.
Kuno, Susumo.1972. Functional sentence perspective:a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry,3:269-320.
Lado, R.1957. Linguistics Across Cultures:Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan.
Lambrecht, Knud.1988. There was a farmer had a dog:syntactic amalgams revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California.319-339.
Lambrecht, Knud.1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald.1974. Movement rules in functional perspective. Language 50: 630-664.
Lapolla, R.1990. Grammatical relations in Chinese:Synchronic and diachronic considerations. Berkeley:University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
Larsen-Freeman, D & M. H. Long.1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London:Longman.
Lasnik, H. & J. Uriagereka.1988. A Course in GB Syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Lee, W.1968. Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of language teaching. In J. Alatis (ed.). Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedagogical Implication. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University.
Lehmann W. P.1978. Syntactic Typology:Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Lempert, H. & MacWhinney, B.1984. Topic as Starting Point for Syntax. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 49:1-73.
Lenneberg, E.1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York:Wiley and Sons.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S.1976. Subject and topic:a new typology of language. In C. N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New York:Academic Press.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S.1981. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Liu, D. Q.(刘丹青).2008.语法调查研究手册.上海：上海教育出版社.
Long, M. & C. Sato.1984. Methodological issues in interlanguage studies:an interactionist perspective. In Davies et al. (eds.). Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lott, D.1983. Analyzing and counteracting interference errors. English Language Teaching Journal 37:256-61.
Lyons, J.1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mair, C.1987. Tough-movement in present-day British English:A corpus-based study. Studia Linguistica 41 (1):59-71.
Maslova, E. and Giuliano, Bernini.2006. Sentence topics in the languages of Europe and beyond. In G. Bernini and M. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Mazurkewich, I.1984. The acquisition of dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning 34:91-109.
Mazurkewich, I.1985. Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7:15-35.
Meinunger, A.2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Nemser, W.1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:115-23.
Odlin, T.1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Pavesi, M.1986. Markedness, discoursal modes and relative clause formation in a formal and informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8:38-55.
Prince, E. F.1984. Topicalization and left-dislocation:a functional analysis. In White, Sheila J. & Teller, Virginia (eds.). Discourse in Reading and Linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol.433. New York:The New York Academy of Sciences,213-225.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:Longman.
Radford, A.2004. Minimalist Syntax:Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T.1982. Pragmatics and linguistics:an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica,27:53-94.
Richards, J.1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal 25:204-19.
Richards, J. (ed.).1974. Error Analysis. London:Longman.
Ritchie, W.1978. The right roof constraint in adult-acquired language. In Ritchie (ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research. New York:Academic Press.
Ross, J. R.1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation:MIT.
Rutherford, W.1982. Markedness in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning,32:85-108.
Rutherford, W.1983. Language typology and language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Rutherford, W.1984. Description and explanation in interlanguage syntax:state of the art. Language Learning 34:127-55.
Rutherford, W.1989. Preemption and the learning of L2 grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11:441-57.
Rutherford, W. & M. Sharwood Smith.1985. Consciousness raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics 6:274-82.
Sapir, E.1921. Language:An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt:Brace and World.
Saville-Troike, Muriel.2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J.1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 27:205-14.
Schachter, J.1988. Second language acquisition and its relation to universal grammar. Applied Linguistics,9:219-235.
Schachter, J. & M. Celce-Murcia.1977. Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly 11:441-51.
Schachter, J. & Rutherford, W.1979. Discourse function and language transfer. Working Papers in Bilingualism 19:1-12.
Schiffrin, D.1992. Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schumann, J.1976. Second language acquisition:the pidginization hypothesis. Language Learning 26:391-408.
Schumann, J.1982. Simplification, transfer and relexification as aspects of pidginization and early second language acquisition. Language Learning 32: 337-366.
Seliger, H.1989. Semantic transfer constraints in foreign language speakers'reactions to acceptability. In Dechert & Raupach (eds.). Transfer in Language Production. Norwood, N.J.:Ablex.
Selinker, L.1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-31.
Selinker, L.1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London:Longman.
Selinker, L. & Lakshmanan, U.1992. Language transfer and fossilization:the multiple effects principle. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Sharwood, Smith M.1994. Second Language Learning:theoretical foundations. New York:Longman Publishing.
Shen,Y.P. (申雨平).1995.汉语存在句的翻译.外语教学与研究(2)：62-67.
Shen, J. X. (沈家煊).1999.不对称和标记论.南昌：江西教育出版社.
Shi, Dingxu.1992. The Nature of Topic Comment Constructions and Topic Chains. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Shi, Dingxu.2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language,76,383-408.
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface:Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,7(2),143-145.
Sornicola, R.1996. Topic, focus, and word order. In Brown, K & Miller, J. (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Oxford/New York:Pergamon.
Stowell, T.1981. On the Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Strawson, P.1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30:96-118.
Svenonius, P.2001. Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. In P. Svenonius (ed.). Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. New York:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, B.1975. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning 25:73-107.
Thompson, S.1978. Modern English from a typological point of view:some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte,54:19-35.
Tomlin, R. S.1985. Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text,5:85-122.
Tran-Chi-Chau.1975. Error analysis, contrastive analysis and students' perceptions:a study of difficulty in second language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 13:119-43.
Trubetzkoy, N.1969 [1939]. Principles of Phonology. Christiane A. M. Baltaxe (trans.). Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press.
Trubetzkoy, N.1975. Letters and Notes. Roman Jakobson (ed.). The Hague:Mouton.
Tsao, Fengfu.1979. A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese:The first step towards discourse analysis. Taipei:Student Book Co.
Tsao, Fengfu.1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese:A functional perspective. Taipei:Student Book Co.
Tsimpli, I.-M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects:A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. InternationalJournal of Bilingualism,8(3),251-211.
Van Riemsdijk, H.1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Liss:Peter de Ridder Press.
Vogt, H.1954. Language contacts. Word 10:365-374.
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty & Huddleston, Rodney.2002. Information Packaging. In R. Huddleston & G. Pullum (eds.). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Weinreich, U.1953. Language in Contact. The Hague:Mouton.
Wen, Qiu Fang.2004. Applied Linguistics:Research Methods and Thesis Writing. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
White, L.1985. The "pro-drop" parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning,35:47-62.
White, L.1986a. Implications of Parametric Variation for Adult Second Language Acquisition:an investigation of the "pro-drop" parameter. In V. J. Cook (ed.). Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon.
White, L.1986b. Markedness and parameter setting:some implications for a theory of adult second language acquisition. In E. Eckman, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (eds.). Markedness. New York:Plenum.
White, L.1987. Markedness and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9:262-86.
White, L.1989a. The adjacency condition on case assignment:do learner observe the Subset Principle? In Gass & Schachter (eds.). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
White, L.1989b. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
White, L.2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.1977. The significance of simplification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1:11-20.
Wilson, D.& D. Sperber.1985. MS. Pragmatics.
xu,l. j.(徐烈炯).2009.指称、语序和语义解释.北京:商务印书馆.
Xu, Liejiong. & D. Langendoen.1985. Topic structures in Chinese. Language 61: 1-27.
Yip, V.1995. Interlanguage and Learnability:from Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yuan, Boping.1995. Acquisition of Base-generated Topics by English-speaking Learners of Chinese. Language Learning,45:567-603.
Zobl, H.1980a. The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning,30:43-57.
Zobl, H.1980b. Developmental and transfer errors:their common bases and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly,14:469-79.
Zobl, H.1982. A direction for contrastive analysis:the comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly,16:169-83.
Zobl, H.1983. Markedness and the Projection Problem. Language Learning,33: 93-313.
Agnes, M. (ed.).1999. Webster's New World Dictionary. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Anderson, R.1983. Transfer to somewhere. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Andrews, E.1990. Markedness Theory, the Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language. London:Duke University Press.
Ard, J.1975. Raising and Word Order in Diachronic Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.
Ard, J. & Hamburg, T.1983. Verification of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.1987. Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language Learning 37:385-407.
Bates, E.1976. Language and Context:The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Battistella, E.1990. Markedness:The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Battistella, E.1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bell, R.1974. Error analysis:a recent pseudo-procedure in applied linguistics. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 25-6:35-9.
Benson, Cathy.2002. Transfer/Cross-linguistic influence. ELT Journal,56 (1),68-70.
Bhardwaj, M.1986. Reference to space by a Punjabi acquirer of English. Nijmegen: ESF Working paper.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow:Longman.
Bley-Vroman, R.1988. The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In Rutherford & Sharwood Smith (eds.). Grammar and Second Language Teaching: A Book of Readings. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Bley-Vroman, R.1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R., S. Felix, & G. Ioup.1988. The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research 4:1-32.
Brown, G. & Yule, G.1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R.1973. A First Language:the Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Callies, Marcus.2009. Information Highlighting in Advanced Learner English. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cazden, C., E. Cancino, E. Rosansky, & J. Schumann.1975. Second Language Acquisition in Children, Adolescents and Adults. Final Report. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education.
Chafe, W. L.1972. Discourse structure and human knowledge. In J. B. Carroll & R. O. Freedle (eds.). Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Washington, D.C.:Winston.
Chafe, W. L.1976. Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C. N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New York:Academic Press.
Chao, Y. R.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chiu, Bonnie Hui-Chun.1993. The Inflectional Structure of Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles:University of California.
Chomsky, N.1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of The Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1973. Conditions on Transformations. In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York:Holt.
Chomsky, N.1976. Reflections on Language. London:Temple Smith.
Chomsky, N.1977. On Wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (eds.). Formal Syntax. New York:Academic Press, Inc.
Chomsky, N.1981a. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, N.1981b. Markedness and Core Grammar. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Core Grammar. Pisa:Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.
Chomsky, N.1981c. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein & Lightfoot (eds.). Explanation in Linguistics:the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London and New York:Longman.
Chomsky, N.1982. The Generative Enterprise:A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, N.1986. Knowledge of Language:Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N.1988. Language and Problem of Knowledge:the Nicaraguan Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1989. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10:43-74.
Chomsky, N.1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Occasional Papers in Linguistics,1. Cambridge:MIT.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H.1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8.3,425-504.
Chomsky, N. & Morris H.1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York:Harper and Row.
Chu, C. C.1998. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Clark, H.1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child, In Moore (ed.). Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York:Academic Press.
Clark. H. & E. Clark.1978. Universals, relativity, and language processing, In Greenberg. J. (ed.). Universals of Human Language:Method and Theory. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Collins, C.1991. Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.
Comrie, B.1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology:Syntax and Morphology. Oxford:Blackwell.
Comrie, B.1986. Markedness, grammar, people and the world. In F. R. Eckman, E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (eds.). Markedness. New York:Plenum Press.
Corder, S. P.1967. The significance of the learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,9:149-59.
Corder, S. P.1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:149-59.
Corder, S. P.1978. Language-learner language. In J. Richards (ed.). Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning:Issues and Approaches. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Cornish, Francis.2004. Focus of attention in discourse. In Lachlan Mackenzie and Maria Gomez-Gonzalez (eds.). A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Creider, C.1979. On the explanation of transformations. In Talmy Givon (ed.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12. New York:Academic Press.
Croft, W.1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W.2003. Typology and Universals.2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Davison, A.1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language,60:797-846.
Dik, S. C.1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
Dik, S. C.1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht:Foris Publications.
Dryer, M.1980. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25:123-195.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1972. Goofing, an indicator of children's second language strategies. Language Learning 22:234-52.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23: 245-58.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1974a. You can't learn without goofing. In Richards (ed.). Error Analysis. London:Longman.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.1974b. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning,24:37-53.
Dulay. H. & Burt, M.1978. Some remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In Ritchie (ed.). Second Language Acquisition Research. New York:Academic Press.
Eckman, F.1977. Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning,27:315-330.
Eckman, F.1985. Some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the markedness differential hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,7:289-307.
Eckman, F.1991. The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,13:23-41.
Eckman, F, Bell, L. & D. Nelson.1988. On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Lingustics 9:1-20.
Ellis, R.1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R.1999. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Emonds, J.1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Emonds, J.1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Euen Hyuk Jung.2004. Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning,54 (4):713-38.
Fathman, A.1975. Language background, age, and the order of acquisition of English structures. In Burt and Dulay (eds.). On TESOL 75. Washington, D.C.:TESOL.
Felix, S.1980. Interference, interlanguage and related issues. In S. Felix (ed.). Second Language Development:Trends and Issues. Tubingen:GunterNarr.
Flege, J. & Davidian, R.1984. Transfer and developmental processes in adult foreign language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics,5:323-47.
Frawley, W.1981. The Complement Hierarchy:Evidence for Language Universals from L2. Paper presented at Winter LSA.
Fuller, J. W. & Gundel, J. K.1987. Topic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning,37:1-18.
Gair, J. W.1988. Kinds of markedness. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (eds.). Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Gass, S. M.1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning,29:327-44.
Gass, S. M.1980. An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (eds.). Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Gass, S. M.1983. The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly,17:273-91.
Gass, S. M.1984. A review of interlanguage syntax:language transfer and language universals. Language Learning,34:115-31.
Gass, S. M.1988. Integrating research areas:a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics 9:198-217.
Gass, S. M.1989. Language universals and second language acquisition. Language Learning 39:497-534.
Gass, S.1995. Universals, SLA, and language pedagogy. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. S. Smith (eds.). The Current State of Inter language.31-42. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gass, S. M. & J. Ard.1984. Second language acquisition and the ontology of language universals. In Rutherford (ed.). Typological Universals and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (eds.).1989. Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (eds.).1983. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts:Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L.2008. Second Language Acquisition:An Introductory Course. New York:Routledge.
George, H.1972. Common Errors in Language Learning:Insights from English. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Givon. T.1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology:an archaeologist's field trip. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistics Society.
Givon, T.1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York:Academic Press.
Givon, T.1990. Syntax:A Functional Typological Introduction (Vol.2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givon, T.1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goodluck, H.1991. Language Acquisition:A Linguistic Introduction. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Graffi, G.2001.200 Years of Syntax:A Critical Survey. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Greenberg, Joseph.1966. Language Universals. The Hague:Mouton.
Groat, Erich.1995. On the redundancy of syntactic representations. MS. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.
Grosu, A.1982. Approaches to Island Phenomena. Amsterdam:North-Holland.
Gruber, J. S.1967. Topicalization in child language. Foundations of Language,3: 37-65.
Gundel, J. K.1976. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington, Indiana.
Gundel, J. K.1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53,543-559.
Gundel, J. K.1985. Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83-107.
Gundel, J. K.1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.). Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gundel, J. K.1999. Topic, focus, and the grammar-pragmatic interface. In J. Alexander, N. Han and M. Minnick Fox (eds.). Proceedings of the 23rd. Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol.6.1.
Hajicova, E.2002. Prague School Circle Papers. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hakuta. K.1979. Some common goals for first and second language acquisition research. Paper presented at 13th annual TESOL convention, Boston.
Halliday, M. A. K.1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part Ⅱ. Journal of Linguistics,3:199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K.2002. On Grammar. New York:Continuum.
Hammarberg, B.1979. On intralingual, interlingual and developmental solutions in interlanguage. In Hyltenstam & Linnarud (eds.). Interlanguage Workshop at the Fifth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.
Hammerly, H.1991. Fluency and Accuracy:Toward Balance in Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Han, Z. H.2000. Persistence of the implicit influence of NL:the case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics 21:78-105.
Han, Z. H.2004. Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Haspelmath, M.2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42:25-70.
Hatch, E.1983. Psycholinguistics:A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Hawkins, J. A.1983. Word order universals. New York:Academic Press.
Hawkins, J. A.1988. On generative and typological approaches to Universal Grammar. Lingua,74:85-100.
Hawkins, R.1987. Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 learners. Second Language Research 3:20-55.
Hawkins, R.2001. Second Language Syntax:A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Hernandez-Chavez, E.1977. The Acquisition of Grammatical Structures by a Mexican-American Child. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California. Berkeley.
Hockett, C. F.1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York:McMillan.
Hockett, C. F.1963. The problem of universals in language. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Lanugage. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Hornby, Peter.1971. Surface structure and the topic-comment distinction:a developmental study. Child Development,42:1975-1988.
Hornstein, N. & D. Lightfoot (eds.).1981. Explanation in Linguistics:the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London:Longman.
Huang, J.1971. A Chinese Child's Acquisition of English Syntax. M.A. Thesis, UCLA.
Huang, C. T. James.1982. Logic Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA:MIT dissertation.
Huang, C. T. James.1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry,15,531-574.
Huebner, Thomas G. 1979. Order-of-acquisition vs. dynamic paradigm:a comparison of method in interlanguage research. TESOL Quarterly 13:1.
Hyams, N.1986. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht:D. Reidel.
Hyltenstam, K.1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning 27:383-411.
Hyltenstam, K.1982. Language, typology, language universals, markedness and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Second European-North American Workshop of Second Language Acquisition Research, Gohrde, Germany.
Hyltenstam, K.1984. The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition:the case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen (ed.). Second Language:a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Jakobson, R.1936. Contributions to the General Theory of Case:General Meanings of the Russian Cases. Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies,59-103,1984.
Jakobson, R.1939. Zero Sign. Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies,151-60,1984.
Jakobson, R.1968. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. Allan R. Keiler (trans.). The Hague:Mouton.
Jakobson, R.1972. Human Communication. In Selected Writings Ⅶ:Contributions to Comparative Mythology:Studies in Linguistics and Philology,1972-1982. The Hague:Mouton,1985.
Jakobson, R. & Pomorska, K.1983. Dialogues with Krystyna Pomorska. Cambridge: MIT Press.
James, C.1980. Contrastive Analysis. Essex:Longman Group Ltd.
Jeffers, R. & I. Lehiste.1979. Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Jespersen, Otto.1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part Ⅶ: Syntax. Copenhagen:Ejnar Munksgaard.
Jin, Hong Gang.1994. Topic-prominence and subject-prominence in L2 acquisition. Language Learning 44:101-122.
Jones, A.1991. Review of studies on the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Unpublished paper. Tokyo:Temple University Japan.
Jordens, P.1995. Prominence in applied linguistics. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (eds.). The Current State of Inter language:Festschrift. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kamimoto, T., A. Shimura, & E. Kellerman.1992. A second language classic reconsidered—the case of Schachter's avoidance. Second Language Research 8: 231-77.
Keenan. E.1975. Variation in universal grammar. In R. Fasold & Roger Shuy (eds.) Analyzing Variation in Language. Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Press.
Keenan, E. & B. Comrie.1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 55:333-351.
Keenan, E. & Dryer, M.2007. Passive in the world's languages. In T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. Ⅰ:Clause Structure). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B.1976. Topic as a discourse notion:a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In C. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. London/New York:Academic Press.
Kellerman, E.1977. Towards a characterization of the strategies of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2:58-145.
Kellerman, E.1979. Transfer and Non-transfer:where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2:37-57.
Kellerman, E.1983. Now you see it, now you don't. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Kellerman, E.1987. Aspects of Transferability in Second Language Acquisition. Chapter 1:Cross-linguistic Influence:A Review. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nijmegen.
Kellerman, E.1992. Another look at an old classic:Schachter's avoidance. Lecture notes, Tokyo:Temple University Japan.
Kim, Kyu-Hyun.1995. Wh-clefts and left-dislocation in English conversation:cases of topicalization. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (eds.). Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Kiss, E.1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language,74 (2): 245-273.
Klein, E.1988. A contrastive analysis of focus phenomena in English and German on a functional basis and some implications for a didactic grammar. Die Neueren Sprachen,87 (4):371-386.
Klein, W.1986. Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Krifka, M.2007. Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds.). Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6 (13-56). Potsdam:Universitatsverlag.
Kuno, Susumo.1972. Functional sentence perspective:a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry,3:269-320.
Lado, R.1957. Linguistics Across Cultures:Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan.
Lambrecht, Knud.1988. There was a farmer had a dog:syntactic amalgams revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California.319-339.
Lambrecht, Knud.1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald.1974. Movement rules in functional perspective. Language 50: 630-664.
Lapolla, R.1990. Grammatical relations in Chinese:Synchronic and diachronic considerations. Berkeley:University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
Larsen-Freeman, D & M. H. Long.1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London:Longman.
Lasnik, H. & J. Uriagereka.1988. A Course in GB Syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Lee, W.1968. Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of language teaching. In J. Alatis (ed.). Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedagogical Implication. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University.
Lehmann W. P.1978. Syntactic Typology:Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Lempert, H. & MacWhinney, B.1984. Topic as Starting Point for Syntax. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 49:1-73.
Lenneberg, E.1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York:Wiley and Sons.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S.1976. Subject and topic:a new typology of language. In C. N. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New York:Academic Press.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S.1981. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Liu, D. Q.(刘丹青).2008.语法调查研究手册.上海：上海教育出版社.
Long, M. & C. Sato.1984. Methodological issues in interlanguage studies:an interactionist perspective. In Davies et al. (eds.). Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lott, D.1983. Analyzing and counteracting interference errors. English Language Teaching Journal 37:256-61.
Lyons, J.1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mair, C.1987. Tough-movement in present-day British English:A corpus-based study. Studia Linguistica 41 (1):59-71.
Maslova, E. and Giuliano, Bernini.2006. Sentence topics in the languages of Europe and beyond. In G. Bernini and M. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Mazurkewich, I.1984. The acquisition of dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning 34:91-109.
Mazurkewich, I.1985. Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7:15-35.
Meinunger, A.2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Nemser, W.1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:115-23.
Odlin, T.1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Pavesi, M.1986. Markedness, discoursal modes and relative clause formation in a formal and informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8:38-55.
Prince, E. F.1984. Topicalization and left-dislocation:a functional analysis. In White, Sheila J. & Teller, Virginia (eds.). Discourse in Reading and Linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol.433. New York:The New York Academy of Sciences,213-225.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:Longman.
Radford, A.2004. Minimalist Syntax:Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T.1982. Pragmatics and linguistics:an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica,27:53-94.
Richards, J.1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal 25:204-19.
Richards, J. (ed.).1974. Error Analysis. London:Longman.
Ritchie, W.1978. The right roof constraint in adult-acquired language. In Ritchie (ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research. New York:Academic Press.
Ross, J. R.1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation:MIT.
Rutherford, W.1982. Markedness in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning,32:85-108.
Rutherford, W.1983. Language typology and language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Rutherford, W.1984. Description and explanation in interlanguage syntax:state of the art. Language Learning 34:127-55.
Rutherford, W.1989. Preemption and the learning of L2 grammars. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11:441-57.
Rutherford, W. & M. Sharwood Smith.1985. Consciousness raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics 6:274-82.
Sapir, E.1921. Language:An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt:Brace and World.
Saville-Troike, Muriel.2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J.1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 27:205-14.
Schachter, J.1988. Second language acquisition and its relation to universal grammar. Applied Linguistics,9:219-235.
Schachter, J. & M. Celce-Murcia.1977. Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly 11:441-51.
Schachter, J. & Rutherford, W.1979. Discourse function and language transfer. Working Papers in Bilingualism 19:1-12.
Schiffrin, D.1992. Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schumann, J.1976. Second language acquisition:the pidginization hypothesis. Language Learning 26:391-408.
Schumann, J.1982. Simplification, transfer and relexification as aspects of pidginization and early second language acquisition. Language Learning 32: 337-366.
Seliger, H.1989. Semantic transfer constraints in foreign language speakers'reactions to acceptability. In Dechert & Raupach (eds.). Transfer in Language Production. Norwood, N.J.:Ablex.
Selinker, L.1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-31.
Selinker, L.1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London:Longman.
Selinker, L. & Lakshmanan, U.1992. Language transfer and fossilization:the multiple effects principle. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.). Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Sharwood, Smith M.1994. Second Language Learning:theoretical foundations. New York:Longman Publishing.
Shen,Y.P. (申雨平).1995.汉语存在句的翻译.外语教学与研究(2)：62-67.
Shen, J. X. (沈家煊).1999.不对称和标记论.南昌：江西教育出版社.
Shi, Dingxu.1992. The Nature of Topic Comment Constructions and Topic Chains. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Shi, Dingxu.2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language,76,383-408.
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface:Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,7(2),143-145.
Sornicola, R.1996. Topic, focus, and word order. In Brown, K & Miller, J. (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Oxford/New York:Pergamon.
Stowell, T.1981. On the Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Strawson, P.1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30:96-118.
Svenonius, P.2001. Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. In P. Svenonius (ed.). Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. New York:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, B.1975. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning 25:73-107.
Thompson, S.1978. Modern English from a typological point of view:some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte,54:19-35.
Tomlin, R. S.1985. Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text,5:85-122.
Tran-Chi-Chau.1975. Error analysis, contrastive analysis and students' perceptions:a study of difficulty in second language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 13:119-43.
Trubetzkoy, N.1969 [1939]. Principles of Phonology. Christiane A. M. Baltaxe (trans.). Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press.
Trubetzkoy, N.1975. Letters and Notes. Roman Jakobson (ed.). The Hague:Mouton.
Tsao, Fengfu.1979. A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese:The first step towards discourse analysis. Taipei:Student Book Co.
Tsao, Fengfu.1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese:A functional perspective. Taipei:Student Book Co.
Tsimpli, I.-M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects:A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. InternationalJournal of Bilingualism,8(3),251-211.
Van Riemsdijk, H.1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Liss:Peter de Ridder Press.
Vogt, H.1954. Language contacts. Word 10:365-374.
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty & Huddleston, Rodney.2002. Information Packaging. In R. Huddleston & G. Pullum (eds.). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Weinreich, U.1953. Language in Contact. The Hague:Mouton.
Wen, Qiu Fang.2004. Applied Linguistics:Research Methods and Thesis Writing. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
White, L.1985. The "pro-drop" parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning,35:47-62.
White, L.1986a. Implications of Parametric Variation for Adult Second Language Acquisition:an investigation of the "pro-drop" parameter. In V. J. Cook (ed.). Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon.
White, L.1986b. Markedness and parameter setting:some implications for a theory of adult second language acquisition. In E. Eckman, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (eds.). Markedness. New York:Plenum.
White, L.1987. Markedness and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9:262-86.
White, L.1989a. The adjacency condition on case assignment:do learner observe the Subset Principle? In Gass & Schachter (eds.). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
White, L.1989b. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
White, L.2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.1977. The significance of simplification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1:11-20.
Wilson, D.& D. Sperber.1985. MS. Pragmatics.
xu,l. j.(徐烈炯).2009.指称、语序和语义解释.北京:商务印书馆.
Xu, Liejiong. & D. Langendoen.1985. Topic structures in Chinese. Language 61: 1-27.
Yip, V.1995. Interlanguage and Learnability:from Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yuan, Boping.1995. Acquisition of Base-generated Topics by English-speaking Learners of Chinese. Language Learning,45:567-603.
Zobl, H.1980a. The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning,30:43-57.
Zobl, H.1980b. Developmental and transfer errors:their common bases and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly,14:469-79.
Zobl, H.1982. A direction for contrastive analysis:the comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly,16:169-83.
Zobl, H.1983. Markedness and the Projection Problem. Language Learning,33: 93-313.