語言理解的相關議題除了語言如何被處理及理解以外，還有學習者的母語會不會影響他們的外語學習，如果會，又將如何影響他們的外語學習。本研究以「淺層結構假說」(Clahsen and Felser, 2006)、「夠用就好表徵」(Ferreira, 2003)、「競爭模型」(Li, P., Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B., 1993)及「擴展論元依存模型」(Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M., 2006)為基礎，針對不同漢語程度的西班牙母語者和中文母語者對中文簡單合法句的處理，觀察其受到「句型」(SVO、把字句、被字句)、「生命性」(有生命性變項的操弄則有有生命施事對有生命受事AA、有生命施事對無生命受事 AI和無生命施事對有生命受事IA)和「合理性」(合理、不合理)三個變項的影響。研究結果發現：第一，不支持C&F的淺層結構假說，因為二語學習者在獨存句法線索的狀況下仍舊可以正確地理解語句。第二，部分支持夠用就好假說，因為漢語母語者在違反NVN捷思法的被動句狀況下，反應時間顯著地久於可使用正向NVN捷思法策略的把字句和SVO句，代表其以NVN捷思法進行語句處理；但中高級學習者不支持此假說，因為在合理句的狀況下，他們回答逆轉NVN被字句時的反應時間顯著地短於把字句並短於SVO句，代表比起NVN捷思法的運用，中高級學習者更加依賴句法標記。第三，西班牙語者在初級程度時較依賴生命性線索，漢語母語者則是較依賴句法線索，但隨著學習者的熟練度提升，他們對於漢語中句法線索的依賴也升高，符合競爭模型中對二語習得者的假設。最後，擴展論元依賴假說指出，即使第一階段先設定句法模板SVO，也可在第二階段閱讀到標記「被」改變選擇，且最後階段的合理性計算中，視合理狀況，可重回第一、二階段去尋找線索，解釋了本實驗發現中高級受試者在合理SVO句中找不到可依賴的線索，而不合理SVO句則有合理性線索可依賴，因此前者比後者更花時間的結果。

The purpose of current study is to focus on the effects of semantics and syntax on Chinese and Spanish native speakers in Chinese comprehension, using Mandarin simple grammatical sentence as materials with experimental psycholinguistic techniques, in an effort to explain the effects brought about by ‘syntax' (SVO, Ba and Bei construction), 'animacy' (AA, IA, AI) and 'plausibility' factors with 4 language comprehension theories- Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen and Felser, 2006), Good Enough Representation (Ferreira, 2003), Competition Model (Li, P., Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B., 1993) and The extended Argument Dependency Model (Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M., 2006).
The results are as follows. First, it does not support C&F's Shallow Structure Hypothesis because second language learners can comprehend sentences correctly with only syntactic cue. Secondly, it partly agrees with good enough representation since Mandarin speakers' reaction time is much longer under counter NVN heuristics (Bei construction) than NVN heuristics (Ba construction and SVO), indicating the use of NVN heuristics; but the results from high proficiency Mandarin L2 Spanish L1 speakers do not agree with the NVN representation for the reaction time under plausible conditions for Bei construction is significantly shorter than Ba and SVO under plausible conditions. Thirdly, Spanish speakers with low proficiency in Mandarin rely more on animacy cues whereas Spanish speakers with high proficiency in Mandarin and Mandarin speakers rely more on syntactic cues when processing Chinese. As second learners' proficiency increases, their reliance on Chinese cues rises as well, conforming to the Competition Model. Lastly, eADM indicated that though it is required to set up a syntactic template in phase 1, it is allowable to go back and make changes when reaching any word such as bei in phase 2. In phase 3, if implausible cue is detected, people make a final intepretation without going back to the previous phases. While under plausible condition, people find no cue to rely on and go back to the phase 1 or 2. This explains why high proficiency learners spend more time in plausible SVO than implausible SVO.

Andrews, G., Ogden, J. E., & Halford, G. S. (2017). Resolving Conflicts Between Syntax and Plausibility in Sentence Comprehension. Advances in cognitive psychology, 13(1), 11.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second‐language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 190-214.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain research reviews, 59(1), 55-73.
Carreiras, M., & Clifton Jr, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353-372.
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children's understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 267-300.
Chen, L., Shu, H. U. A., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(02), 161-174.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 564–570.
Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic inquiry, 8(3), 425-504.
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105.
Dowens, M. G., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1870-1887.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. language, 547-619.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1990). Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 555.
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive psychology, 47(2), 164-203.
Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish (Vol. 29). John Benjamins Publishing.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50(1), 119-148.

Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(04), 329-350.
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2(7), 262-268.
Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Cliftrn, C., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54(2), 131-167.
Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group, T. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.
Grewe, T., Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Wiese, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). Linguistic prominence and Broca's area: the influence of animacy as a linearization principle. Neuroimage, 32(3), 1395-1402.
Guo, J., Guo, T., Yan, Y., Jiang, N., & Peng, D. (2009). ERP evidence for different strate- gies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(2), 123–134.
Guo, J., Guo, T., Yan, Y., Jiang, N., & Peng, D. (2009). ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(2), 123-134.
Hernandez, A. E., Bates, E. A., & Avila, L. X. (1994). On-line sentence interpretation in Spanish–English bilinguals: What does it mean to be “in between”?. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15(04), 417-446.
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Modifier attachment: Relative clauses and coordinations. In German sentence processing (pp. 161-186). Springer Netherlands.
Hsu, Dong-Bo. (to appear). Second language learner’s use of good-enough representation in grammatical processing. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics.
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Sassa, Y., Haji, T., Usui, N., Taira, M., et al. (2007). Effect of syntactic similarity on cortical activation during second language processing: A comparison of English and Japanese among native Korean trilinguals. Human Brain Mapping, 28(3), 194–204.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in second language acquisition, 17(4), 483-516.
Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1988). Local and topological processing in sentence comprehension by French and Spanish children. Journal of child language, 15(03), 637-662.
Kotz, S. A., Holcomb, P. J., & Osterhout, L. (2008). ERPs reveal comparable syntactic sentence processing in native and non-native readers of English. Acta psychologica, 128(3), 514-527.
Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., Van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and language, 85(1), 1-36.
Li, P., Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1993). Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(2), 169.
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(04), 451-484.
MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R., & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules?. Journal of Memory and language, 28(3), 255-277.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(01),53–78.
Morett, L. M., & Macwhinney, B. (2013). Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(01), 132-151.
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 18(1), 5-19.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(04), 501-528.
Philipp, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Bisang, W., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 105(2), 112-133.
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active (Vol. 393). Walter de Gruyter.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124(3), 372.
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2006). The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(12), 2030-2048.
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly? Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430.
Sakai, K. L. (2005). Language acquisition and brain development. Science, 310(5749), 815-819.

Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature neuroscience, 2(2), 191-196.
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542-562.
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of memory and language, 27(6), 597-632.
Tokowicz and MacWhinney (2005). implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar – An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 173–204.
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules (Vol. 1950). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(6), 683-692.
Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press.
Zagar, D., & Rativeau IV, J. P. S. (1997). Evidence for early closure attachment on first pass reading times in French. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50(2), 421-438.

徐東伯. (2015). 語言使用者處理語句時運用的各式表徵. 華語文教學研究, 12(4), 45-75.
陳佳宜, 徐東伯. (2017). 西班牙語母語者之漢語簡單句的理解策略發展與習得 Language and Linguistics. Vol. 18:3, 327–354
陳俊光（2010）《篇章分析與教學應用》。臺北：新學林
葉蜚聲、徐通彊(1993)。語言學綱要。台北:書林
鄧守信. (2003). 對外漢語教學語法總則. 於《 第七屆世界華語文教學研討.