本論文研究主旨為探討不同程度之台灣英語學習者理解英語關係子句之即時處理歷程。本研究劃分為兩大部份：第一部份（實驗一與實驗二）觀察英語學習者如何處理帶有「先行詞（filler）－間隙（gap）結構依存關係」之主／賓語提出關係子句，並檢視非結構因素（詞頭之名詞生物性）於其處理過程中之角色；第二部份（實驗三與實驗四）觀察英語學習者如何處理帶有「主動詞－過去分詞結構歧義性」之省略式關係子句，並檢視非結構因素（名詞生物性和動詞做為過去分詞之頻率）於消歧過程中之角色。研究方法皆以自訂步調（self-paced reading）與眼動追蹤（eye-tracking）二種線上閱讀實驗法來了解結構與非結構因素於學習者處理語句的歷程中所扮演的角色，並檢視其是否如淺層結構模型（Shallow Structure Hypothesis, Clahsen & Felser (2006a)）所假設之與母語人士的語句處理歷程有著本質上的不同。本研究中各實驗之受試者皆為二組不同英語程度之台灣英語學習者（分別為符合《歐洲共同語文參考架構》所定義之中級與高級程度）和一組以英語為母語之外籍人士。
第一部份的研究結果顯示，不管對英語人士或學習者而言，主語提出的關係子句較賓語提出的關係子句容易理解，而帶非生物性詞頭之賓語提出關係子句又較帶生物性詞頭之賓語提出關係子句容易理解。上述之「主語優勢」以及名詞生物性造成關係子句處理難易度的不同顯示出結構與非結構因素皆影響了處理關係子句之即時歷程，也證明了學習者於語句處理過程中可運用的資訊與英語人士並無本質上的不同，唯一的差異在於如何運用名詞生物性於依存關係的建構或修改方式。本研究主張英語人士處理主／賓語提出關係子句的模式支持了以語句結構為本的「模組假設」（module-based hypothesis, Frazier (1987)），而英語學習者的處理模式則支持了以功能為本的「約束假設」（constraint-based hypothesis, McDonald et al. (1994)），因為自訂步調的實驗結果顯示在非結構因素所提供之訊息彼此產生衝突時，英語學習者傾向不做立即的句法分析決策與指派句法角色給關係代名詞，因此上述的「主語優勢」以及名詞生物性對語句處理的影響只反應在主動詞區。此「延後決定」之假設也於眼動追蹤實驗裡得到證實：上述效應只反應於語句再加工的二項眼動指標（regression path time與total reading time）但未反應於初始語句處理的二項眼動指標（first pass time與first pass regression ratio）。學習者英語程度的差別只反應在處理語句的速度，但並無證據顯示使用的處理策略有所不同。
第二部份的研究結果顯示，不管對英語人士或學習者而言，消解「主動詞－過去分詞結構歧義」的方式與詞彙歧義消解的機制類似，支持了以功能為本的「約束假設」（constraint-based hypothesis, McDonald et al. (1994)），也證明了學習者於語句處理過程中可運用的資訊與英語人士並無本質上的不同：於語句處理的初始階段中，名詞生物性與辭彙頻率等非結構因素皆與最小連接處理原則（Minimal Attachment）所造成的歧義產生立即性的交互作用，因而造成消解「主動詞－過去分詞結構歧義」之難易度有所不同。其間的差異在於如何運用非結構因素來消解歧義的方式：對英語人士而言，當主詞為非生物性名詞時，不管動詞辭彙頻率高低，皆能避免花園路徑句（garden path sentence）的產生，因此消歧介系詞片語（by phrase）的出現並不會造成更長的閱讀時間，而辭彙頻率的優勢只反應於介系詞片語後的主動詞區內；對學習者而言，當訊息產生衝突時（如辭彙頻率高但主詞為生物性名詞），交互作用則提早反應於歧義動詞區內的處理時間，此處理成本能有效避免花園路徑句的產生。上述的處理成本交換機制（trade-off mechanism）也透過眼動追蹤實驗的first pass time與regression path time二項指標獲得支持。學習者英語程度的差別則反應了其對何種非結構資訊的敏感度。
綜合上述結果，英語學習者於關係子句的處理歷程中，可運用的資訊與英語人士並無本質上的不同。然而學習者傾向評估訊息的一致性，當訊息彼此衝突時，可能造成「延後決定」的策略運用或處理成本交換機制的產生，而對訊息的敏感度又與學習者本身的語言程度有關。因此，本研究主張第二語言的語句處理模式支持了以功能為本的「約束假設」（constraint-based hypothesis, McDonald et al. (1994)）。

This dissertation aims at investigating (a) how Chinese-speaking learners of English as their second language (L2) process relative clauses (RC), (b) what information may get involved during the real-time processing, and (c) whether linguistic proficiency modulates the parsing procedure. In particular, two grammatical aspects of RCs were examined: filler-gap dependency as shown in (1) and local syntactic ambiguity between main verb (MV) vs. reduced RC (RRC) interpretations, as shown in (2); in addition, noun animacy of RC heads (animate vs. inanimate in both (1) and (2)) and lexical frequency of the RC verbs being used as participles (High-PP vs. Low-PP in (2)) were also configured as a way of understanding how and when the syntactic and non-syntactic information have their effects.
Experiment 1 (Exp. 1.1: self-paced reading task & Exp. 1.2: gated sentence completion task) and Experiment 2 (eye-tracking task) were conducted to examine whether the filler-gap dependency was formed and modulated by both/either syntactic (e.g., Active Filler Strategy: Frazier, 1987) and/or lexical-semantic information (e.g., animacy of sentential subjects: musician vs. accident) during L2 processing. Participants for each experiment included one group of native English readers and two groups of advanced and intermediate Chinese-speaking learners. The results showed that the L2 learners were able to employ both syntactic and non-syntactic information during RC processing just like the native readers, but the ways of how the information was employed by the native and non-native readers may differ. To be specific, although L2 learners showed a hierarchy of processing difficulty similar to native readers’, i.e., animate ORC (1b) >> inanimate ORC (1d) = animate SRC (1a) = inanimate SRC (1c), where “>>” means “more difficult than”, there was a crucial difference in where the patterns were observed, i.e., the RC and MV region by native readers vs. the MV region by L2 learners. In addition, although more alternative semantic interpretations were indeed associated with animate ORCs than inanimate ORCs as shown in Experiment 1.2, the semantic indeterminacy in the sense of Gennari and MacDonald (2008) did not modulate the on-line RC comprehension by L2 learners. It was thus argued that L2 learners tended not to make syntactic commitment during their initial parsing within the RC region if the information available was incongruent. Such a late assignment strategy applies to the cases of inanimate SRC (1c) and inanimate ORC (1d), in which the inanimate RC heads contra their topichoods in terms of the subject interpretation. On the other hand, when lexical information and its topichood was in accordance, the syntactic decisions were readily made without hesitation as in the cases of (1a) and (1b). It was during the re-reading stage where the wrong SRC parse for an animate ORC (1b) was more difficult to erase, thus resulting in longer RTs in the MV region in both the self-paced reading and eye-tracking tasks.
Experiment 3 (self-paced reading task) and Experiment 4 (eye-tracking task) were carried out to examine whether the local syntactic ambiguity is resolved and moderated by both syntactic (e.g., Minimal Attachment Strategy: Frazier, 1987) and non-syntactic information (e.g., animacy of sentential subjects: defendant vs. evidence & PP-frequency of RC verbs: Low-PP “examined” vs. High-PP “accepted”) during L2 processing. Participants for each experiment included one group of native English speakers and two groups of advanced and intermediate Chinese-speaking learners. The results suggested that local syntactic ambiguity resolution between MV vs. RRC in L2 processing is lexically conditioned, showing that L2 learners had access to both syntactic and contextual information as native speakers did. However, unlike native speakers, L2 learners showed their early sensitivity to the contextual information in the RC verb region. In particular, when information was incongruent, e.g., an animate NP & High-PP in (2c) or an inanimate NP & Low-PP in (2b), L2 learners spent more time in evaluating their congruency. The evaluation process was argued to correlate with the processing difficulty associated with the occurrence of the disambiguating by-phrase. In addition, linguistic proficiency modulated the evaluation procedure.
Taken together, the results refuted the view that L2 parsing is fundamentally different from L1 parsing (Shallow Structure Hypothesis, Clahsen and Felser, 2006a), and the evaluation procedure observed in our L2 participants should be accommodated under a constraint-based L2 processing model in the sense of MacDonald et al. (1994).

(1)Filler-Gap Dependency in Full RC
a.Animate RC Head_Subject-extracted RC (SRC)
The musiciani [that ei witnessed the accident] angered the policeman a lot.
b.Animate RC Head_Object-extracted RC (ORC)
The musiciani [that the accident terrified ei] angered the policeman a lot.
c.Inanimate RC Head_ Subject-extracted RC (SRC)
The accidenti [that ei terrified the musician] angered the policeman a lot.
d.Inanimate RC Head_Object-extracted RC (ORC)
The accidenti [that the musician witnessed ei] angered the policeman a lot.
(2)Syntactic Ambiguity between RRC and Main Verb (MV/RRC)
a.Animate RC Head_Low-PP
The teacher (that was) loved by the students was informative.
b.Inanimate RC Head_Low-PP
The textbook (that was) loved by the students was informative.
c.Animate RC Head_High-PP
The friend (that was) accepted by the man was very impressed.
d.Inanimate RC Head_High-PP
The award (that was) accepted by the man was very impressive.

Aldwayan, S., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2009). Using syntactic constraints in the acquisition and processing of Wh-Movement: A study of Najdi Arabic learners of English. Paper presented at the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference.
Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. Audrey. (2003). Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The diversity of Wh-Constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language and Communication, 21(3), 285-301.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and Development of Language (pp. 279-362). New York: Wiley.
Burgess, C. (1991). Interaction of Semantic, Syntactic and Visual Factors in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G. (1999). PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage, 9, 343-351.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-126.
Caplan, D., Vijayan, S., Kuperberg, G., West, C., Waters, G., Greve, D., & Dale, A. M. (2001). Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 26-38.
Central Personnel Administration, R.O.C. (2006). Table of approximate score comparability. Retrieved January 04, 2010, from http://www.cpa.gov.tw/cpa2004/mpappoint/MPOF7163P.html
Chen, B. G., Ning, A. H., Bi, H. Y., & Dunlap, S. (2008). Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses. Acta Psychologica, 129 (1), 61-65.
Chen, C.-H. (2006). Chinese L2 learners' use of structural and lexical information in processing English subject and object relative clauses. CLO/OPL, 34, 11-23.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3-42.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing: A reply to our commentators. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107-126.
Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. N. Carlson, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing (pp. 273-317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Clifton, C., Jr., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696-708.
Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Taha Mohamed, M., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 317-334.
College Entrance Examination Center. (2000-2002). English Reference Word List. Retrieved January 04, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research2/doc_980828/ce37/ce37.htm
Comrie, B. (1998). Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design, 1, 59-86.
Comrie, B. (2007). The acquisition of relative clauses in relation to language typology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 301-309.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the Garden Path: The Use of Context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds), Natural Language Parsing. Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-188.
Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009a). Sensitivity to strong islands in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from eye movements. Paper presented at the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference.
¬¬¬________. (2009b). Constraints on L2 learners’ processing of wh-dependencies: Evidence from eye movements, Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 58(1). Dept. of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Dale, E. & Chall, J. (1948). Formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37-53.
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian: The Minimal Chain Principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529-557.
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2007). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English L2 speakers. Second Language Research.
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English L2 speakers. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.
Dussias, P. E., & Scaltz, C. (2007). Spanish-English L2 speakers' use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 128, 501-513.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in English as a second language: A crossmodal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 1–28.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., & Marinis, T. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453-489.
Fernández, E. (1999). Processing strategies in second language acquisition: Some preliminary results. In E. C. Klein, & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The Development of Second Language Grammars: A Generative Approach (pp. 217-239). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
________. (2000). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. The City University of New York.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton Jr., C. (1986). The Independence of Syntactic Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 23, 348-368.
Flesch, R. (1950). Measuring the level of abstraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34, 384-390.
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9 (3), 427-473.
Forster, K., & Chambers, S. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627-635.
Francis, W. N., & Kučera, H. (1982). Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. University of Connecticut.
________. (1979). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
________. (1987). Sentence Processing: A Tutorial Review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Process, 4, 93-126.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
________. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1997). Examining second language reading: An on-line look. Paper presented at the GALA 1997 Conference on Language Acquisition, Edinburgh, UK.
________. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In R. R. Heredia, & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Bilingual Sentence Processing (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 119-148.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11(7), 265-271.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition: A complex picture? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249-260
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58-93.
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 161-187.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313-353.
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 262-268.
Gordon, B. (1983). Lexical access and lexical decision: Mechanisms of frequency sensitivity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 24-44.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1411–1423.
Gregg, K. (2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 152-180). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Han, C.-H., & Kim, J.-B. (2004). Are there "double relative clauses" in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry, 35(2), 335-357.
Han, J.-I. (1992). Syntactic movement analysis of Korean relativization. Language Research, 28(2), 335-357.
Hara, M. (2009). L2 gap-processing and the parallel architecture framework. Paper presented at the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference.
Harrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 91-124). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in relation to language universals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 337-344.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294.
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P., & Kroll, J. F. (2010). Processing subject-verb agreement in second language depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 87-98.
Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 3-27.
Hsu, C.-C. (2008). Revisit relative clause island in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 23-48.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
Hu, X., & Liu, C. (2007). Restrictive relative clauses in English and Korean learners’ second language Chinese. Second Language Research, 23(3), 263-287.
Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431-439.
Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2003). Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese. Paper presented at the 16th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K., & Gibson, E. (2006). Processing Japanese relative clauses in context. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York: City University of New York.
Juffs, A. (1998a). Main verb versus reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48(1), 107-147.
________. (1998b). Some effects of first language argument structure and syntax on second language processing. Second Language Research, 14, 406-424.
________. (2001). Psycholinguistically-oriented second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 207-223.
________. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–226
________. (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. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483-516.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283-326.
Just, M. & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–49.
Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Keller, T. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science, 274(5284), 114-116.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes and in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 228-238.
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860-897.
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 376-395.
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 113-157.
Kutas, M. (1997). Views on how the electrical activity that the brain generates reflects the functions of different language structures. Psychophysiology, 34, 383–398.
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, Peter C., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2008). Cognitive and linguistic determinants of the subject-object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Unpublished manuscript.
Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Wait and see strategy in the processing of long-distance dependencies. Paper presented at the 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. CUNY Graduate Center, NY.
Language Training and Testing Center. (2009). Table of GEPT-CEFR score comparability. Retrieved January 04, 2010, from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/Tests%20developed%20by%20LTTC.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125-134.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2000). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. Arnaud, & H. Bejlint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp. 126-132). London: Macmillan.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Y.-H. A. (2002). Word order, structure, and relativization. In S.-W. Tang, & Chen-Shen Liu (Ed.), On the Formal Way to Chinese Languages. Stanford: CSLI.
Liang, M.-Y. (1992). Recognition processing in reading compositional and idiomatic words. Unpublished MA thesis of National Tsing Hua University. Taiwan: Hsinchu.
Lin, C.-J. (2006). Grammar and Parsing: A Typological Investigation of Relative-Clause Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of the University of Arizona.
________. (2008). The processing foundation of head-final relative clauses. Language and Linguistics, 9, 813-838.
Lin, C.-J., & Bever, T. G. (2006). Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In D., Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 254-260).
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 451-484.
Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In J. C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Ed.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Mak, W. M. (2001). Processing Relative Clauses: Effects of Pragmatic, Semantic, and Syntactic Variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of University of Nijmegen.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 50-68.
________. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 466–490.
________. (2008). Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 170-182.
Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19(2), 144-161.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 53-78.
McCallum, D., & Peterson, J. (1982). Computer-based readability indices. Proceedings of the ACM '82 Conference.
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.
Meseguer, E., Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 551-561.
Miyamoto, E., & Nakamura, M. (2003). Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. Paper presented at the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL22).
Murasugi, K. (1991). Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
O'Grday, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. USA, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oller, J. W. (1981). Research on affective variables: Some remaining questions. In R. Andersen (Ed.), New Dimensions In Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 14-27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Omaki, A., & Ariji, K. (2004). Testing and attesting the use of structural information in L2 sentence processing. Paper presented at the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501-528.
Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 521-542.
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.
Pickering, M. J. (1999). Sentence Comprehension. In S. C. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.), Language Processing (pp. 123-153). Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191-201.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 1-23.
Roberts, L. (2003). Syntactic Processing in Learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of University of Essex, Colchester.
Rodriguez, G. (2008). Second Language Sentence Processing: Is it fundamentally different? Unpublished doctoral dissertation of University of Pittsburgh.
Roland (2001). Verb Sense and Verb Subcategorization Probabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of University of Colorado.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sagarra, N. (2000). The Longitudinal Role of Working Memory on Adult Acquisition of L2 Grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Sakai, H. (1994). Complex NP constraint and case-conversions in Japanese. In M. Nakamura (Ed.), Current Topics in English and Japanese (pp. 179-203). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Sawasaki, K. (2007). L2 Reading by Learners of Japanese: A comparison of different L1s. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of The Ohio State University.
Scheldon, A. (1974). On the role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
Schmid, H. J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., & Kuhn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499-520.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10(3), 209-231.
Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Trueswell, J.C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1993). Context effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Effects of discourse and semantic context in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 47, 276-309.
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing Wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227-245.
Su, I. R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 83-112.
Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M., McRae, K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Semantics effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Moscovitch (Ed.), Attention & Performance XV. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In E. Miller (Ed.), Handbook in Perception and Cognition, Volume 11: Speech Language and Communication (pp. 217-262). Academic Press.
Tannenbaum, R., & Wylie, E. C. (2008). Linking English-Language Test Scores Onto the Common European Framework of Reference: An Application of Standard-Setting Methodology. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The Teacher’s Word Book. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Townsend, D., & Bever, T. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1146, 59-74.
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2008). Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic? Language & Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 609-645.
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69-90.
Traxler, M. J, Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204–224.
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
Trueswell, J. C. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, K. Rayner, & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K, & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
Tsai, W.-T. (1997). On the absence of island effects. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 27.1, 125-149.
Ueno, M., & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 646-688.
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105-122.
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250-271.
Williams, J., Mobius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-540.
Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368-392.
Wu, H., & Gibson, E. (2008). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Paper presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Wu, J., & Wu, R. (2007). Using CEFR in Taiwan: The perspective of a local examination board. Paper presented at the Fourth European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA) conference, Sitges, Spain.
Yang, P. L. (2009). Reading-time Studies of the Resolution of Main Verb versus Reduced Relative Clause Ambiguities by English Learners in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of National Kaohsiung Normal University.