本研究之目的在於探討臺灣的英語學習者過度使用英文there be句型的現象。相關研究顯示這種過度使用的現象可歸因於學習者母語(國語)和第二語言英語的交互作用。亦即這種特有的中英文中介語(Chinese-English interlanguage)句型乃是由於中文「有─」句型和there be句型在語法、語意、及語言功能方面互相影響所造成的。本研究乃是從一個跨語言的觀點來檢視受母語轉換影響的第二語言學習過程。這種語言學習過程是一個深層認知的過程，而非只是單純表面結構的轉換。臺灣的英語學習者學習there be句型的困難則可以「次集原則」(Subset Principle)和「獨特原則」(Uniqueness Principle) 解釋之。
本研究以兩個方向同時進行相關語料的收集。第一類語料來自臺灣大學生的英文習作；這個部份包含了六十篇中國文化大學英文系學生寫的英文文章，並分成兩個等級。其中三十篇被歸類為高水平的習作，另外三十篇則被歸類為低水平的習作。分析學生英文作文的目的在於瞭解臺灣的英語學習者在英文篇章中使用there be句型的情形及不同程度的學習者在學習上的差異。
另一類語料則是來自260位中國文化大學不同科系學生接受三項測試的結果。這三項測試為引出式翻譯、代換測驗、以及英翻中測驗。
研究結果顯示中文「有─」句型和there be句型在語法方面的相似的確是臺灣大學生過度使用there be句型的原因之一。而中文的特殊語篇功能也被證實對臺灣的英語學習者經常使用there be句型來啟始英文句子有顯著的影響。就語意上而言，研究結果也顯示中文主詞的限定效果是致使臺灣的英語學習者過度使用there be以避免使用英文非限定主詞的原因之一。就如大多數的中介語問題，英文程度對於臺灣的英語學習者過度使用there be句型的現象具有決定性的影響。語料分析的結果亦顯示there be句型的使用是導致英文中介語中某些錯誤的原因。
總而言之，本研究最大意義在於顯示語言轉換過程乃是一種認知的過程，而非只是單純母語表面結構的轉換。而中介語的發展是受母語和第二語言互動的影響。本研究所使用的方法及其限制及所遭遇的困難可供未來對於研究中英文中介語及「存現句結構」習得之參考。

This study aims to investigate EFL Chinese college learners’ acquisition of English existential constructions, specifically the there be sentences.  It has been observed that Chinese learners’ tend to overuse English there be sentences in their L2 English output.  The study attempts to identify the sources of this interlanguage phenomenon by looking directly into the L2 data. 
It is believed that the overgeneration problem of Chinese learners is the result of the interaction among various aspects of the learners’ mother tongue and the target language.  The Chinese-English interlanguage (CIL) is assumed to result from the vigorous interaction among the syntax, the semantics, and the discourse function of Mandarin you-sentences and English there be sentences.  A cross-linguistic paradigm should best address this process of language transfer, which is believed to be cognitive and interactive in nature, rather than superficial and mechanical.  The difficulty of Chinese learners’ learning there be sentences can be explicated in the light of the Subset Principle and the Uniqueness Principle.   
Two lines of investigation are conducted to procure sufficient relevant data for analysis.  The first source of data is a corpus of essays produced by a group of Chinese learners of English.  The corpus contains 60 student-written English essays with two discernable levels of proficiency.  The principal purpose of this corpus analysis is to understand how there be sentences are applied in the L2 discourse, and how the learners with different levels of proficiency apply various there be sentences in the stretch of discourse.
The other line of study is to examine the L2 data from a group of 260 college learners of English at Chinese Culture University.  The three major tasks, an elicitation translation task, a substitution test, and a Mandarin-to-English translation task, provide the needed L2 data and L1 data for explaining the causes of CIL there be sentences. 
The results of the study indicate that the similarities between Mandarin-you sentences and there be sentences have contributed, to a considerable degree, the Chinese learners’ overgeneration of CIL there be sentences.  The discourse function of Mandarin is also proven to have a powerful effect on the Chinese learners’ overuse of there be to initiate L2 English sentences.  Semantically, the definiteness effect of Mandarin subjects has restricted the Chinese learners in applying indefinite subjects in L2 utterances and thus conduced to the learners’ overuse of there be sentences.  As with most interlanguage problems, L2 proficiency is shown to be a decisive factor in the employment of there be sentences by the Chinese learners.  The incorporation of there be into L2 discourse is shown to be one major cause of many grammatical problems of the Chinese learners of English.  All in all, the cognitive perspective of L2 acquisition is verified by the plentiful L2 patterns that emerge in this study.
The greatest significance of the present study is its revelation of the cognitive and interactive nature and the legitimate status of an interlanguage.  Nevertheless, to obtain    more convincing and clearer explanations of the particular interlanguage problems of the Chinese learners, the researcher should overcome and avoid the limitations and the flaws of the present study in future related studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………...	v
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………...	vii
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………….	x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………	xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………	xiv
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………	xx
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….	xxi


CHAPTER

1	INTRODUCTION    	1
   	1.1	Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………..	1
	1.2	Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………….	2
	1.3	Research Questions………………………………………………………...	3
	1.4	Significance of the Study…………………………………………………..	4
	1.5	Definition of terms…………………………………………………………	6
	1.6	Organization of the Dissertation…………………………………………...	10
2	LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………….. 	12
	2.1	General Characteristics of Existential Sentences………………………….	13
	2.2	English There Be Existential Constructions………………………………..	14
		2.2.1  English Presentational Relatives…………………………………...	16
		2.2.2  English Existential Relatives………………………………………	16
		2.2.3  Infinitival Existential Constructions……………………………….	18
		2.2.4  Participial Existential Constructions……………………………….	20
	2.3	Existential Constructions in Mandarin……………………………………..	22
	2.4	There be Constructions in Chinese-English Interlanguage (CIL)………….	26
		2.4.1  Potential Sources of CIL there be Constructions…………………..	31
		2.4.2  Stages of Development of CIL There be Sentences……………….	32
		2.4.3  Syntactic Similarities as One Source of the Problem……………...	34
		2.4.4  Pragmatic and Semantic Influence of the L1 as the Source of the Problem…………………..……………………………..………….	35
	2.5	Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………	36
		2.5.1  The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)……………………...	37
		2.5.2  Error Analysis……………………………………………………...	38
		2.5.3  From CAH to Cross-linguistic Influence (CLI)…………………… 	39
		2.5.4  A Study of Cross-linguistic Influence on CIL There be Sentences	40
		2.5.5  A Cognitive Perspective……………………………………………	44
		2.5.6  An Interactivist Position…………………………………………...	47
		2.5.6.1  Interactions of Linguistic Subsystems…………………...	48
		2.5.6.2  Interactions of Language Universals…………………….	49
		2.5.7  L1 Influences on the Development of CIL There be Sentences…...	52
		      2.5.7.1  Effect of Discourse Function of L1 Mandarin…………..	52
		2.5.7.2  Semantic Constraint—The Definiteness Effect………….	54
		2.5.7.2.1  Indefiniteness of Postverbal NPs in Existential Constructions…………………………………..	55
		            2.5.7.2.2  Definiteness of Mandarin Subjects…………….	55
		2.5.7.3  The Definiteness Constraint on Acquisition of Target Structures………………………………………………..	59
		      2.5.7.4  Second Language Learnability…………………………..	60
		      2.5.7.5  Learnability and Acquisition of There be Sentences…….	64
		2.5.8  Interaction Between Developmental Factors and Transfer………...	71
		2.5.9  A Study of Development of L2 English Existentials………………	73
	2.6	Summary…………………………………………………………………...	77
3	METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………. 	78
	3.1	Overview and Motivation………………………………………………….	78
	3.2	Study I—Analysis of the Corpus…………………………………………..	79
		3.2.1  Subjects for Study I………………………………………………..	81
		3.2.2  Collection of the Corpus Data……………………………………..	81
		3.2.3  The Baseline Data………………………………………………….	82
		3.2.4  Analysis and Scoring of the Corpus Data………………………….	83
	3.3	Study II……………………………………………………………………..	84
		3.3.1  Subjects for Study II……………………………………………….	84
		3.3.2  Instruments for Study II……………………………………………	86
		      3.3.2.1  Elicitation Translation Task……………………………...	86
		      3.3.2.2  English-to-Mandarin Translation Task…………………...	89
		      3.3.2.3  Substitution Test……………………………………….…	90
		3.3.3  Data Collection for Study II………………………………………..	92
		3.3.3.1  Analysis and Scoring of Data in the Elicitation Translation Task………………………………………....	93
		      3.3.3.2  Analysis and Scoring of Data in the Substitution Test…...	94
		      3.3.3.3  Analysis and Scoring of Data in the English-to-Mandarin Translation Task………………………………………....	94
	3.4	Summary…………………………………………………………………...	95
4	RESULTS………………………………………………………………………...	96
	4.1	There be Sentences in CIL Discourse……………………………………...	96
	4.2	Evidence of Cross-linguistic Influence in the L2 Data…………………….	99
	4.3	Transfer of Mandarin Syntax………………………………………………	101
		4.3.1  Evidence of Transfer of Mandarin Syntax in the Corpus…………	101
		4.3.2  Evidence of Transfer of Mandarin Syntax in the ElicitationTranslation Task……………………………………………………	104
	4.4	Evidence of L1 Discourse Function in the Chinese Learner Corpus………	107
	4.5	The Definiteness Effect (DE) on the Production of CIL There be sentence	110
		4.5.1  Evidence of the DE in the Chinese Learner Corpus……………….	110
		4.5.2  Evidence of the DE in the Substitution Test……………………….	111
		4.5.3  Evidence of the DE in the Elicitation Translation Task……………	117
	4.6	Development of CIL There be Sentences………………………………….	125
		4.6.1  Developmental Tendency Exhibited in the Chinese Learner Corpus……………………………………………………………...	126
		4.6.2  Developmental Tendency Exhibited in the Elicitation Translation Task………………………………………………………………..	128
	4.7	Interaction of L2 Linguistic Elements……………………………………..	139
	4.8	Summary…………………………………………………………………...	142
5	DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………	143
	5.1	Influence of Structures of You-sentences on Acquisition of There beSentences………………………………………………………………….	143
		5.1.1  Transfer of L1 Syntax in the L2 Corpus…………………………...	144
		5.1.2  Transfer of L1 Syntax in the Elicitation Translation Task…………	145
	5.2	Transfer of Discourse Function of Mandarin………………………………	146
	5.3	Transfer of Definiteness Effect (DE) of Mandarin………………………...	151
		5.3.1  Transfer of the DE in the Chinese Learner Corpus………………..	152
		5.3.2  Transfer of the DE in the Substitution Test………………………..	152
		5.3.3  Transfer of the DE in the Elicitation Translation Task…………….	153
		5.3.4  Causes of the DE on CIL There be Sentences……………………..	154
	5.4	The Role of L2 Proficiency in Acquisition of CIL There be Sentences …..………………………………………………………………	156
	5.5	Development of CIL There be Sentences………………………………….	159
	5.6	Interaction of L2 Linguistic Elements……………………………………..	162
	5.7	Cognitive Engagement of the Learners in L2 Acquisition…………………	163
	5.8	There be as the Cause of Ungrammaticality of CIL Existential Sentences..	168
	5.9	Summary…………………………………………………………………...	169
6  CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………	171
	6.1	Summary of the Study……………………………………………………..	171
	6.2	Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………..	175
	6.3	Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research…………..	178
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….	181

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….	192
Appendix A:	Consent Form………………………………………………………...	192
Appendix B:	The Proficiency Test…………………………………………………	193
Appendix C:	Number of the subjects of each subgroup of Study II in terms of major and gender…………………………………………………….	200
Appendix D:	Elicitation Translation Task………………………………………….	201
Appendix E:	English-to-Mandarin Translation Task……………………………….	202
Appendix F:	Coding System for the Chinese Learner Corpus………….………….	204
Appendix G:	Coding System for the Elicitation Translation Task…………………	207
Appendix H:	Overused there be Sentences in the Chinese Learner Corpus………..	210
Appendix I:	Different Question Types in the Substitution Test…………………...	214
Appendix J:	The Substitution Test………………………………………………...	217
Appendix K:	A student essay in the Chinese learner corpus……………………….	220
Appendix L:	A student essay in the Chinese learner corpus……………………….	221
Appendix M:	A student essay in the Chinese learner corpus……………………….	222
Appendix N:	A native-speaker essay in the LOCNESS Corpus…………………….	223
Appendix O:	A sample of English translations in the elicitation translation task…….	225


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 	Syntactic Differences between English and Mandarin and the Predicted Errors of Chinese Learners………………………………………………	41
Table 4.1	Translation of there be sentences in the English-Mandarin Translation Task………………………………………………………………………	99
Table 4.2	Translations of sentences 2 and 5 in the elicitation translation task …….	105
Table 4.3	Percentage of serial verb-like there be sentences in the elicitation translation task…………………………………………………………...	106
Table 4.4 	Frequency of choices in Type B questions: generic statements………….	112
Table 4.5	Frequency of choices in Type A questions: presentational relative clauses…………………………………………………………………… 	113
Table 4.6	Different groups’ choices of indefinite subject declaratives for Type B CIL there be sentences…………………………………………..	115
Table 4.7	The post hoc LSD on the three groups’ choosing the indefinite subject declaratives as the first choice…………………………………………...	116
Table 4.8	The post hoc LSD on the three groups’ choosing the indefinite subject declarative as one of the probable choices……………………………….	116
Table 4.9	Percentage and ANOVA of the correct use of indefinite subject declaratives in the elicitation translation task……………………………	118
Table 4.10	Frequency of use of there be in specific, referential sentences………….	121
Table 4.11	Frequency of use of there be in nonspecific subject sentences………….	123
Table 4.12	Paired-sample t-tests on sentence 9 and sentences 3, 6, 8……………….	123
Table 4.13	Quantification of usages of various there be sentences in the corpus……	126
Table 4.14	Percentage of learners’ translations of sentence 1 in the elicitation translation task…………………………………………………………...	128
Table 4.15	Percentage of translated sentence patterns for sentences 2 and 5………..	133
Table 4.16	Percentage of translated sentence patterns for sentences 3 and 6………..	133
Table 4.17	Percentage of use of the present participle in the translation of sentence 6………………………………………………………………..	135
Table 4.18	Percentage of use of the past participle in the translation of sentence 8………………………………………………………………..	136
Table 4.19	Use of the present participle in Type C questions in substitution test…..	136
Table 4.20	Use of the past participle in Type E questions in substitution test ………	138
Table 4.21	Result of a paired-sample t-test on the learners’ choices of there be   with present participles and there be with past participles………………	138
Table 4.22	The use of present participles in Type B questions in substitution test………………………………………………………………………..	140
Table 4.23	There be sentences with ergative verbs…………………………………..	141



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1	The subset/superset relation……………………………………….……..	62
Figure 2.2	CIL there be and English there be…………….…………..…….………	65
Figure 2.3	Indefinite subjects in English and CIL…………………………………..	67
Figure 4.1	Frequency of choices in Type B questions……………………………….	112
Figure 4.2	Frequency of choices in Type A questions……………………………….	114
Figure 4.3	Different groups' choices of indefinite subject declaratives……………..	115
Figure 4.4	Percentage of the correct use of indefinite subject declaratives in the elicitation translation task………………………………………………..	120
Figure 4.5	Percentage of learners' performance over sentence 1 in the elicitation translation task…………………………………………………………...	129
Figure 4.6	High-level learners' use of indefinite subjects…………….……..………	130
Figure 4.7	Different groups' use of there be sentences for translating sentence 1 in the elicitation translation task……………………………………………	131
Figure 4.8	Different groups' correct use of indefinite subject declaratives fortranslating sentence 6 in the elicitation translation task………………….	132

REFERENCES

Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language 
Learning, 26, 297-320.
Andersen, R. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 177-201). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Baker, C. L. (1995). English syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 253-278.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Reynolds, D. W. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 107-131.
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berwick, R., & Weinberg, A. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bowerman, M. (1983). How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar in the absence of feedback about what is not a sentence? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 22, 23-35. Stanford University.
Bowerman, M. (1988). The “No Negative Evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73-101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 
Broselow, E. (1993). Transfer and universals in second language epenthesis. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 71-86).    Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11-53). New York: John Wiley.
Bunton, D. (1989). Common English errors in Hongkong. London: Longman.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic Press.
Chao, Y. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chen, C. Y. D. (1993). Some differences between English and Chinese: In the case of “there-insertion.” The Proceeding of the First International Symposium on English Teaching, 117-134. English Teachers’ Association, Taiwan.
Chen, F. J. (2006). Contrastive research & crosslinguistic influence: Some implications for teaching Chinese and English as a second language. Taipei: Crane.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. 
Chou, M. C. (2003). The definiteness effect on Chinese learners’ acquisition of English existential constructions. Hwa Kang Journal of Foreign Language and Literature, 10, 173-188.
Chou, M. C. (2004). Chinese learners’ overgeneration of English existential constructions. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 30, 183-214.
Clark, R. (1992). The selection of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 2, 85-149.
Cook, V. J. (1988). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, A. (1984). Introduction. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. ix-xv). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dekeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
DiPietro, R. (1964). Learning problems involving Italian [s], [z] and English /s/, /z/. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Duff, P. A. (1993). Syntax, semantics, and SLA. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 15(1), 1-34.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245-58. 
Eckman, F. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules.  Language Learning, 31, 195-216.
Eckman, F. (1984). Universals, typologies and interlanguage. In W. Rutherford (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 79-105).  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eckman, F. (1996). A functional-typological approach to second language acquisition theory. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 195-211). New York: Academic Press.
Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (1989). Implicational universals and interrogative structures in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Language Learning, 39, 173-205.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.	
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.
Gass, S. (1984). A review of interlanguage syntax: Language transfer and language universals. Language Learning, 34, 115-32.
Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317-345). New York: Academic Press.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in language learning.  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1992). Language transfer in language learning.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1993). Language transfer in language learning.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 16, 447-474.
Granger, S. (1997). On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In J. Aarts, I. de Mönnink, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English language and teaching (pp. 185-198). Rodopi: Amsterdam & Atlanta. 
Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 3-18). London: Longman.
Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik, & J. W. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209-239). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J., & Tarone, E. (1993). Language transfer and the acquisition of pronouns. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 87-100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hakuta, K., & Cancino, H. (1977). Trends in second-language-acquisition research. Harvard Educational Review 47, 294-315.
Hatch, E., & Hawkins, B. (1985). Second language acquisition: Experiential approach. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 241-283). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.). (1981). Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longmen.
Huang, S.-F. (1966). Subject and object in Mandarin. Project on Linguistic Analysis 13, 25-103. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Huang, C.-T. (1987). Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In E. J. Reuland, & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 226-253). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Huang, C.-T., & Li, Y.-H. (1996). Recent generative studies in Chinese syntax. In C.-T. Huang, & Y.-H Li (Eds.), New horizons in Chinese linguistics (pp. 49-95). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.  
Jordens, P. (1993). The cognitive function of case marking in German as a native and a foreign language. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 138-175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Keyser, S. J. , & Roeper, T. (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 381-416.
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are 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, Mass.: Newbury House.
Kimball, J. (1973). The grammar of existence. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Kuno, S. (1971). The position of locative in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 333-378.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1988). “There was a Farmer had a Dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 319-339. Berkeley: University of California.
Langacker, R. (1987). Cognitive grammar. Vol.1. Standard University Press. 
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman.
Lai, T. L., & Dunne, P. (2003).  GEPT simulation test: Intermediate. Taipei: Crane.
Li, Y.-C. (1972). Sentences with be exist, and have in Chinese. Language 48, 573-583.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language.  In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). New York: Academic Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Lin, Y. Y. (2004). An empirical study of the existential there construction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lyons, J. (1968). Existence, possession, and transitivity. In B. van Roostelaar, & J. F. Staal (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science III. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Manzini, R., & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 413-444.  
Morgan, J. (1986). From simple input to complex grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell (pp. 436-486). 
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. (pp. 157-189). Berkeley: University of California.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Harvard, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Randall, J., van Hout, A., Weiseenborn, J., & Baayen, H. (1994). Approaching linking. Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, Mass. 
Rando, E., & Napoli , D. J. (1978). Definites in there-sentences. Language, 54, 300-313.
Reuland, E. J., & ter Meulen, A. G.. B. (Eds.). (1987). The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Richards, J. (Ed.) (1974). Error analysis. London: Longman.
Richards. J. (1974). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. In J. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis (pp. 172-188). London: Longman.
Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition research. New York: Academic Press.
Rutherford, W. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358-370). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Rutherford, W. (1984a). Description and explanation in interlanguage syntax: State of the art. Language Learning, 34, 127-155.
Rutherford, W. (1984b). Language universals and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Safir, K. J. (1982). Syntactic chains and the definiteness effect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Safir, K. J. (1987). What explains the definiteness effect? In E. J. Reuland, & A. G.. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. (pp. 71-97).  Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Sasaki, M. (1990). Topic prominence in Japanese EFL students’ existential constructions. Language Learning, 40(3), 337-368.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-14.
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211-225.
Schachter, J. (1993). A new account of language transfer. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 32-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Schachter, J. (1996). Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 159-193). New York: Academic Press.
Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Discourse function and language transfer.  Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 1-12.
Selinker, L. (1966). A psycholinguistic study of language transfer. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 209-231.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1979). Strategies, language transfer and the simulation of the second language learner’s mental operations. Language Learning, 29, 345-361.
Slobin, D. I. (1986). The development from child speaker to native speaker.  
Paper presented at the First Annual Chicago Symposium on Culture and Human Development.
Tang, T. C. (1979). Guoyu yufa yanjiu lunji. Taipei: Taiwan Xiuesheng Book Store.
Teng, S. H. (1977). Modification and the structure of existential sentences. In R. L. Cheng, Y. C. Li, & T. C. Tang (Eds.), Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics, 1977 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America. Taipei: Student Book Co. 
Tsao, F. (1977). A functional study of topic in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. 
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Wang, B. (1981). Existential sentences in Chinese. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 123-130.
Wexler, K., & Cullicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition.  Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
White, L. (1985). Is there a logical problem of second language acquisition? TESL Canada 2, 29-41.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L. (1992). Universal Grammar: Is it just a new name for old problems? In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 217-232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 416-432.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Liu, A., & Tsao, N. L. (2001). A web-based EFL writing environment: Integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers and Education, 37, 297-315.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zobl, H. (1980a). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common base and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning.  TESOL Quarterly, 14, 469-479.
Zobl, H. (1980b). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 43-57.

湯廷池。(民 68)。國語語法研究論集。台北：台灣學生書局。
曹逢甫。(民 82)。漢語及英語的關係子句：形式及功用的對比研究。應用語言學的探索。頁 108-130。台北：文鶴出版社。