本研究針對漢語敘述體（narrative）中的趨向事件結構探討以下兩點問題：（1）漢語母語者/漢語學習者對於不同趨向事件結構是否有其偏好性？ （2）藉由提供「第一人稱」和「第三人稱」不同的「立足點」指示，漢語母語者/漢語學習者對於趨向結構中的「來去動詞」的選用將如何受到影響？本研究以線上問卷方式進行調查，受試者（漢語母語者178人；漢語學習者30人）一邊觀看繪本故事中的圖片、一邊判斷數個結構不同的漢語語句「自然度」。另外，問卷還分為「第一人稱組」和「第三人稱組」，兩組被指示的「立足點」有所不同。
本研究發現（1）漢語母語者偏好含有方式動詞的表達方式，此一現象支持Slobin（1997）、Chen（2005）等的看法，即雙衛星結構為最主要的漢語趨向表述結構；而部分母語為動詞語言（如日語）的學習者，則可能因母語遷移影響，傾向認為句中的方式成份是不必要的。（2）當語句中的移動主體並非故事主角「我/小男孩」，且移動主體朝向「我/小男孩」移動時，母語者第一人稱組與第三人稱組對於來去的選用有所差異，與劉月華（1980）的看法一致；此一狀況下的來去選用對於學習者而言是容易的，在本研究中學習者在判斷這類語句的來去的錯誤率為零。（3）然而當（i）移動主體並非故事主角「我/小男孩」，但移動主體亦非明確朝向「我/小男孩」移動時 （ii）移動主體為故事主角，且並非自主性移動時，母語者第三人稱組傾向以「正常人可以正常出現的地方」為立足點（洪碧霞，2013），第一人稱組從小男孩觀點來看，立足點恰好也與所謂的「正常所在」重合，因此這兩種情況下母語者兩組對於「來」、「去」的選用相同；而此二情況下的來去選用對於學習者而言相對困難，則可能出於學習者與母語者對於立足點認知的差異。

This study investigated two issues concerning with Chinese motion event constructions in narrative: (1) Do Chinese native speakers and L2 learners of Chinese have a preference for any one of the motion event constructions? (2) How are Chinese native speakers and L2 learners of Chinese affected by the “first person” and “third person” mode regarding “LaiQu verb” in Chinese motion event constructions? Two hundred and eight participants in total (178 Chinese native speakers and 30 L2 learners of Chinese) were divided into two groups, “first-person” and “third-person”group, and were asked to determine to what degree the sentences that describe motion events were natural when viewing several pictures of a story book (Frog story).
The results showed that (1) Chinese native speakers had a preference for sentences containing verbs with manner, which confirm the views of Slobin (1997) and Chen (2005). However, some learners whose mother tongue were verb-framed languages tended to choose sentences that omit manner verb; (2) In line with Liu (1980), when the figure in the sentence is not the main character (“I/the little boy”) of the story and is moving toward “me/the little boy”, the two groups of the native speakers used different “LaiQu verbs”. In this case, it is easy for the learners to pick out the correct “LaiQu verb”; (3) first, when the figure is not the main character (“I/the little boy”) and is not moving toward“me/the little boy” , and second, when the figure is the main character and the movement is not autonomous, the native speakers of the “third-person” group tended to regard “the place where people usually located” as the reference point (cf. Hong, 2013), and chose the same “LaiQu verb” as the “first-person” group’s native speakers. It is relatively difficult for the learners to single out the correct sentences that involve deictic expressions “LaiQu verb” under the two circumstances stated. This might be due to essential cognitive difference toward refenrecne points between native speakers and L2 learners.

文旭（2007）。運動動詞來去的語用意義及其指示條件。外語教學與研究，39（2），91-96。
方經民（1987a）。現代漢語方位參照聚合類型。語言研究，2，4-13。
王怡權（2011）。以德語為母語之漢語學習者趨向補語的中介語分析。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文（未出版）。
呂叔湘（譯）（1979）。漢語口語語法（原作者：趙元任）。北京：商務印書館。
呂淑湘（1980）。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
杉村博文（2000）。“走進來”について。載於古希記念行事委員会（編）。荒屋勤教授古希記念中国語論集（pp.151 -164）。東京：白帝社。
沈家煊（2001）。語言的 “主觀性”和 “主觀化”。外語教學與研究，33（4）， 268-275。
居紅（1992）。漢語趨向動詞及動趨短語的語義和語法特點。世界漢語教學，4，276-282。
柯理思（Lammrre, Christine）。（2003）。漢語空間位移事件的語言表達--兼論述趨式的幾個問題。現代中國語研究，5，1-18。
洪碧霞（2013）。如何在非漢語環境下教授漢語趨向動詞─以法國學習者為例。華語文教學研究，10（1），31-60。
范立珂（2014）。句法分佈與概念變化的對應與互動—談 “來去” 的三種 “位移概念”。語言教學與研究，1，59-66.
馬慶株（1997）。V來去與現代漢語的主觀範疇。語文研究，3，16-22。
張言軍（2015）。第三人稱敘事視角下來去選擇的約束條件。漢語學習，2，49-56。
湯廷池（1979）。「來」與「去」的意義與用法。載於湯廷池（著）。國語語法研究論集─中國語文篇（pp.301-320）。臺北：學生書局。
黃宣範（譯）（1992）。漢語語法（原作者：Li , C. N. & Thompson, S.A.）。臺北：文鶴。
楊德峰（2003）。英語母語學生趨向補語的習得順序。世界漢語教學，2，52-65。
翟英華（2008）。俄羅斯留學生習得漢語趨向補語的教學研究。齊齊哈爾大學學報，6，75-77。
齊滬揚（1996）。空間位移中主觀參照“來去”的語用涵義。世界漢語教學，4，54-63。
齊滬揚（1998）。現代漢語空間問題硏究。上海：學林出版社。
齊滬揚（2014）。現代漢語現實空間的認知研究。北京：商務印書館。
劉月華（1980）。關於趨向補語 “來”、“去”的幾個問題，語言教學與研究，3，36-44。
劉月華（1996）。實用現代漢語語法。臺北：師大書苑。
蕭惠貞、陳品蓉（2016）。日籍華語學習者對於漢語趨向事件表述之認知。華語文教學研究，13（1），35-68。
錢旭菁（1997）。日本留學生漢語趨向補語的習得順序。世界漢語教學，1，94-101。
Barwise, J., & Perry J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Black, J. B., Turner, T. J., & Bower, G. H. (1979). Point of view in narrative comprehension, memory, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 187-198.
Bühler（1982）The deictic field of language and diectic words. In R.Jarvella & W.Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics (pp. 9-30). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological perspective. In Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 13-49). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cadierno, T., & Lund, K. (2004). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Motion events in a typological framework. In VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Rott, S., & Overstreet, M. (Eds.), Form-meaning Connections in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 139-154). London: Routledge.
Chen, L. (2005). The Acquisition and Use of Motion Event Expressions in Chinese. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisiana, Lafayette.
Chen, L., & Guo, J. (2009). Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1749-1766.
Doležel, L. (1973). Narrative modes in Czech Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1966). Deictic categories in the semantics of 'come'. Foundations of Language, 2, 219-227.
Fillmore, C. J. (1974). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Fillmore, C. J., Lakoff, G., & Lakoff, R. (Eds.), Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics I. Berkeley, CA:University of California Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Huang, S. F. (1977). Papers in Chinese Syntax. Taipei: Student Book
Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal pps in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 153-170.
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism Toronto, 15, 59-92.
Lamarre, C. (2007). The Linguistic Encoding of Motion Events in Chinese–With Reference to Cross-dialectal Variation. Typological studies of the Linguistic Expression of Motion Events, 1, 3-33.
Lamarre, C. (2008). The Linguistic Categorization of Deictic Direction in Chinese—with Reference to Japanese—. In Xu, D. (Ed.), Space in Languages of China (pp. 69-97). Berlin: Springer.
Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, J. (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax (pp.109-150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5-38.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.
Lin, J. (2011). The Encoding of Motion Events in Chinese: Multi-morpheme Motion Constructions (Unpublished doctoral dissertion). California: Stanford University.
Mayer. (1969). Frog, Where are you? New York: Dial Books.
Navarro, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Describing motion events in adult L2 Spanish narratives. In Eddington, D. (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 102-107). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Peyraube, A. (2006). Motion events in Chinese. In Hickmann, M., & Robert, S. (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp.121-135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Pourcel, S. (2004). What makes path of motion salient?. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30(1), 505-516
Rapaport ,W., Segal, E. M., Shapiro, S. C., Zubin, D. A., Bruder, G. A., Duchan, J. F., Almeida, M. J., Almeida, M., Daniels, J., Galbraith,M. & Yuhan, A. H. (1994). Deictic Centers and the Cognitive Structure of Narrative comprehension. Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Segal, E. M. (1995a). Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.). Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective (pp. 3-17). Hove: Psychology Press.
Segal, E. M. (1995b). A cognitive-phenomenological theory of fictional narrative. In Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.), Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective (pp. 61-78). Hove: Psychology Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, J. L., Haiman, J., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp.437-467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (pp. 107–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219-257). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient. Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition”. In Hickmann, M., & Robert, S. (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. (pp. 59-81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steinbeck, J. (1975). The Pearl. New York: Bantam. (Original work published in 1954)
Sweetser, E. (2012). Introduction: viewpoint and perspective in langiage and festure, from the Ground down. In Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective (pp.1-22). Cambridge University Press.
Tai, J. H-Y. (2003). Cognitive Relativism: Resultative Construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 301-316.
Tai, J. H-Y. (2005). Conceptual Structure and Conceptualizations in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 6(4), 539-574.
Tai, J. H-Y, & Su, S. (2013). Encoding motion events in Taiwan Sign Language and Mandarin Chinese: Some typological implications. In Cao, G., Chappell, H., Djamouri, R., & Wiebusch, T. (Eds.), Breaking Down the Barriers: Interdisciplinary Studies in Chinese Linguistics and Beyond, (pp.79-98). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language Typology and Lexical Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Johnson, C., Sutton, L. A., & Shields, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.480-519). Berkely: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring Vol. II. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in Spatial Descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 371-391.
Wu, S. (2011). Learning to Express Motion Events in an L2: The Case of Chinese Directional Complements. Language Learning, 61(2), 414-454.
Yin, H. (2011). The cognitive semantics of Chinese motion/directional verbs. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle, 21(1), 118-125.
Zubin, D. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (1995). The deictic center: A theory of deixis in narrative. In Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.), Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective (pp. 129-155). Hove: Psychology Press.