本研究旨在探討以詞彙致使與句式致使表達的心理致使動詞句子（如他感動了我們、他讓我們感動）有何不同。基於前人的語料庫研究（李臨定，1986；宛新政，2005；李炯英，2012）與認知研究（Wolff et al.,2009），我們假設「致事有生性」影響受試者說出不同致使句式，而致使句式影響「受試者感知到的事件數量」，因此我們以詞彙致使與句式致使皆可的五個動詞「震驚、振奮、感動、困惑、嚇壞」為材料，設計兩個實驗，測試上述假設。在實驗一中，致事有生性是自變項，致使形式是依變項；在實驗二中，致使形式是自變項，感知到的事件數量是依變項。此外，我們也根據實驗一的結果討論有生性與施動性的關係。
　　輸出實驗的結果顯示「致事的有生性」並不會影響受試者說出不同語言形式，然而我們也發現「個別動詞」對產出致使形式的影響大於「致事的有生性」。受試者看到事件影響力致事題目所造出的句型與有生性致事題目句型種類相似，因此我們認為受試者在致使事件中感知到的是「施動性」，而非「有生性」。輸入實驗的結果顯示致使句式確實影響了受試者感知到的事件數量，聽到詞彙致使的受試者傾向選擇一個箭頭的圖示，聽到句式致使的受試者傾向選兩個箭頭的圖示。
　　本文參考常輝（2011）、Ou（2012）與趙靜等人（2015）的心理動詞二語研究，提出心理狀態動詞與心理致使動詞的教學建議，並參考視聽華語的心理致使動詞分布設計課室活動，以期對心理致使動詞的教學有所助益。

The aim of this research is to discuss the differences between causative psych verbs expressed by lexical causative and syntactic causative. Based on former corpus and psycholinguistic research, we assume that “causer’s animacy” influences the production of causative form, and causative form influences native speaker’s perception of event numbers. Thus, we design two experiments to verify our presumption. We choose five psych verbs as materials: zhengjing(shock), gandong(touch), zhenfen(excite), kunhuo(confuse), xiahuai(frighten).In our output experiment, causer’ animacy is the independent variable and causative form the dependent variable. In our input experiment, causative form is the independent variable and event number the dependent variable. Apart from the two experiments, we also discuss causer’s animacy and agency further according to our research results.
The result of our output experiment indicates that “causer’s animacy” has no correlation with lexical causative and syntactic causative production. Besides, we find out that when referring to the aspect of causative output, verb is more prominent than animacy. We infer that what the participants perceive is causer’s agency but not animacy because they have similar performances in both experiments with animate causers and natural force/event causers. The result of input experiment indicates that native speakers tend to consider event number as one when they hear the sentences with lexical causative, and two when they hear the sentences with syntactic causative.
Taking our research results and the previous Chinese psych learning research as reference, we give our advice on writing teaching strategies and teaching plans with the hope to help improve the teaching of psych verbs.

中央研究院漢語語料庫的內容與說明。(2015/12/19) http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
中文詞彙特性速描系統(Word Sketch)(2015/5/6)。http://wordsketch.ling.sinica.edu.tw/
王力(1980)。漢語史稿。北京：中華書局。
王力(1989)。漢語語法史。北京：商務印書館。
王紅斌(2002)。現代漢語心理動詞的範圍與類別。晉東南師範專科學校學報，4，62-64。
王濟川、郭志剛(2004)。Logistic迴歸模型—方法及應用。台北：五南出版社。
向蓉(2010)。中國英語學習者心理使役動詞的習得實證研究。重慶理工大學學報，8，123-126。
朱琳(2011)。漢語使役現象的類型學和歷時認知研究。上海：學林出版社。
李臨定(1986)。現代漢語句型。北京：商務印書館。
李炯英(2012)。致使結構的英漢對比研究。安徽：中國科學技術大學出版社。
李艷蕊(2005)。大學低年級作文中心理使役動詞應用分析。石家庄學院學報，9，94-98。
周紅(2005)。現代漢語致使範疇研究。上海：復旦大學出版社。
宛新政(2005)。現代漢語致使句研究。浙江：浙江大學出版社。
姚肖鶯(2007)。漢語三種致使句的致使性等級考察。漢語語法的認知與功能探索。張旺熹主編(2007)。北京：世界圖書出版公司北京公司。頁164-190。
袁毓林(2002)。漢語句子的文意不足和結構省略。漢語學習，6，1-5。
國立臺灣師範大學國語教學中心(2013)。新實用視聽華語4-5。台北市：正中書局。
徐睿、王文斌(2005)。心理動詞也析。寧波大學學報，18(3)，65-69。
陳昌來(2002)。現代漢語動詞的句法語義屬性研究。上海：學林出版社。
陳昌來(2003)。現代漢語語義平面問題研究。上海：學林出版社。
常輝(2011)。母語為英語的留學生漢語致使結構習得研究。世界漢語教學，25(1)，129-140。
張金璐(2010)。生命性與漢語量名加工組合──一項EPR研究。北京：北京大學碩士論文。
張莉萍(2012)。對應於歐洲共同架構的華語詞彙量。華語文教學研究，9.2，77-96。
張京魚(2001)。英漢使役心理動詞應用對比研究。外語研究，3，46-50。
張京魚(2004)。心理動詞與英語典型使役化結構。四川外語學院學報，20(5)，97-101。
葉乃嘉(2006)。研究方法的第一本書。台北：五南出版社。
熊學亮、梁曉波(2003)。致使結構的原型研究。江西師範大學學報(哲學社會科學版)，3(6)，106-110。
趙冰波(1994)。論使字的介詞詞性。河南教育學院學報(1)。
趙靜、王同順、葉李貝貝(2015)。英語母語學習者對漢語心理動詞的習得研究。世界漢語教學，4，551-561。
趙楊(2009a)。漢語非賓格動詞和心理動詞的習得研究。世界漢語教學，1，86-100。
趙楊(2009b)。中介語中的題元層級－母語為日語的學習者對漢語心理動詞習得研究。雲南師範大學學報，7(6)，1-8。
Agresti, A. (1996/2003).類別資料分析導論(劉應興譯)。台北：華泰。(原著An introduction to Categorical Data Analysis於1996出版)
Baker, M. (1988).Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Belletti, A. , L. Rizzi (1998). Psych-verbs and θ–theory. Natrual Language and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 291-352.
Berkson, J. (1944). Application of the Logistic Function to Bioassay.Journal of America Statistical Association, 39, 357-365.
Bock, J. K. & Warren, R. K. (1985).Conceptual accessibility and sentence structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47-67.
Chang, F., Bock, K. & Goldberg, A. E. (2003).Can thematic roles leave trace of their places?Cognition, 90, 29-49.
Cheng-Tsung, Y. (2009). Mandarin Chinese Psych Verbs: Unaccusativity and Unergativity. M.A. Thesis Graduate Institute of Linguistic National Chung Cheng University.
Cheung, C. H. C. & Larson, R. K. (2015). Psych verbs in English and Mandarin.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(1), 127-189.
Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergencies. In:Shibatani (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 6. The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 261-312. San Diego and London: Academic Press.
Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and LinguisticTypology. Washington, D.C.: Georgetwon University Press.
Corrigan, R. (1988). Who dun it? The influence of actor-pateint animacy and type verb in the making of casual attributions.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 447-465.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (1972). A note on English causatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 522-528.
Cruse, D. A. (1973).Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistic, 9, 11-13.
Dahl, Ö. & K. Fraurud. (1996). Animacy in Grammar and Discourse. In Fretheim, G. and Gundel, K. J.(Eds.),Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67,547-619.
Dixon, R. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2000).A typology of causatives: form, syntax, and meaning.In Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.),Changing Valency: case studies in transitivity(pp. 30-83). UK: The Press Syndicate of Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2005).A semantic approach to English Grammar (pp.196-201). Oxford University Press.
Ferreira, F. (1994).Choices of Passive Voice is Affected by Verb Type and Animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715-736.
Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving “kill” form “cause to die”. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 429-438.
Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2008). Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua, 118, 190-202.
Grimshaw, J. (1990).Argument structure.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gruber, J. S. (1965).Studies in Lexical relations.Unpublish doctoral dissertation. Massachusatts Institution of Technology.
Guilfoyle, E.(2000). Tense and N-Features in Modern Irish. In Andrew, C. & Guilfolye, E.(Eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haiman, J. (1980). The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation. Language, 56 (3),515-540.
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and Ecnomic Motivation.Linguistic Society of Americal, 59(4), 781-819.
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999).Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition.London: Continuum.
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Language typology and languageuniversals: an international handbook.Berlin; New York: W. D. Gruyter.
Hatch, E. M. (1983).Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Cambrigde Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Homers, D., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. (2013). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
Hsin, A. L., & Lin, J. Y. (2006). I disappointed you or you disappointed me: L2 acquisition of English psych verbs by Chinese EFL learners.Taiwan Journal of TESOL. 3(1), 11-33.
Hung, Y. U. & Schumacher (2014). Animacy matters: ERP evidence for the multi-dimensionality of topic-worthiness in Chinese.Brain research, 1555, 36-47.
Juff, A.(1996). Learnability and the lexicon: theories and second language acquisition research.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Klaiman, M. H. (1991). Grammatical Voice. New York: Cambrigde University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive grammar, Vol.2: Description Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (2001). Dynamicity in Grammar. Axiomathes, 12(1), 7-33.
Larsen-Freeman, D.& Anderson, M. (2011).Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lemmens, M. (1998).Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity: Causatives in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levin, Beth. (1993). English verb classes and alternation: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Li, P., Bates, E., Liu, H. & MacWhinney., B. (1993). Processing a language without inflection: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 169-192.
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li., P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguisitics, 13, 451-484.
Lowder, M.W., & Gordon, P. C. (2012). The pistol that injured the cowboy: Difficulty with inanimate subject-verb intergration is reduced by structural separation.Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 819-832.
Lowder, M.W., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Natural forces as agents: Reconceptualizing the animate-inanimate distinction.Cognition, 136, 85-90.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction of theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: The University Press.
Montrul, S. (2001). First-language-constrained variability in the second-language acquisition of argument-structure-changing morphology with causative verbs.Second Language Research, 17(2), 144-194.
Ou, T. F. (2012). A Study of Chinese Psych Causative Verbs and Pedagogical Implications. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 47(1), 93-133.
Philipp, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Bisang, W.,&Schlesewsky, M. (2008).The role of animacy in real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidencefrom auditory event-related brain potential. Brain and Language, 105(2), 112-133.
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese and English as foreign languages. SSLA, 16, 43-72.
Sato, Y. (2003). Japanese learners linking problems with English psych verbs.Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 125-144.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy Features and Ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Eds.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Shibatani, M. (1972). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’from ‘cause to die’ in Japanese. In John Kimble (Eds.) Syntax and semantics (pp. 25-37).New York: Academic Press.
Shibatani, M. (1975).A linguistic study of causative constructions.Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Steinly, V., & Stacey, K. (2005). Analysing longitudual data on students’ decimal understanding using relative risk and odds ratios. Proceedings of the 29th Conference of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Melbourne:PME.
Su, I. (2001).Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistic, 22, 83-112.
Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, M. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol.6: the grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press. 43-116.
Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.)Topics in Cognitive Linguisitcs (pp. 165-205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tanaka, M. N.,Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F. & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Conceptual influence on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese.Journal of Memeory and Language, 65, 318-330.
Teng, S. H. (1975).A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese (pp.60-63). University of California Press.
VanArsdall, E. J., Nairne, S. J., Panderrada, S. N. J. & Cogdill, M. (2014). Adaptive memory: Animacy effect persist in paired-associate learning.Memory, 23(5), 657-663.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for ’effector’: case roles, agents and agency revisited. In: Shibatani, M., Thompson S. A. (Eds.), Grammatical Construction: their form and meaning.Clarendon, Oxford, pp. 289-322.
White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J. Chen, D., Hirakawa, M. & Montrul, S. (1999). Psych Verbs in Second Language Acquisition. In: Klein, E.C., Martohardjono, G. (Eds.),The Development of Second Language Grammars: A Generate Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 171-196.
Wierzbicka, A. (1975).Why “kill” does not mean “cause to die”: the semantics of action sentences. Foundations of Language, 13, 491-528.
Wilkin, D. P. & Vam Valin,R. D., Jr. (1993).The case for a case reopened: agent and agency revisited. Technical Report 93-2, Center for Cognitive Science. Buffalo: State University of New York.
Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1-48.
Wolff, P., Jeon, G. H., & Li, Y. (2009). Causers in English, Korean, and Chinese and the individuation of events. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 165-194.
Yang, Cheng-Tsung. (2009). Mandarin Chinese Psych Verbs: Unaccusative and Unergativity. M.A. thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan