第七章 結論
第二節 研究限制
本論文雖建立於先前研究之基礎再行改進，然於研究方法與教學應用尚 有力有未逮之處，望未來之研究能朝此方向改進。
一、 研究方法
本實驗使用文法判斷測驗作為實驗工具，方式為在投影片上顯示單句，
請受試者在紙本上作答接受度。這個方式的缺陷在於不能明確得知學習者對 於不及物結構的論元角色理解，例如「媽媽來了」，在該句中學習者認為「媽 媽」是施事或受事。因此較好的做法應當同時給予受事者圖片與句子，請受 事者根據圖片情景判斷句子的合法性，如使用前文曾介紹的 Noble, Rowland,
& Pine（2011）的「必選指認模式」（FCPP）實驗工具。
二、 教學應用
本論文根據研究結果所發現的學習者難點，選用認知理論與認知碼教學 法作為教學應用的出發點，列出在課堂教學的注意事項，包括動詞論元結構 的說明、動詞語義說明、加強語言正例的質量以及適時運用語言反例等。但 尚未設計詳細的教學內容，如提問的問題與模式，還有任務活動的內容，如 圖片故事、角色扮演的主題與進行方式等等。
參考書目
Abolhasanpour, F., & Jabbari, A. A. (2014). The Effect of Negative and Positive Evidence on Acquisition of Quantifiers by Iranian EFL. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(2).
Belikova, A., & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis or not? Island constraints revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), pp. 199-223.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28(1), pp. 69-83.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning.
In W. Rutherford, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 19-30). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), pp. 175-198.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (1991). Broad and narrow constraints on the English dative alternation: Some fundamental differences between native speakers and foreign language learners. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 11, pp. 157-199.
Chang, F., Dell, S. G., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), pp. 243-272.
Chastain, K. (1976). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chen, P. (1988). Lun Xiandai Hanyu shijian xitong de sanyuan jiegou (On tripartite organization of the temporal system in Modern Chinese). Zhongguo
Yuwen (Studies of the Chinese Language), 207(6), pp. 401-422.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations / Noam Chomsky. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger Special Studies.
Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist inquiries. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15.
Fisher, C. (1994). Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: Input for a syntax aided verb learning procedure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4), pp.
473-518.
Fisher, C. (1996). Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of analogy in children's interpretations of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), pp. 41-81.
Fisher, C. (2002). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition:
A reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82(3), pp. 259-278.
Gertner, Y., & Fisher, C. (2012). Predicted errors in children's early sentence comprehension. Cognition, 124(1), pp. 85–94.
Green, S. P., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), pp. 168-184.
Grimshaw, J., & Mester, A. (1988). Light verb and Q-marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, pp. 205-232.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle
& Heinle.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1991). On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers, Center for Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale, & S. J. Keyser, The view from building 20:
Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 51-109).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1997). On the complex nature of simple predicators. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex predicates (pp. 29-66).
CSLI, Stanford University.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1999). A response to Fodor and Lepore, "Impossible words?". Linguistic Inquiry, 30, pp. 453-466.
Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternation. In B. Comrie, & M. Polinsky, Causative and transitivity (pp. 87-120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hirakawa, M. (1995). L2 acquisition of English unaccusative constructions.
Proceedings of the 19th Boston University conference on language development (pp. 291-302). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 Acquisition of Japanese Unaccusative Verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), pp. 221-245.
Hsu, D.-B. (2014). Mandarin-speaking three-year-olds' demonstration of productive knowledge of syntax: evidence from syntactic productivity and structural priming with the SVO-ba alternation. Journal of Child Language,
41(5), pp. 1115-1146.
Huang, C.-T. (1992). Complex predicates in control. In R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U.
Lahiri, & J. Higginbotham, Control and grammar (pp. 109-147). Cambridge, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
Hubbard, P. (1994). Non-transformational theories of grammar: Implications for language teaching. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 49-71). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in the sencond language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118, pp. 554-576.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobsen, W. M. (1992). The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Kurosio Publishers.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period hypothesis effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), pp.
60-99.
Juffs, A. (1996). Learnability and the lexicon. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Juffs, A. (2001). Verb Classes, Event Structure, and Second Language Learners' Knowledge of Semantics-Syntax Correspondences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), pp. 305-313.
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, pp. 59-92.
Lin, T.-H. (2001). Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation University of California, Irivine.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, S. (1998). (S)ase as an elsewhere causative and syntactic nature of words. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 16, pp. 67-110.
Montrul, S. (2000). Transitivity Alternation in L2 Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(2), pp. 229-273.
Noble, H. C., Rowland, F. C., & Pine, M. J. (2011). Comprehension of Argument Structure and Semantic Roles: Evidence from English-Learning Children and the Forced-Choice Pointing Paradigm. Cognitive Science, 35(5), pp. 963-982.
Okamoto, A. (2009). Causative-Unaccusative Alternation in Japanese, English and Chinese. Hsuan Chang Humanities Journal, 9, pp. 175-191.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sakai, K. (2005). Language Acquisition and Brain Development. Science, 310(4), pp. 815-819.
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. M. Gass, & J. Schachter, Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73-88). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition.
Second Language Research, 6(2), pp. 93-124.
Sun, C.-F., & Givon, T. (1985). On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: a quantified text study and its implications. Language, 61, pp. 329-351.
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural medel. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), pp. 105-122.
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 9, pp. 261-286.
White, L. (1990). Another look at the logical problem of foreign language learning:
a reply to Bley-Vroman. Linguistic Analysis, 20, pp. 50-63.
White, L. (1991). Argument structure in second language acquisition. French Language Studies, 1, pp. 189-207.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/ unergative distinction in a second language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese.
Linguistics, 37(2), pp. 275-296.
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. Gass, & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
附錄
排序一 排序二 排序三 排序四
作業 廳的杯子 毛巾
40 哥哥洗了 一個巧克力蛋糕
60 姊姊畫了一隻小
表 0-6：漢語語言能力考試分級標準 TOCFL
測驗等級
TOCFL
分數等級 新 HSK 舊 HSK CEFR ACTFL
入門基礎級
入門級
(Level 1) 一級 1 級
A1 Novice-high 2 級
基礎級
(Level 2) 二級 3 級 A2 Intermediate-mid
進階高階級
進階級
(Level 3) 三級
3 級
B1 Intermediate-high 4 級
5 級 7 級 8 級 高階級
(Level 4) 四級 9 級 B2 Advanced-mid
流利精通級
*
流利級
(Level 5) 五級 9 級
C1 Superior 10 級
精通級
(Level 6) 六級 11 級 C2 Distinguished
※精通級尚在研發階段，2013 年僅開辦流利級。
表 0-7：臺灣師範大學國語教學中心教材分級表 程度 教材
1 新版實用視聽華語（一）
1 遠東生活華語（一）
2 新版實用視聽華語（二）
2 初級商務漢語（一）
3 新版實用視聽華語（三）
3 遠東生活華語（二）
4 新版實用視聽華語（四）
4 今日台灣
5 新版視聽華語（五）
5 遠東生活華語（三）
5 迷你廣播劇 6 高級中文讀寫 6 讀報學華語（一）
6 實用商業會話修訂本（二）
6 兩岸差異面面觀 7 讀報學華語（二）
7 思想與社會 7 金瓶梅
8 臺灣現代短篇小說選