本研究旨在探討以中文為母語的學生學習英文疑問詞問句的第二語言習得。過往研究指出(Aoun & Li, 1993a, 1993b; Huang, 1982a, 1982b)，在中文的疑問詞問句中，疑問詞並沒有在句法層面上完成疑問詞移位，相較之下，英文的疑問詞問句中，疑問詞則在句法層面明顯顯現疑問詞移位現象。因此由語言的表層結構看來，中文和英文在疑問詞問句上呈現相當不同的語言結構。本研究以此語言差異作為出發點，探討了幾項疑問詞問句的相關議題，並探究母語轉移、普遍語法、第二語言程度在台灣學生學習英文疑問詞問句中所扮演的角色。總共有八十八位成人參與了本研究的三項測驗：文法判斷測驗、接受度測驗、語句詮釋測驗，受試者依據他們的英文程度進一步分成了四個組，另外亦含由二十二位母語人士組成的對照組。本研究發現如下：
一、受試者尚未完全習得主詞－助動詞之倒裝，但普遍在疑問詞移位方面表現佳。
二、在承接條件的習得上，僅中高組與高級組可以判斷文法正確與否，初級組與中低組表現較母語人士顯著來得差。此外，本研究並未發現受試者對於不同島嶼限制表現有別。
三、在主詞－助動詞不倒裝的問句中，受試者的判斷上並未呈現論元與附加語之不對稱現象。在主詞－助動詞倒裝的問句中，大部分受試者在論元移位疑問詞問句與附加語移位疑問詞問句表現均佳，因此大致上未呈現兩者間之不對稱現象。
四、本研究受試者呈現主語－賓語不對稱現象。在單子句問句中，受試者較能接受主語移位疑問詞問句。在雙子句問句中，受試者較能接受賓語移位疑問詞問句。
五、整體而言，第二語言程度對於受試者作答表現有明顯影響。
根據上述結果，我們認為受試者表現受到母語轉移、第二語言複雜度、第二語言程度等因素所影響。另外，我們發現受試者具有承接條件以及空號原則的深層知識，肯定了普遍語法對於第二語言學習者的影響，顯示普遍語法對於第二語言習得確實有效應存在。

The present study investigates the acquisition of English wh-questions by Taiwanese EFL learners at a university by looking into various issues of wh-questions. A Chinese L1 background is of particular interest because Chinese has been considered a wh-in-situ language, which does not apply overt wh-movement, and is thus very different from languages that do exhibit wh-movement, English for example (Aoun & Li, 1993a, 1993b; Huang, 1982a, 1982b). Based on this cross-linguistic difference, this study investigates whether and how Chinese EFL students acquire English wh-questions from multi-aspects and explores the effects of L1, UG, and L2 proficiency on their L2 performance. One hundred and ten adults participated in three tasks (i.e., a Grammaticality Judgment Task, an Acceptability Judgment Task, and an Interpretation Task). They were further divided into four experimental groups based on their L2 proficiency, and one control group of native speakers of English. The major findings are summarized as follows:
(1) The participants had not fully acquired subj-aux inversion but generally performed well on wh-fronting.
(2) The higher-level groups, but not the lower-level groups, were able to reject sentences with Subjacency violations; however, the participants, regardless of L2 proficiency, did not distinguish weak islands from strong islands in their acceptability.
(3) The participants did not exhibit an argument-adjunct asymmetry in uninverted questions, nor did they show such an asymmetry in wh-extraction in inverted questions.
(4) The participants exhibited a subject-object asymmetry. It was found subject extractions more acceptable in the case of mono-clausal questions while object extractions were more acceptable for them in terms of bi-clausal questions.
(5) L2 proficiency was found to be an important factor in shaping their L2 performance.
The results indicate that the participants’ performance was affected by L1 knowledge, L2 complexity and L2 proficiency, and that they demonstrated knowledge of Subjacency and the ECP, implying that our L2 learners at least had indirect access to UG.

Abdolmanafi, S. J. (2012). The acquisition of multiple wh-questions by natives and non-natives. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 1, 95-107.
Aldwayan, S. N. (2008). The acquisition and processing of wh-movement by Najdi learners of English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. A. (1993a). Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. A. (1993b). Wh-elements in-situ: syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 199-238.
Barss, A., Hale, K., Perkins, E. T., & Speas, M. (1991). Logical Form and Barriers in Navajo. In C.-T. J. Huang & R. May (Eds.), Logical structure and linguistic structure (pp. 5-47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bergvall, V. L. (1983). Wh-questions and Island Constraints in Kikuyu. In J. Kaye, H. Koopman, D. Sportiche, & A. Dugas (Eds.), Current approaches to African linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 245-260). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foils.
Bley-Vroman, R. W., Felix, S. W., & Ioup, G. L. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1-32.
Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: A generative introduction (3rd edition). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Çele, F., & Gürel, A. (2011). L2 acquisition of Wh-extractions via a [-Wh-movement] L1. In J. Herschensohn & D. Tanner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 30-44). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Chan, Y.-W. (2013). Second language acquisition of English progressive aspect by Taiwanese students (Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University).
Chang, C.-H. (Ed.). (2006). Zhang-shi-xin-li-xue-ci-dian [Chang’s dictionary of psychology]. Taipei, Taiwan: Tunghua Bookstore.
Chen, F. J.-G. (2006). Interplay between forward transfer and backward transfer in L2 and L1 writing: The case of Chinese ESL learners in the US. Concentric: Studies in
Linguistics, 32, 147-196.
Cheng, L. L.-S. (1991). On the typology of wh-questions (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Choe, J. W. (1987). LF Movement and Pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 348-353.
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky
(Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232-286). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71-132). New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In N. Nornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32-75). London: Longman.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky. N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clarke, S. (2004). Newfoundland English: Morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann & C. Upton (Eds.), A handbook of varieties of English Vol. II: Morphology and syntax (pp.
303-318). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Corrigan, A., Dobson, B., Kellman, E., Palmer, A., Peterson, J., Spaan, M., Strowe, L., Tyma, S., & Upshur, J. (1978). English placement test. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan: University of Michigan English Language Institute.
Demir, O. (2012). The nature of acquisition and processing of island constraints by Turkish learners of English (Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University).
de Villiers, J. (1991). Why questions? In T. L. Maxfield & B. Plunkett (Eds.), Papers in the acquisition of wh: Proceedings of the UMass Roundtable (pp. 155–173).
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers.
de Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long distance rules. In L. Frazier & J. G. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and acquisition (pp. 257-297). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5, 138-155.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understand second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Erreich, A. (1984). Learning how to ask: Patterns of inversion in yes-no and wh-questions. Journal of Child Language, 11, 579-592.
Fender, M. (2003). English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic-speaking and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 289–315.
Fought, C. (2003). Chicano English in context. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Goodluck, H., Sedivy, J., & Foley, M. (1989). Wh-questions and extraction from temporal adverbs: A case for movement. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Papers and reports on child language development (No. 28, pp. 123-130).
Hasebe, M. (2014). The acquisition of the wh-movement operation in English by Japanese EFL learners (Doctoral dissertation, Yokohama National University).
Hasebe, M., Maki, H., & Umezawa, T. (2012). Two types of asymmetries in acquisition of the wh-interrogative construction by Japanese ESL Learners. The Japan Association of Language and Culture, 38, 3-14.
Hasebe, M., & Maki, H. (2014). Acquisition of the wh-interrogative construction by Japanese junior high school EFL learners. In R. T. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M.
Eddington, A. Henery, N. M. Miguel, A. M. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 76-88).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Hawkins, R. (2005). Revisiting wh-movement: The availability of an uninterpretable feature [wh] in interlanguage grammars. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse, & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 124-137). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language
Research, 22, 269-301.
Haznedar, B. (2003). The status of functional categories in child second language acquisition: Evidence from the acquisition of CP. Second Language Research, 19, 1–41.
Hermann, E. (1913). On memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College.
Hofmeister, P. (2007). Retrievability and gradience in filler-gap dependencies. In M. Elliott, J. Kirby, O. Sawada, E. Staraki, & S. Yoon (Eds.), Proceedings of 43rd
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 109-123). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366-415.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982a). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982b). Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review, 1, 369-416.
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A., & Li, Y. (2009). The syntax of Chinese. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobsen, B. (1992). Remarks on grammaticality and acceptability. Retrieved from http://download2.hermes.asb.dk/archive/download/H08_01.pdf
Jakubowicz, C., & Strik, N. (2008). Scope-marking strategies in the acquisition of long-distance wh-questions in French and Dutch. Language and Speech, 51, 101-132.
Johnson, J. S. (1988). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in acquisition of a second language (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language.
Cognition, 39, 215-258.
Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107–147.
Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121-151.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 483–516.
K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (2008). http://www.k12ea.gov.tw/ap/index.aspx.
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between weak and strong islands: A processing perspective. In P. Culicover & L. McNally (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 29: The limits of syntax (pp. 241-279). New York: Academic Press.
Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 23, pp. 475-499).
Kroch, A. (1989). Amount quatification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Kumagami, M. (2006). Two types of strategies: the acquisition of English wh-questions by Japanese learners. Kyushu University Paper on Linguistics, 28, 37-60.
Lakshmanan, U., Kim, K. L., McCreary, R., Park, K.-S., Suen, U., & Lee, S. (2009). L2 learners’ sensitivity to strong and weak Subjacency-violations in on-line processing. In M. Bowles, T. Ionin, S. Montrul, & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp.
136-143). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London, UK: Longman.
Lee, S.-Y. (2003). Argument/adjunct asymmetry in the acquisition of inversion in wh-questions by English-speaking children and Korean learners of English:
Frequency account vs. structural account (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa).
Lee, S.-Y. (2008). Argument-adjunct asymmetry in the acquisition of inversion in wh-questions by Korean learners of English. Language Learning, 58, 625-663.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). New York: Academic Press.
Li, X. (1998). Adult L2 accessibility to UG: An issue revisited. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. A. O'Neil (Eds.), The generative study of second language
acquisition (pp. 89-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. (3rd edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lin, J.-W. (1992). The syntax of zenmeyang ‘how’and weishenme ‘why’ in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 293-331.
Liu, S. H-H. (2011). Second language acquisition of if-conditionals in English (Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University).
Longobardi, G. (1991). In defense of the correspondence hypothesis: Islands effects and parasitic gap constructions in Logical Form. In C.-T. J. Huang & R. May (Eds.), Logical structure and linguistic structure (pp. 149-196). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Marinis, T., Roberts, L., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53-78.
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language: A cross-linguistic study of three languages with and without overt movement. (Doctoral
dissertation, Cornell University).
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 386-398.
Miyagawa, S. (2004). The nature of weak islands. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nishigauchi, T. (1986). Quantification in syntax (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst).
Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and the comprehension of speech. NABE Journal, 3, 25-40.
Patkowski, M. S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449-468.
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Li, X. (1998). Selectivity in the acquisition of complex NP islands. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language
grammars: A generative approach (pp. 147-170). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ. In E. J. Reuland & A. G. B. Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 98-129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in language (pp. 355-426). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1998). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217-243.
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365-424.
Pozzan, L. (2011). Asking questions in learner English: First and second language acquisition of main and embedded interrogative structures (Doctoral dissertation,
The City University of New York).
Pozzan, L., & Quirk, E. (2014). Second language acquisition of English questions: An elicited production study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 1055-1086.
Radford, A. (2006). Minimalist syntax revisited. Retrieved from http://courses.essex.ac.uk./lg/lg514.
Reinhart, T. (1991). Elliptic conjunctions. In A. Kasher (Ed.), The Chomskyan Turn (pp. 360-384). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. (1992). Ordered decisions in the acquisition of Wh-movement. In J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck, & T. Roeper (Eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition (pp. 191-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Ross, J. R. (1984). Inner islands. In C. Brugman, M. Macauley, A. Dahlstrom, M. Emanatian, B. Moonwomon, & C. O’Connor, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 258-265). Berkeley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society.
Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: What children do know?’ Journal of Child Language, 27, 157–181.
Sawetaiyaram, T. (2012). Effects of verb categories, language proficiency level, and textbook roles on the acquisition of Japanese imperfective aspect marker—te i ru. Japanese Studies Journal, 29, 102-109
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 73-88). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 6, 93-124.
Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgments: Why does anyone object to subject extraction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 379-392.
Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209-241.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.
Sportiche, D. (1981). Bounding nodes in French. Linguistic Review, 1, 219-246.
Stockwell, R. P., Brown, J. D., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Stromswold, K. J. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Sudo, Yasutada. (2007). Metalinguistic semantics for echo questions. In M. Aloni, P. Dekker, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium
(pp. 205-210). Amsterdam, Netherlands: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
Szabolcsi, A., & Zwarts, F. (1990). Semantic properties of composed functions and the distribution of wh-phrases. In M. Stokhof & L. Torenvliet (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, 529-555. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Institute for Language, Logic and Information.
Szabolcsi, A., & Zwarts, F. (1993). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 235-284.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994). On economizing A-bar dependencies (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Wakabayashi, S., & Okawara, I. (2003). Japanese learners’ errors on long distance wh-questions. In S. Wakabayashi (Ed.), Generative approaches to the acquisition of
English by native speakers of Japanese (pp. 215-245). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, Y.-F., Katz, A., & Chen, C.-H. (2003). Thinking as saying—shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and bbs talk. Language Sciences, 25,457-488.
White, L. (1985). The acquisition of parameterized grammars: Subjacency in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 1, 1-17.
White, L. (1988). Island effects in second language acquisition. In S. Flynn & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 144-172). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
White, L., & Juffs, A. (1998). Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native language acquisition: Competence and processing. In S. Flynn, G.
Martohardjono, & W. A. O'Neil (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 111-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing Strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-540.
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English (2nd edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Wu, J. (1999). Syntax and semantics of quantification in Chinese (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Wagers, M., Liu, F., & Guo, T. (2014). Processing covert dependencies: An SAT study on Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics, 23, 207-232.
Xu, L. (1990). Remarks on LF movement in Chinese questions. Linguistics, 28, 355-383.
Yusa, N. (1999). Multiple-specifiers and wh-island effects in L2 acquisition: A preliminary study. In E. C. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of
second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 289-315). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.