漢語非基本語序的語句理解

郭貞秀

國立清華大學語言學研究所

本篇論文主要在探討漢語的兩種非基本語序。其一為賓語位於句首的語序，本文通稱為「主題化」(topicalization)的語序。另一，則是賓語位在主語與謂語中間，又稱「賓語提前」(object shift)的語序。
首先，我們發現這兩種語序既有相似之處，也有相異之處。比方說，這兩種語序的賓語都必須為共指(definite)。不過，賓語提前語序似乎沒有主題化語序來得自由，例如說，賓語提前語序不允許提前的賓語為一個子句，也不允許賓語由一個子句中移出(clausebound)，或者出現在一個表原因的結構(causative construction)當中。另外一個最明顯的差異，在於對「孤島效應」的敏感度。我們發現主題化的語序在違反孤島效應的情形下仍能維持句子的合法性，但賓語提前的語序則不行。
為了研究漢語非基本語序的語句處理過程，我們一共進行了三個實驗。首先，實驗一為一個非線上實驗，僅要求受試者在紙上作答，目的是在測試漢語的基本語序，其內容包括語句的理解(sentence comprehension)及語句的產生(sentence production)。實驗的結果確認了漢語的基本語序為SVO。實驗二採用「自主的閱讀方式」(self-paced reading task)來測試主題話語序及賓語提前語序。結果發現，只有賓語提前語序會產生「已塞填空缺效應」(filled-gap effect)，主題話語序則不會。這樣的結果有可能是因為主題話語序是「底部生成」(base-generation)，而不是經由移位(movement)而來。實驗三同樣是一個自主的閱讀方式實驗，不過觀察直重點在於受試者試如何理解一個歧異的句子。在這個實驗當中，我們操弄主語及賓語的「動物性(animacy)」使之相同，因而產生歧異句。實驗的結果顯示，相較於賓語提前語序，主題話語序顯得更被人接受。這正是因為主題話語序是透過底部生成，不像賓語提前語序，是透過一個較複雜的移位而來。
文末，我們認為「已塞填空缺效應」的有無，為主題話語序是底部生成，賓語提前語序是移位提供了有利的證據。同時，這個關於漢語非基本語序的心裡歷程處理結果，也可以拿來驗證本文所提出的「移位複雜假說」 (movement complexity hypothesis)。

Bibliography
Altmann, G. T. M. 1999. Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory &
Language, 41(1), 124-145.
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. 2004. Processing filler-gap dependencies in a
head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 23-54.
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., & Weinberg, A. 2003. Processing of Japanese Wh-scrambling
Constructions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12.
Bader, M. & Meng, M. 1999. Subject-Object Ambiguities in German Embedded
Clauses; An Across-the Board Comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 28 (2), 121-143.
Bošković Ž. & Takahashi D. 1998. Scrambling and Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29
(3), 347-366.
Bourdages, J. 1992. Parsing complex NPs in French. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (eds.)
Island constraints, pp. 61-88. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cao, Xuexin. (2002). The Acquisition of Double-gapped Relatives in Chinese:
Grammar and Processing. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Ottawa.
Chen, Chiu-Hung and Juana M. Liceras. 2005. Double-Gapped Restrictive Relatives in
Chinese: A Syntactic or a Processing Account? In Proceedings of the 7th
Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Laurent
Dekydtspotter et al. (eds.), 50-57.
Chen, E., Gibson, E., & Wolf, F. 2003. Online Syntactic Storage Costs in Sentence
Comprehension. MIT: manuscript.
Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group (CKIPG). 1993. Corpus-based
Frequency Count of Characters in Journal Chinese: Corpus-based Research
Series no. 1. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group (CKIPG). 1993. Corpus-based
Frequency Count of Characters in Journal Chinese: Corpus-based Research
Series no. 2. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Chomsky, N. 1977. On Wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian
(eds.) Formal Syntax. NY: Academic Press. 71-155.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H. & Featherston, S. 1999. Antecedent Priming at Trace Positions: Evidence
from German Scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (4),
415-437.
De Vincenzi M. 1991. Filler-gap dependencies in a null subject language: Referential
and nonreferential WHs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20, 197-213.
De Vincenzi M. 1996. Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of
dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 25, 117-133.
Featherston, S. 2001. Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ferreira, F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive
Psychology, 47, 164-203.
Ferreira, F., & C. Clifton Jr. 1986. The Independence of Syntactic Processing. Journal
of Memory & Language, 25, 348-368.
Ferreira, V. S. & Yoshita, H. 2003. Given-New Ordering Effects on the Production of
Scrambled Sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32 (6),
669-692.
Fodor, J. D. 1995. Comprehending Sentence Structure. In Gleitman L. & Liberman, M.
(eds.) Languages: An Invitation to Cognitive Science. Vol 1.
Foder, J. D. & Ferreira, F. (eds.) 1998. Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Frazier, L. 1999. On Sentence Interpretation. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Frazier, L. 1979. On comprehending sentences: syntactic parsing strategies. JULC
papers, 23.
Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G. B. 1989. Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap filling
in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331-344.
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition,
68, 1-76.
Gibson, E., & Warren, T. 1998. The psychological reality of intermediate linguistic
structure in long-distance extractions. Paper presented at the 11th Annual CUNY
Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New Brunswick, NJ.
Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge University Press.
Gundel, J. K. 1988. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Garland
Publishing, Inc.
Hsiao, F. & Gibson, E. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90,
3-27.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns.
Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531-574.
Huang, C.-T. J. Remarks on the Status of the Null Oject. in R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and
Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp.
56-76.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading
comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 11, 228-238.
Kaan, E. 2001. Effects of NP Type on the Resolution of Word-Order Ambiguities.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30 (5), 529-547.
Li, P., Bates, E., Liu, H., & MacWhinney, B. 1992. Cues as functional Constraints on
Sentence Processing in Chinese. In H. C. Chen and O. J. L. Tzeng (eds.),
Language Processing in Chinese. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference
Grammar. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Lin, C.-J. Charles. 2006. Grammar and Parsing: a Typological Investigation of Relative-
Clause Processing. Unpublished dissertation: University of Arizona
Love, T. E. & Swinney, D. A. 1998. The Influence of Canonical Word Order on
Structural Processing. Syntax and Semantics, 31, 153-166.
Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., & Kondo, T. 2002. Costs of Scrambling in Japanese Sentence
Processing. In Mineharu Nakayama (ed.), Sentence Processing in East Asian
Languages. CSLI Publications.
Miyamoto, E. T. & Takahashi, S. 2002. Sources of difficulty in Processing Scrambling
in Japanese. In Mineharu Nakayama (ed.), Sentence Processing in East Asian
Languages. CSLI Publications.
Miyamoto, E. & Takahashi, S. 2001. Antecedent reactivation in the processing of
scrambling in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 43, 127-142.
Miyamoto, E. T. 2003. Processing alternative word orders in Japanese. To appear in
Handbook of East Asian Psycholingusitics. Cambridge.
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. 2002. Antecedent priming at Trace Positions in
Japanese Long-Distance Scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31
(5), 531-571.
Paul, W. 2005. Low IP area and left periphery in Mandarin Chinese. Recherches
linguistiques de Vincennes, 33, 111-134.
Paul, W. 2002. Sentence-internal Topics in Mandarin Chinese: The Case of Object
Preposing. Language and Linguistics, 3 (4), 695-714.
Sabel, J. & Saito, M. (eds.) 2005. The free word order phenomenon: its syntactic
sources and diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saito, M. & Hoji, H. 1983. Weak cross-over and move α in Japanese. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory, 1, 245-259.
Sakamoto. T. 2002. Processing Filler-gap Constructions in Japanese: The Case of Empty Subject Sentences. In Nakayama (ed.) Sentence Processing in East Asian
Languages. CSLI Piblications.
Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Krems, J. 2000. The subject preference in
The processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B.
Hemforth & L. Konieczny (eds.), German sentence processing. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sekerina, I. A. 1997. The Syntax and Processing of Scrambling Constructions in
Russian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, NY.
Sekerina, I. A. 2003. Scrambling and Processing: Dependencies, Complexity, and
Constraints. In Simin Karimi (ed.), Word Order and Scrambling. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Stowe, L. A. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 1 (3), 227-245.
Sun, C.-F. & Givón, T. 1985. On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: a
quantified text study and its implications. Language, 61 (2), 329-351.
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J.-I., & Miyaoka, Y. 2003. The Effects of Phrase-
Length Order and Scrambling in the Processing of Visually Presented Japanese
Sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32 (4), 431-454.
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J.-I., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H., & Koizumi, M. 2005.
Priority Information used for the Processing of Japanese Sentences: Thematic
Roles, Case Particles or grammatical Functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (3) , 281-332.
Ueyama, A. 1999. Two types of scrambling in Japanese. In A. Barss & T. Langendoen
(eds.) Anaphora: A reference guide. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.
Vigliocco, G. & Nicol, J. 1998. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in
language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68,
B13-B29.
Yamashita, H. 1997. The Effects of Word-Order and Case Marking Information on the
Processing of Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26 (2), 163-188.
Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2005. Object Shift and Focus Movement. Draft, NTHU.
Xiang, M., Munn, A., Schmitt, C., & Ferreira, F. Garden paths and Null Objects in
Chinese Sentence Comprehension. Manuscript, MSU.