淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2608200913155700
中文論文名稱 台灣大學生閱讀英文歧義句所產生的認知效應
英文論文名稱 THE COGNITIVE EFFECT OF ENGLISH GARDEN-PATH SENTENCES ON THE COMPREHENSION OF EFL LEARNERS IN TAIWAN
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生中文姓名 楊惠筠
研究生英文姓名 Susan Hui-Yunyang
學號 889010046
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2009-07-23
論文頁數 185頁
口試委員 指導教授-范瑞玲
指導教授-林永煬
委員-陳秀潔
委員-黃月貴
委員-陳純音
委員-賴春燕
中文關鍵字 歧義句  限定關係子句結構  句法分析策略  腦磁圖儀  M300成分 
英文關鍵字 garden-path sentence  restrictive relative clause constructions  parsing strategy  Magnetoencephalography (MEG)  M300 Component 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本論文探討英文能力中級生與進階生大腦對於主詞與受詞省略限定關係歧義句的延遲處理現象與認知歷程的差異性,採用句法分析策略論,使用非侵入性腦磁圖儀(Magnetoencephalography, MEG)來了解歧義現象所產生的認知歷程。操弄主詞與受詞省略限定關係結構句最後一個動詞出現的時間,研究歧義句所產生的誤導效應。使用訊號源分析軟體的Dipole Modelling來研究三個時區(300-500毫秒、500-700毫秒、700-900毫秒)的偶極密度時,發現左右大腦顳葉都有認知反應。當兩組受試者閱讀第一部分主詞省略的關係句時,T值檢定發現右顳葉在潛時300-500毫秒處理歧義句有顯著(p=0.0246)。由配對T值檢定也發現進階生在於時區700-900毫秒左右顳葉處理歧義句也有顯著差(p=0.026)。兩組受試者閱讀第二部分受詞省略的關係歧義句時,發現在左顳葉700-900毫秒的T值檢定有顯著性(p=0.0189)。進階生在閱讀第一與第二部分關係歧義句發現T值檢定於時區300-500毫秒時,右顳葉有顯著差異(p=0.008),顯示受詞省略的關係歧義句比主詞省略的關係歧義句難解。另外使用Sigma Plot分析軟體來解析兩組受試者於時區150- 300毫秒的振幅平均值,以期瞭解反應的差異性。配對T值檢定發現中級生在閱讀第一部分主詞省略關係結構句時,其右顳葉於潛時區間150-300毫秒偵測歧義與非歧義句的差異有顯著性(p<0.05)。第二部分的實驗結果也發現進階生閱讀受詞省略的關係歧義句時有顯著的M300成分,顯示出句法結構的再分析技巧,這證明了延遲現象。由振幅平均值發現進階生對於非歧義句的瞭解大於中級生,而且兩組受試者的右顳葉於時區150-300毫秒與300-500毫秒發現差異有顯著性(p<0.05)。結果證明了進階生閱讀關係歧義句的誤導效應與句法結構的再分析歷程。綜合第一部分與第二部分實驗的結果,左右顳葉對於複雜的關係子句處理都有認知反應,但是對於歧義句的偵測則是在右顳葉。結果顯示,相較於中級生,進階生較持續性地運用句法分析策略來分析句子,閱讀歧義句時的容忍度較強,閱讀非歧義句的理解肯定度也較高。

英文摘要 This thesis on the cognitive effect of garden-path (GP) sentences investigates the Principle-based Approach used by intermediate and advanced EFL learners reading sentences embedded with subject-reduced and object-reduced relative constructions. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) was used to examine the delayed sentence comprehension processing caused by garden-path attachment ambiguity. In both types of relative constructions, each final critical word was presented on the screen at the same time to subjects. Based on dipole density analysis, both the left and the right temporal areas were involved in the responses to the experimental sentences. For the purposes of analysis, the dipole numbers in the latency shift from 300 to 900 ms were divided into three time windows. For the experiment of Session I, the t-test revealed a significant difference (p= 0.0246) between the responses of the two proficiency groups to garden-path sentences at 300-500 ms in the right hemisphere. However, a paired t-test revealed a significant difference (p=0.026) in the activation of the left and the right temporal areas in the advanced group at 700-900 ms. For the experiment of Session II, the t-test showed a significant difference (p=0.0189) at 700-900 ms in the left temporal area between the two groups’ responses to the GP experimental sentences. Finally, in comparing the results of Session I and Session II, the t-test showed that there was a significant difference (p=0.008) at 300-500 ms in the right temporal area in the advanced group’s responses to the two different types of GP sentences in the sessions. This indicates that the degree of difficulty of GP sentences in Session II was greater than that of Session I. Sigma Plot analysis was used to investigate the mean amplitudes in the time window from 150 to 300 ms. In the detection of the differences between GP and Non-GP sentences, two significant differences were found in the two sessions. The paired t-test results of Session I demonstrated that there was a significant difference (p< 0.05) in the intermediate group’s responses to GP and to Non-GP sentences in the time window from 150 to 300 ms. As for the inter-group variability, it was found that in Session II there was a significant difference (p< 0.05) in the right temporal area in both time windows between the two groups’ responses to sentences with the GP effect. A significant difference in the M300 component was found in the responses of different EFL proficiency groups towards GP sentences. The MEG results prove that the ambiguity in GP sentences causes a reanalysis over time. In the results of these two sessions, it was seen that, although both the left and right temporal areas were activated to different degrees in response to restrictive relative constructions, the subjects’ detection of the difference between GP and Non-GP sentences was mainly in the right temporal area. It is thus concluded that higher proficiency indicates a higher degree of consistency in using a serial parsing strategy, greater tolerance to work with problems like the GP effect, and a greater degree of certainty as shown by the mean amplitudes.

論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………i
Chinese Abstract…………………………………………………iii
English Abstract…………………………………………………iv
Table of Contents…………………………………………………vi
List of Figures and Tables……………………………………ix
Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………… 1
1.1 Motivation and Background……………………………………1
1.2 The Statement of the Problem……………………………… 4
1.3 The Purpose of the Study…………………………………… 7
1.4 Research Questions…………………………………………… 8
1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………… 9
1.6 Definitions of Terms…………………………………………11
1.7 Organization of the Dissertation…………………………14
Chapter 2 Review of the Literature……………………………16
2.1 Processing Sentences in Reading Comprehension.………16
2.1.1 The Eye and the Brain…………………………………… 19
2.1.2 Maturational Constraints…………………………………22
2.2 Language and the Brain…………………………………… 25
2.3 Linear Learners and Global Learners………………… …27
2.4 Five Types of Ambiguity in Sentences………………… 28
2.5 Three Approaches to Parsing GP Sentences………………35
2.5.1 The Principle-Based Approach and the Serial
Parser…………………………………………………………36
2.5.2 The Constraint-Based Approach and the Parallel
Parser……………………………………………………… 39
2.5.3 The Referential Approach and the Discourse-
Based Parser………………………………………………… 41
2.6 Studies on ERP Language Experiments…………………… 43
2.7 Studies on fMRI Language Experiments ………………… 54
2.8 Studies on MEG Language Experiments ………………… 58
2.9 Summary of Chapter Two…………………………………… 62
Chapter 3 Methodology………………………………………… …65
3.1 Subjects.…………………………………………………… …65
3.2 Instrument…………………….……………………………… 67
3.3 Materials……………………………………………………… 68
3.4 Procedures of MEG Recording……………………………… 73
3.4.1 The Pilot Study……………………………………… 76
3.4.2 The Formal Study………………………………… …77
3.5 Analysis….…………………………………………………… 79
3.6 Summary of Chapter Three………………………………… 80
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion…..…………………………81
4.1 Session I: Sentences with the Subject-Reduced
Relative Construction…………………………………… 81
4.1.1 Dipole Density Data of Session I………………………82
4.1.2 Results of the T-Test on Peak Amplitudes for
Both Groups………………………………………………… 85
4.2 Session II: Sentences with the Object-Reduced
Relative Construction………………………………………89
4.2.1 Dipole Density Data of Session II……………………89
4.2.2 Results of the T-Test on Peak Amplitudes for
Both Groups……………………………………………… 91
4.3 Discussion…………….…..……………………………… 95
4.3.1 Hemispheric Differences between Proficiency
Group Responses………………………………………… 101
4.3.2 A Comparison of Tien’s ERP Results and the
MEG Results…………………………………………… 107
4.3.3 Syntactic Responses in the P200m Phase……………109
4.4 Results of the Sentence Comprehension Test …… …112
4.4.1 Linking the Error Analysis with the Branching
Direction Parameter ………………………………114
4.4.2 Linking the Error Analysis with the Metacognitive
Knowledge Factor………………………………………… 115
4.4.3 Linking the Error Analysis with the Cultural
Context Factor…………………………………………… 116
4.5 Summary of Chapter Four………………………………… 117
Chapter 5 Conclusion..…………………………………………119
5.1 Contribution to Brain-Based Foreign Language
Studies……………………………………………………… 119
5.2 The Importance of MEG Applications to
Neurocognitive EFL Research…………………………… 122
5.3 Pedagogical Implications: Rethinking Grammar
Teaching from Scientific Evidence…………………… 123
5.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions
for Future Research……………………………………… 127
Chinese References……………………………………………… 129
English References…………………………………………… …129
Appendices……………………………………………………… …141
A. Consent Form ……………………………………………141
B. A Questionnaire of Being Right-Handed or Left-
Handed…………………………………………………… …142
C. Subjects’ Background Questionnaire…………………143
D. Language Proficiency Levels of Subjects……………144
E.Target and Filler Sentences for Session I……… …145
F. Target and Filler Sentences for Session II…… …149
G. Sentence Comprehension Test: Session I…………… 153
H. Sentence Comprehension Test: Session II………… 166
I. Percentage of Correctness in Comprehension Test:
Session I ………………………………………………… 178
J. Percentage of Correctness in Comprehension Test:
Session II…………………………………………… … 182
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1.1 The Tree Structure of Sentence (1)………………2
Figure 2.1 Two Sources of Information in Reading…………20
Figure 2.2 The Bottleneck in Reading…………………………20
Figure 2.3 Localizations of Broca’s and Wernicke’s
Areas in the Human Brain………………………… 27
Figure 2.4 A Tree Structure for Sentence (19)…………… 32
Figure 2.5 Another Tree Structure for Sentence (19)…… 32
Figure 2.6 Grand Average ERPs at the Three Midline
Electrode Sites…………………………………… 48
Figure 2.7 Grand Average ERPs of the Final Words in
Sentence Conditions…………………………………51
Figure 2.8 Phases of Language Processing………………… 56
Figure 2.9 Grand-Average AMSs of Nine Participants
in 10 Brain Areas……………………………………61
Figure 3.1 MEG Laboratory……………………………………… 67
Figure 3.2 The D-Structure for Sentence (47)………………71
Figure 3.3 The S-Structure for Sentence (47)………………72
Figure 3.4 Digitalization Spots ……………………………. 74
Figure 3.5 The Presentation Mode of Experimental
Sentences………………………………………………78
Figure 4.1 Topographical Distribution of One
Advanced-Level Subject’s Cortical
Responses to Final Critical Words in
Non-GP Sentences (Session I) ……………………82
Figure 4.2 Session I: Mean Dipole Density in
Each Temporal Area of Intermediate and
Advanced Groups………………………………………83
Figure 4.3 Session I: Topographical Overlay of
Grand Average of the Intermediate
Group …………………………………………………86
Figure 4.4 Session I: Mean Amplitudes of Non-GP
and GP Sentence Types for Both Groups
in the P200m Phase…………………………………87
Figure 4.5 Session I: Topographical Overlay of
Grand Average of Both Groups in the Left
and Right Temporal Areas…………………………88
Figure 4.6 Session II: Mean Dipole Density in Each
Temporal Area of Intermediate and Advanced
Groups…………………………………………………89
Figure 4.7 Session II: Topographical Overlay of
Grand Average of the Advanced Group………… 91
Figure 4.8 Session II: Mean Amplitudes of Non-GP
and GP Sentences for Both Groups in the
P200m Phase……………………………………… …92
Figure 4.9 Session II: Topographical Overlay of
Grand-Average Responses by Both Groups
to Non-GP and GP Sentences………………………93
Figure 4.10 Session II: Topographical Overlay of
Grand-Average Responses by Both Groups
to GP Sentences……………………………………94
Figure 4.11 A Schematic Summary of the Cognitive-
Psychophysiological and Biological
Models of ERPs……………………………………104
Table 4.1 Results of Correctness: Intermediate
Group Comprehension Test….112
Table 4.2 Results of Correctness: Advanced Group
Comprehension Test…………………………………113







參考文獻 CHINESE REFERENCES
田意民。(民92) 。庭園幽徑中的風吹草動: 以中文歧義句探討腦神經對句法處理的動態本質。博士論文/中正大學。
陳月紅。(民87) 。外語教學與研究。第4期。总第116期。頁11-16。

ENGLISH REFERENCES
Arabski, J. (1998). The characteristics of successful
learners. In J. Arabski (Ed.), Studies in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 141-146). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego.
Babajani, A., Nekooei, M.-H., & Soltanian-Zadeh, H. (2005). Integrated MEG and fMRI model: Synthesis and analysis. Brain Topography, 18 (2), 101-113.
Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Jezzard, P., Padmanabhan, S., & Clark, V.P. (1997). Sentence reading: A functional MRI study at 4 Tesla. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 664-686.
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. SSLA, 16, 157-168.
Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13 (2), 116-137.
Bielska, J. (2000). Cognitive and metacognitive language learning strategies and their application to listening comprehension tasks. In E. Tokarz, V. Tomala-Kania & B. Arenhövel (Eds.), Studies in foreign language acquisition and teaching (pp. 134-155). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego.
Billingsley-Marshall, R. L., Simos, P. G. , & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2004). Reliability and validity of Functional Neuroimaging Techniques for identifying language-critical areas in children and adults. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26 (2), 541-563.
Blumstein, S. E. (1988). Neurolinguistics: An overview of language – brain relations in aphasia. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (pp. 210-236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blumstein, S. E., Baker, E., & Goodglass, H. (1977). Phonological factors in auditory comprehension in aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 15, 19-30.
Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 495-522.
Bowyer, S. M., Fleming, T., Greenwald, M. L., Moran, J. E., Mason, K. M., Weiland, B. J., Smith, B. J., Barkley, G. L., & Tepley, N. (2005). Magneto- encephalographic localization of the basal temporal language area. Epilepsy & Behavior, 6, 229-234.
Brown, C. M.,& Hagoort, P. (2000). On the electrophysiology of language comprehension: Implications for the human language system. In M.W. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp.213-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Casado, P., Martin-Leoches, M., Muñoz, F., & Fernández-Frías, C. (2005) Are semantic and syntactic cues inducing the same processes in the identification of word order? Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 526-543.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Language and the brain. Linguistic Sciences, 1 (1), 11-30.
Christison, M. A. (2005). Brain-based research as a bridge between teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 14th ETA conference. Taipei: Crane.
Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279-299). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Boysson-Bardies, B. (1999). How language comes to children: From birth to two years (M. B. DeBevoise, Trans.). London: The MIT Press.
Diaz, M. T. , & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Electrophysiological differentiation of phonological and semantic integration in word and sentence contexts. Brain Research, 1146, 85-100.
Doughty, C. (1990) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. SSLA, 13, 431-469.
Edinburg Handedness Inventory. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2009, from (http://psych.colorado.edu./~tclab/Edinburg%20/Handedness.htm)
Felser, C. (2005). Experimental psycholinguistic approaches to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 95-97.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1995). Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis. In J. M. Henderson, M. Singer, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reading and
language processing (pp. 119-147). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fodor, J. D. (2007). Setting syntactic parameters. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 730-767). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23 (5), 407-434.
Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 267-283). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing mode. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
Friederrici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropschological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50, 259-281.
Fridederici, A. D. ,& Kotz, S. A. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and lesion studies. NeuroImage, 20, s8-s17.
Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain
Research, 11, 305-323.
Friederici, A. D., Wang, Y., Herrmann, C. S., Maess, B., & Oertel, U. (2000).Localization of early syntactic processes in frontal and temporal cortical areas: A magnetoencephalographic study. Human Brain Mapping, 11, 1-11.
Frisch, S., Schlesewsky, M., Saddy, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition, 85, B83-B92.
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. (1999). Language processing. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Genesee, F. (1988). Neuropsychology and second language acquisition. In L. M. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 81-112 ). New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Kaschak, M. P. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of language production. Annual Review of Psychology, 91-110. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://www.questia.com
Gevins, A. (2002). Electrophysiological imaging of brain function. In A. W. Toga, & J. C. Mazziotta (Eds.), Brain mapping: The method (2nd ed., pp. 175-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1-27.
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, G. M. , & Morgan, J. L. (2001). Practical guide to syntactic analysis (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Grodzinsky, Y. (1984). The syntactic characterization of agrammatism. Cognition, 16, 99-120.
Grummich, P., Nimsky, C., Fahlbusch, R., & Ganslandt , O. (2005). Observation of unaveraged giant MEG activity from language areas during speech tasks in patients harboring brain lesions very close to essential language areas: Expressing of brain plasticity in language processing networks? Neuroscience Letters, 380, 143-148.
Haberlandt, K. (1994). Methods in reading research. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 1-31). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hahne, A. (2001). What’s different in second language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 251-256.
Halsband, U. (2006). Bilingual and multilingual language processing. Journal of Physiology, 99, 355-369.
Hämäläinen, M., & Hari, R. (2002). Magnetoencephalographic characterization of dynamic brain activation: basic principles and methods of data collection and source analysis. In A. W. Toga, & J. C. Mazziotta (Eds.), Brain mapping (2nd ed., pp. 227-253). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hari, R. (1994). Magnetoencephalography in the study of human brain functions. In H.-J.Heinze, T.F.Münte, & G. R. Mangun, (Eds.), Cognitive electrophysiology (pp. 368-378). Boston: Birkhäuser.
Harley, B., & Wang, W. (1997). The Critical Period Hypothesis: Where are we now? In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: pscyholinguistic perspectives (pp. 19-51). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harrington, M. (2001). Sentence Processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hasegawa, N. (1990). Comments on Mazuka and Lust’s paper. In L. Frasier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 207-223). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hickok, G. (1993). Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22 (2), 239-250.
Hinshelwood, J. (1902). Four cases of word blindness. Lancet, 1, 358-363.
Hopf, J.-M., Bader, M., Meng, M., & Bayer, J. (2003). Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 165-177.
Hopf, J.-M., Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1998). Event-related potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 264-280.
Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 3-27.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 168-196.
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 121-151.
Juffs, A. & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46(2), 283-326.
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003a). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621-635.
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003b). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (1), 98-110.
Karpf, A. (1986). The perception of ambiguity in second language. IRAL, 24 (2), 157-169.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(Suppl. 1), 1-44.
Kotchoubey, B. (2005). Event-related potentials, cognition, and behavior: A biological approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, xx, 1-24.
Kotz, S. A., & Elston-Güttler, K. E. (2004). The role of proficiency on processing categorical and associative information in the L2 as revealed by reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 215-235.
Krashen, S. D. (2002). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
Kubota, M., Inouchi, M., Ferrari, P., & Roberts, T. P. L. (2005). Human magnetoencephalographic evidence of early syntactic responses to c-selection violations of English infinitives and gerunds by L1 and L2 speakers. Neuroscience Letters, 384, 300-304.
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D. ,& Sereno, M. I. (2003). Current approaches to mapping language in electromagnetic space. In C. M. Brown and P. Hagoort (Eds.), The Neurocognition of Language (2nd ed., pp. 359-392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading between the lines: Event-related brain potentials during natural sentences processing. Brain and Language, 11, 354-373.
Kwon, H., Kuriki, S., Kim, J. M., Lee, Y. H., Kim, K., & Nam, K. (2005). MEG study on neural activities associated with syntactic and semantic violations in spoken Korean sentences. Neuroscience Research, 51, 349-357.
Langacker, R. W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 421-462). New York: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 251-266). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Lee, T. H.-T. (1996). Theoretical issues in language development and Chinese child language. In C.-T. J. Huang & Y.-H. A Li (Eds.), New horizons in Chinese linguistics (pp. 293-356). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Lewis, M. (2001). Learning in the lexical approach. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation (pp. 155-185). London: Commercial Colour Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Libben, G. (1996). Psycholinguistics: The study of language processing. In W. O’Grady, M. Dobrovolsky & F. Katamba (Eds.), Contemporary linguistics:
An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 438-463). Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Lin, C.-J. C. (2006). Grammar and parsing: A typological investigation of relative-clause processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Lin, Y.-Y., Chen, W.-T., Liao, K.-K., Yeh, T.-C., Wu, Z.-A., & Ho, L.-T. (2005). Hemispheric balance in coding speech and non-speech sounds in Chinese participants. NeuroReport, 16 (5), 469-473.
Lin, Y.-Y., Liao, K.-K., Chen, J.-T., Yeh, T.-C., Shih, Y.-H, Wu, Z.-A., et al. (2006). Neural correlates of Chinese word-appropriateness judgment: An MEG study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 122-133.
Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.
Lyman, R., Kwan, S.T., & Chao, W. H. (1938). Left occipito-parietal brain tumor with observations on alexia and agraphia in Chinese and English. Chinese Medical Journal, 54, 491-516.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. , & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101 (4), 676-703.
Maess, B., Herrmann, C. S., Hahne, A., Nakamura, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). Localizing the distributed language network responsible for the N400 measured by MEG during auditory sentence processing. Brain Research, 1096, 163-172.
Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox. (2009). ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain and Language, 108, 145-158.
Mandeville, J. B. ,& Rosen, B. R. (2002). Functional MRI. In A. W. Toga & J. C. Massiotta (Eds.), Brain mapping: The method (pp. 315-349). Amsterdam: Academic press.
Mazuka, R. (1996). Can a grammatical parameter be set before the first word? Prosodic contributions to early setting of a grammatical parameter. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 313-330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mazuka, R. (1998). The development of language processing strategies: A cross-linguistic study between Japanese and English. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K. , & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477-494.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2009). Language effects in second language learners and proficient bilinguals investigated with event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22 (3), 281-300.
Müller, H. M., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1997). Event-related potentials eleicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research, 5,193-203.
Ni, W. (1991). Referentiality and garden path phenomena. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Nicol, J. L., & Pickering, M. J. (1993). Processing syntactically ambiguous sentences: Evidence from semantic priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22 (2),
207-237.
O’Grady, W. , & Archibald, J. (Eds.). (2004). Contemporary linguistic analysis: An introduction (5th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education.
O’Grady, W. , & Dobrovolsky, M. (Eds.). (1997). Contemporary linguistics: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21 (2), 98-120.
Papanicolaou, A. C., Simos, P. G., Breier, J. I., Zouridakis, G., Willmore, L. J., Wheless, J. W., et al. (1999). Magnetoencephalographic mapping of the language-specific cortex. Journal of Neurosurgery, 90, 85-93.
Parisi, D., & Castelfranchi, C. (1988). Disambiguation in a lexically based sentence understanding system. In S. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 129-150). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pienemann, M. (2004). Processing perspectives in SLA research and their compatibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (1), 37-39.
Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann, (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pritchett, B. L. (1987). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Zysset, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). Native and non-native reading of sentences: An fMRI experiment. NeuroImage, 31, 354-365.
Sabourin, L., & Haverkort, M. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In R. v. Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken & R. Towell (Eds.). The lexicon-syntax interface in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 176-195.
Service, E., Helenius, P., Maury, S. & Salmelin, R. (2007). Localization of syntactic and semantic brain responses using Magnetoencephalography. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (7), 1193-1205.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, N. (2004). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Squire, L. R., & Kandel, E. R. (2003). Memory: From mind to molecules. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Suh, S., Yoon, H. W., Lee, S, Chung, J.Y., Cho, Z.-H., & Park, H.W. (2007). Effects of syntactic complexity in L1 and L2: An fMRI study of Korean-English bilinguals. Brain Research, 136, 178-189.
Ugurbil, K. (2002). High-field Magnetic Resonance. In A. W. Toga & J. C. Massiotta (Eds.), Brain mapping: The method (pp. 291-313). Amsterdam: Academic press.
Valaki, C. E., Maestu, F., Simos, P. G., Zhang, W., Fernandez, A., Amo, C. M., et al. (2004). Cortical organization for receptive language functions in Chinese, English, and Spanish: A cross-linguistic MEG study. Neuropsychologia, 42 (7), 967-979.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Weber-Fox, C., Davis, L. J., & Cuadrado, E. (2003). Event-related brain potential markers of high-language proficiency in adults. Brain and Language, 85 (2), 231-244.
Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1999). Functional neural subsystems are differentially affected by delays in second language immersion: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilinguals. In D. Birdsong (Ed.) Second language acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 23-38). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wingfield, A. ,& Titone, D. (1998). Sentence processing. In J. B. Gleason, & N. B. Ratner (Eds.), Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 227-273). New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Yokoyama, S., Okamoto, H., Miyamoto, T., Yoshimoto, K., Kim, J., Iwata, K., et al. (2006). Cortical activation in the processing of passive sentences in L1 and L2: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 30, 570-579.




論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2009-08-31公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2011-08-31起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信