論文內容提要：
本研究的目的在探索學生對主動詞及省略式關係子句的動詞在句中所產生的句型模糊概念，本受測者的學生是台南縣新豐高中二年級學生，共180人，51 名男同學，129女學生。本研究的研究工具是一份六十題的問卷試題，試題分成七部分，每部分各依測驗目的的不同而有所分別，學生必須依據指示，選出一個正確答案。本研究的主要發現如下：
1、大部分學生都可辨認出形容詞子句。
2、學生面對此類MV (Main Verb)/RR(Reduced Relative Clause)句型模糊概念產
生時，傾向以MV為主。對於程度低的學生，他們因受限於working-memory
(受測記憶)的侷限，所以容易把第一個動詞結構當成MV解釋。而對程度好
的學生，他們可以應用後面的線索，維持兩種句型解釋，同時加強印證。
3、學生對於不規則動詞字型的變化，能有所察覺，對句型判斷有幫助。程度
好的學生，比程度低的學生更會使用動詞的概念、及動詞的字型變化來判斷
句型結構。
4、學生缺乏利用上下文內容去判斷句型結構的能力，也就是說，學生判斷
句型結構的能力與學生本身的能力程度有關。
5、動詞字型的變化比上下文內容對程度低的學生在判斷句型結構時，更具影響
力。
總之，教師在教導學生判斷句型結構時，動詞字型的變化認知，對學生有顯著的影響。再者，教師也可以指導他們利用了解動詞的特質去判斷句型結構。對於程度佳的學生，教師可以教導學生多利用上下文句意技巧來加強對句型的判斷。對於程度低的學生，基本上要讓他們能了解基本字型的變化，增加對句型結構的判斷。此外，教師可以利用摘要寫作的方式，使學生練習省略式的關係子句句型，使其文句表達更明確。如果教師能幫助學生增進英文文章閱讀能力，對句子的句型有明確的判斷及正確的解釋，學生在閱讀時可以對整篇文章句意有更清楚的了解。

This study probed students’ ability to identify the syntactic ambiguities of verb construction between MV (Main Verb) and RR (Reduced Relative Clause). The subjects of this study are second graders of Shin Fong Senior High School (SFSH) in Tainan County. A total of 180 students are involved, including 51 boys and 129 girls. The major instrument is a multi-choice test, which is divided into seven sections. The students were asked to choose the correct answer according to the instructions.
The major findings are summarized as follows:
(1) Generally speaking, students can identify the syntactic functions of complex sentences with unreduced relative clauses.
(2) When students interpreted ambiguous syntactic sentences, such as MV/RR, the ambiguity is apparently resolved as a sentence with the Main Verb resolution, which is the preferred interpretation.
(3) For intermediate or below-average students, ambiguous sentences are processed in the same manner as unambiguous sentences. They are more working-memory capacity limited, and consequently will conform more closely to the predictions of a single representation model. For students with advanced English proficiency, they will be able to maintain two interpretations for some period of time.
(4) As for morphological markers, students are likely to be aware of the irregular verb forms of past- tense and past participle
(5) Students’ ability to decide which sentence is a reduced relative form or which is a main verb by using context (except lexical morphemes) is deficient. It meant that their strategies of language use are significantly related to their English proficiency (The higher their English proficiency, the better their strategies of language use).
(6) For HLG (Higher Level Group), they pay more attention to good cue questions and the transformation of verb forms than LLG (Lower Level Group).
(7) For LLG, the verb forms play a more significant role in structure decision than contexts do.
In conclusion, it is suggested that when students encounter complex sentences with reduced relative clauses, an EFL teacher should always ask students to pay more attention to the verb construction to decide syntactic structure and identify a clear interpretation. Furthermore, it may be necessary for EFL teachers to give their students some training to help them more be aware of the irregular past participle form and the cue of transitive or intransitive verbs based on this strategy. For HLG, teachers can assist them to put more emphasis on the meaning of sentences so that they can get a better or whole understanding of the sentence meaning. For LLG, teachers' focus on verb transformation will be the essential step for students to analyze the sentence structure. These strategies will benefit them to make an unambiguous syntactic analysis readily. In addition, EFL teachers can make skillful use of various techniques in writing practice, which make students familiar with the usage of syntactic sentences with reduced relative clauses. If EFL teachers can identify students’ misinterpretation in syntactic ambiguity of MV/RR resolutions and instruct useful techniques, reading texts will not limit in interpreting single word any longer, instead, syntactic analysis is beneficial to students to get a more clear understanding of the text meaning.

References
Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.
Altmann , G. T. M., & Steedman, M.(1988). Interaction with context during
human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ard, Josh & Gass. S. M. (1987). Lexical constraints on syntactic acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 233-252.
Aron, H. (1980). Comparing reading comprehension in Spanish and English by
adult Hispanics entering a two-year college. In Processing of the Third
International Conference on Frontiers in Language Proficiency and
Dominance Testing, R. O. Silverstein (Ed.), 165-173.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (ED.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp47-89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Barry, S. & Lazarte, A. A. (1995). Embedded Clause Effects on Recall: Does High Prior Knowledge of Content Domain Overcome Syntactic Complexity in Students of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 79, 491-504.
Berman, R. (1984). Syntactic components of the foreign language reading process. In Alderson and Urqhart (Eds.), 139-156.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes(Ed.). Cognition and the development of language, 279-352. New York: John Wiley.
Bialystok, E. (1990). The Competence of Processing: Classifying Theories of Second Language Acquisition. Tesol Quarterly, 24(4), 635-648.
Blau, E. K. (1981). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL studies in Puerto
Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 517-528.
Bresnan, J. (1982). The passive in lexical theory. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental
representation of grammatical phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283.
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., G arrod, S., & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing in discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293-314.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second-language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Carrell, P. L. & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-73.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Reading.
The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134.
Carpenter, P. & Daneman, M. (1981). Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading. A model based on eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 20, 137-160.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-83). Engliwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chavez, Monika M. Th. (1994). English native speakers reading German: Syntactic versus semantic problems and strategic behavior. Internal Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching , 32(4), 321-334.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure. Mouton,. The Hague.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory the syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cooper, M. (1984). Linguistic competence of practised and unpractised nonmature readers of English. In Alderson and Urqhart (Eds.), 122-135.
Crain, S., & Steenman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of
context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunen, & A. Zwicky
(Eds.) Natural language parsing. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press.
Cuetos, M., and Mitchell, D.C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: restrictions on the use of the Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
Cziko, G. A. (1978). Differences in first and second language reading: the use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473-489.
___________(1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of first-and second-language oral reading errors. Language learning, 30, 101-114.
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
Dekeyser, R. M. (1993). The Effect of Error Correction on L2 Grammar Knowledge and Oral Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-514.
Devine, J. (1987). The relationship between general language competence and second language reading proficiency: implications for teaching. Language competence and L2 reading proficiency, 17, 260-277.
Dopkins, S., Morris. R. K. & Rayner, K. (1992). Lexical ambiguity and eye fixations in reading: A test of competing models of lexical ambiguity resolution, Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 461-476.
Duffy, S. A. , Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and information times in reading. Journal of Memory and language, 27, 429-446.
Eskey, D. E. and Grabe W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading: perspective on instruction. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine and D. E. Eskey (Eds). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. New York: Cambridge University Press, 223-239.
Fernald, A., & Mazzie, C. (1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27, 209-221.
Ferreira. F., & JR. C. C. (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: syntactic parsing strategies . Bloominton. 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.
________(1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen Wilson (Ed.). Lexical representation and process (pp. 505-528). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
________(1990). Parsing modifiers: Special-purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? In G.B Flores d’ Areais. D. A. Balota. & K. Rayner(Ed.). Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frazier, L. & Clifton C. Jr. (1996). Construal. MIT Press.
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.
Gorrell, P. (1987). Studies in human syntactic processing: Ranked – parallel versus
serial models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Connecticut.
Stros. CT.
Harley, B , Howard, J., and Hart, D (1995). Second language processing at
different ages: do younger learners pay more attention to prosodic cues to
sentence structure? Language Learning, 45(1), 43-71.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1979). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-397.
Henning, G. (1987). A Guide to Language Testing. New York: Newbury Harper.
Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (1976). Verbal reasoning and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 603-621.
Hoover, Michael & Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic Processing by Skilled Bilinguals. Language Learning, 48(1), 1-29.
Jarvis, D. K. & Jensen. D. C. (1982). The Effect of Parallel Transitions on Second Language Reading and Syntax Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 18-23.
Juffs, A. (1998). Main Verb Versus reduced Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution in L2 Sentence Processing. Language Learning, 48(1), 107-147.
Just,M.A., & Carpenter, P. A (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kawamoto, A. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516.
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second Language Reading Strategy Instruction: Its Effects on Comprehension and Word Inference Ability. The Modern Language Journal,
73(2), 135-148.
King, J. W., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580-602.
Koda, K. (1990). The Use of L1 Reading Strategies in L2 Reading: Effects of L1 Orthographic Structures on L2 Phonological recording Strategies. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 12, 393-410.
Kruse, A. F. (1979). Vocabulary in context. English Language Teaching Journal,
33(3), 207-213.
Kurtzman, H. (1985). Studies in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, H. , Bates, E. & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 451-484.
MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic Constraints and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(2), 157-201.
MacDonald, M. C. , Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working Memory Constraints on the Processing of Syntactic Ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
MacDonald, M. C. , Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
Macnamara, J. (1990). Ideals and psychology. Canadian Psychology, 31, 14-25.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
McClelland, J. I. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.) Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale., NJ: Erlbaum.
McClelland, J. I. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1988). Explorations in parallel distributed processing: A handbook of models, programs, and exercises. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., & Corley, M. M. B. (1992, March). Statistical verse linguistic determinants of parsing bias: Cross-linguistic evidence. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence processing, New York.
Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L., & Cohen , A. D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3(1-2),
1-35.
Perfetti, C. A. (1990).. The cooperative language processor: Semantics influences in an autonomous syntax. In G. B Flores d’ Arcais, D. A. Balota.,& K. Rayner(Ed.). Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 205-230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perlmutter, N., & MacDonald, M. (1992). Plausibility effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 498-503, Hillsdate, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4), 273-295.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge University Press, pp.288.
Rayner, K., Garrod, S., & Perfetti, C. (1992). Discourse influences during parsing are delayed. Cognition, 45, 109-139.
Read, c. & Schreiber, P. (1982). Why short subjects are harder to find than long ones. In E. Wanner& L.R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp.78-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, H. (1994). Syntactic complexity in Spanish narratives: A developmental study. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 37(3), 645-655.
Sedivy, J., & Spivey-Knowlton, M.. (1993). The effect of definiteness in parsing PP-attachment ambiguities. In A. Schafer (Ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp. 447-461). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Spivey-Knowlton, M., Trueswell, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (1993). Context effects and syntactic ambiguity resolution : Discourse and semantic influences in parsing reduced relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 276-309.
St. John, M. F., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artifictal Intelligence, 46, 217-257.
Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton. M.J., McRea, K., & Tanenhaus, M.,K. (1994). Semantic effect on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.) . Attention and Performance XV (pp.589-616). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tallerman, M. (1998). Understanding Language Series: Understanding Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trueswell, J. C & Tanenhau, M. K.(1991). Tense, temporal context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 303-338.
_______(1996). The Role of Lexical Frequency in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
_______., Tanehaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Using of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation . Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
White, L. (1990). Second Language Acquisition and University Grammar.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121-134.
Ying, H. G. (1996). Multiple Constraints on Processing Ambiguous Sentences: Evidence From Adult L2 Learners. Language Learning, 46(4), 681-711.
Yuill, N., &Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An
experimental investigation. New York: Cambridge University Press.