關係子句（relative clauses）的產出為心理語言學研究的重要議題之一，而本研究旨在探討中心語（head）有生性（animacy）對以土耳其為母語之華語學習者（以下皆稱土耳其籍華語學習者）在產出關係子句時的語態選擇偏好。過往研究大多針對主語關係子句（subject relative clauses）及賓語關係子句（object relative clauses）進行比較，並證實了中心語的有生性會影響關係子句的理解及產出，但基本上無著重在華語及土耳其語被動式關係子句的研究。故本研究採用了「圖片敘述任務（picture description task）」與「被動式產出檢測」，以華語母語者及土耳其籍華語學習者為實驗對象，檢測「被動式關係子句」及「主動式賓語關係子句」的產出比例是否受中心語有生性、「結構距離假說（structural distance hypothesis, SDH）」或「線性距離假說（linear distance hypothesis, LDH）」的影響，進一步分析學習者的產出模式是否因目標語或母語而有所不同。
本研究共招募了40位華語母語者及26位土耳其籍華語學習者，華語母語者僅完成了華語版本的口語產出實驗作為對照，華語學習者則依序完成了華語及土耳其語版本。實驗結果顯示：中心語的有生性皆會影響兩語言被動式關係子句的產出比例，但華語整體偏好被動式關係子句（「[被警察追的]男人」），支持結構距離假說；土耳其語則整體偏好主動式賓語關係子句（「[Polisin kovaladığı] adamı（警察追的男人）」），支持線性距離假說；華語學習者可能受母語遷移的影響，整體偏好華語主動式賓語關係子句（「[警察追的]男人」），同樣支持線性距離假說。本研究的主要限制在於未使用推論性統計，無法實際得知中心語有生性對被動式關係子句的影響程度，且因只有一組華語學習者及母語者受到負面情境影響，易產出華語被動式，故無法確認避免使用華語被動式為特定的母語遷移影響。因此，本研究的發現仍屬初步結論，有待日後擴展相關實驗時驗證。

The production of relative clauses (RCs) is a pivotal issue in psycholinguistic research. This study investigates the influence of head animacy on voice preference in RC production among L1-Turkish Mandarin learners. While previous studies have extensively compared subject relative clauses (SRCs) and object relative clauses (ORCs)—demonstrating that head animacy affects both comprehension and production—research specifically addressing passive relative clauses in Mandarin and Turkish remains an under-explored area. This study employed a picture description task and a passive sentence production test with two participant groups: L1 Mandarin and L1-Turkish Mandarin learners. The goal was to examine whether the production ratios of passive RCs versus active ORCs are influenced by head animacy, the Structural Distance Hypothesis (SDH), or the Linear Distance Hypothesis (LDH). Furthermore, the study analyzed whether learners' production patterns vary based on the target language or native language influence.
A total of 40 L1-Mandarin speakers and 26 L1-Turkish Mandarins learners were recruited. L1-Mandarin speakers completed the picture description task in Mandarin as a control group, while learners completed the tasks in both Mandarin and Turkish sequentially. The results indicate that head animacy affects the production ratio of passive RCs in both languages. Specifically, L1-Mandarin speakers showed an overall preference for passive RCs (e.g., “[bei jingcha zhui de] nanren”), supporting the SDH. Conversely, in Turkish, there was an overall preference for active ORCs (e.g., “[Polisin kovaladığı] adamı”(Mandarin:“[bei jingcha zhui de] nanren”)), supporting the LDH. L1-Turkish Mandarin learners exhibited a preference for active ORCs in Mandarin (e.g., “[jingcha zhui de] nanren”), possibly due to L1 transfer, which also aligns with the LDH. The major limitations of this study include the absence of inferential statistics, which makes it difficult to determine the exact extent of animacy’s influence on passive relative clauses. Additionally, there is only one learner group in this study and native speakers were influenced by negative contexts that made them more likely to produce Chinese passive RCs, it remains unconfirmed whether the avoidance of Mandarin passive constructions results from L1 transfer. Therefore, the findings of this study remain tentative, and need to be confirmed by future studies.

中文
丁慧君、彭俊（2015）。《土耳其語語法》。廣東：世界圖書出版公司。
王力（1987）。《中國現代語法[上冊]》。台中：藍燈文化事業公司。
王力（2015）。《中國語法理論》。北京：中華書局。
吳興東（1978）。《土耳其文動詞之研究》。台北：國立政治大學。
李子瑄、曹逢甫（2021）。《漢語語言學》（第2版）。台北：正中書局。
張郇慧（2012）。《華語句法新論[上]》。台北：正中書局。
彭俊、丁慧君（2014）。《土耳其語漢語翻譯教程》。廣東：世界圖書出版公司。
鄭縈、曹逢甫（2012）。《華語句法新論[下]》。台北：正中書局。
謝國平（2019）。《語言學概論》（第3版）。台北：三民書局。
翻譯
Chao, Y. R. (2002)。《中國話的文法（增訂版）》（丁邦新，譯）。中文大學。（原著出版於1968年）
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (2022)。《漢語語法（修訂版）》（黃宣範，譯）。文鶴。（原著出版於1981年）
英文
Altan, A. (2016). Relative clauses in L2 Turkish. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 13(1), 1¬¬¬–37.
Aydın, Ö. (2007). The comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in second language acquisition and agrammatism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 295–315.
Başer, Z., & Hohenberger, A. (2020). Is there a particular RC attachment preference in Turkish? Negotiating the effects of semantic factors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(4), 511–539.
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibiity and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Congnition, 21, 47–67.
Bulut, T., Yarar, E., & Wu, D. H. (2019). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses: Evidence from eye-tracking and corpus analysis. Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 211–246.
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chen, C., & Liu, F. H. (2020). L2 acquisition of the bei passive in Mandarin Chinese: A constructionist approach. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 9(2), 169–198.
Chomsky, N., Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (1977). On wh-movement. 1977, 65.
Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(1), 45–61.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. University of Chicago press.
Coşkun Kunduz, A., & Montrul, S. (2024). Relative clauses in child heritage speakers of Turkish in the United States. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 14(2), 218–254.
Downing, B.Y. (1978). Some universals of relative clause structure. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language, 4 (pp. 375–418).
Erguvanli, E. E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. University of California Press.
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, Language, Brain, 2000, 95–126.
Gibson, E., & Wu, H. H. I. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 125–155.
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Language, 2, 73–113.
Göknel, Y. (2012). Turkish grammar academic edition. İstanbul: Vivatinell Bilim-Kültür Yayınları.
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: An essential grammar. Routledge.
Hsiao, F. (2003). The syntax and processing of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90(1), 3–27.
Hsiao, Y., & MacDonald, M. C. (2016). Production predicts comprehension: Animacy effects in Mandarin relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 87–109.
Hsu, C. C., Hermon, G., & Zukowski, A. (2009). Young children’s production of head-final relative clauses: Elicited production data from Chinese children. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18, 323–360.
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A., & Li, Y. (2009). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jäger, L., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C. J. C., & Vasishth, S. (2015). The subject-relative advantage in Chinese: Evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 79, 97–120.
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177973
Keenan, E. L., & Dryer, M. S. (2007). Passive in the world’s languages. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (pp. 325–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
Kuo, K., & Vasishth, S. (2006). Processing relative clauses: Evidence from Chinese. Unpublished manuscript, University of Potsdam.
Lau, E., & Tanaka, N. (2021). The subject advantage in relative clauses: A review. Glossa:A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1343
Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Univ of California Press.
Li, Q., Zhang, J., & Yue, W. (2010). Chinese relative clauses processing in supportive context removing ambiguity. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(4), 12–19.
Lin, C. J. C. (2009). Chinese relative clauses in corpus: Processing considerations. In paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (ALLT) (Taipei).
Lin, C. J. C. (2011). Chinese and English relative clauses: Processing constraints and typological consequences. In Z. Jing-Schmidt (Ed.). Proceedings of the 23rd North American conference on Chinese linguistics (NACCL-23), 1 (pp. 191–199). Eugene: University of Oregon.
Lin, C. J. C. (2015). Thematic orders and the comprehension of subject-extracted relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1255.
Lin, C. J. C., & 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). Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lin, Y., & Garnsey, S. M. (2010). Animacy and the resolution of temporary ambiguity in relative clause comprehension in Mandarin. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 241–275). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Loar, J. K. (2011). Chinese syntactic grammar: Functional and conceptual principles. Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
MacDonald, M.C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.
Montag, J., & MacDonald, M. (2009). Word order doesn't matter: Relative clause production in English and Japanese. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society31(31), 2594–2599.
Packard, J. L., Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2011). Filler-gap processing in Mandarin relative clauses: Evidence from event-related potentials. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, & J. L. Packard(Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 219–240). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Pu, M. M. (2007). The distribution of relative clauses in Chinese discourse. Discourse Processes, 43(1), 25–53.
Saeed, J. I. (2015). Semantics (Vol. 25). John Wiley & Sons.
Sun, L., Fan, L., & Xu, M. (2023). Exploring the effects of animacy and verb type on the processing asymmetry between SRC and ORC among Chinese EFL learners. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–10.
Tanaka, N., & Cherici, A. (2023). Subject advantage in L1-English learners’ production of Chinese relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52(2), 405–424.
Uzunca, A., & Akal, T. (2023). The role of animacy in Turkish relative clause production and distribution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52(6), 2517–2544.
Uzundağ, B. A., & Küntay, A. C. (2019). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkish-learning children's conversational interactions: a cross-linguistic approach. Journal of Child Language, 46(6), 1142–1168.
Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q., & Guo, G. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS one, 8(10), e77006.
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., & Andersen, E. (2010). Subject preference, head animacy and lexical cues: a corpus study of relative clauses in Chinese. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 173–193). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., & Andersen, E. (2012). Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 1489–1524.
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Effects of early cues on the processing of Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for experience‐based theories. Cognitive Science, 42, 1101–1133.
Xiao, R., McEnery, T., & Qian, Y. (2006). Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6(1), 109–149.
Xu, Y. (2014). Evidence of the accessibility hierarchy in relative clauses in Chinese as a second language. Language and Linguistics, 15(3), 435–464.