英语时间状语从句语序的依存分析：学习者与大语言模型对比Dependency Analysis of the Ordering of English Temporal Adverbial Clauses: A Comparison between Learners and Large Language Models
龙怡君,刘海涛
LONG Yijun,LIU Haitao
摘要(Abstract)：
本文基于依存语法理论框架，以英语本族语者为参照，对比不同母语背景的英语学习者和三个大语言模型（DeepSeek、ChatGPT、通义千问）在英语时间状语从句语序分布上的差异，并以依存距离为指标，探究句法复杂度对语序选择的影响。研究发现如下。1）不同母语背景学习者的时间状语从句语序分布存在差异，三个大语言模型生成的时间状语从句均偏离英语目标语的语序分布规律。2）句法复杂度对学习者时间状语从句语序选择的影响因群体而异：与英语本族语者偏好一致（倾向后置）的学习者不受句法复杂度影响，偏好不一致（倾向前置）者则显著受其影响；当句法复杂度和时间顺序象似性原则共同作用时，后者成为首要制约机制。3）三个大语言模型中只有ChatGPT在某种程度上模拟了人类语言加工中的认知约束机制。
Based on the theoretical framework of dependency grammar,this study compared the ordering distribution of English temporal adverbial clauses between English learners from different first-language backgrounds and three large language models(DeepSeek,ChatGPT and Tongyi Qianwen),with native English speakers as the reference group.Using dependency distance as a metric,this study explored the influence of syntactic complexity on ordering selection.The study finds the following:1) The ordering distribution of temporal adverbial clauses varied across learners with different first-language backgrounds.Meanwhile,the ordering patterns generated by the three large language models deviated from those observed in native English speakers.2) The influence of syntactic complexity on the ordering selection of temporal adverbial clauses differed across learner groups.Learners whose ordering preferences aligned with those of native English speakers(a preference for postposed clauses) were not affected by syntactic complexity,whereas those with divergent preferences(a preference for preposed clauses) were significantly affected.When syntactic complexity and the principle of temporal iconicity jointly operated,the latter became the primary constraining mechanism.3) Among the three large language models,only ChatGPT demonstrated some capacity to simulate the cognitive constraints involved in human language processing.
关键词(KeyWords)：
英语学习者;大语言模型;时间状语从句语序分布;依存距离
English learners;large language models;ordering distribution of temporal adverbial clauses;dependency distance
基金项目(Foundation):
作者(Author):
龙怡君,刘海涛
LONG Yijun,LIU Haitao
DOI: 10.19923/j.cnki.fltr.2026.04.002
参考文献(References)：
- 陈春华，2004，英汉时间状语从句位置分布差异及其对英语学生写作的影响——基于CLEC的实证研究[J]，《解放军外国语学院学报》（1）:75–78。
- 丛进、刘海涛，2025，依存距离、方向和层级的相互作用——92种语言句法依存树库的计量研究[J]，《外语教学与研究》（5）:656–668。
- 方子纯，2009，中国EFL学习者时间状语从句位置研究[J]，《外语研究》（6）:56–60。
- 蒋景阳、姜茜茜，2021，中国英语学习者写作中的错误、依存距离与二语水平的关系研究[J]，《语言文字应用》（1）:42–52。
- 李雯雯、王文斌，2022，中国英语学习者时间状语从句语序习得发展的思维模式迁移[J]，《外语电化教学》（5）:66–72。
- 刘海涛，2022，《依存关系与语言网络》[M]。北京：科学出版社。
- 刘海涛，2025，数据驱动语言学的理论基点[J]，《中国社会科学》（4）:184–203。
- 陆前、刘海涛，2016，依存距离分布有规律吗？[J]，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》（4）:63–76。
- 欧阳静慧、蒋景阳，2023，基于依存句法标注语料库的中国大学生英语时间状语从句位置偏好研究[J]，《外语教学与研究》（3）:372–384。
- 王文斌，2013a，论英语的时间性特质与汉语的空间性特质[J]，《外语教学与研究》（2）:163–173。
- 王文斌，2013b，论英汉表象性差异背后的时空特性——从Humboldt的“内蕴语言形式”观谈起[J]，《中国外语》（3）:29–36。
- 王文斌、李雯雯，2021，中国高阶英语习得中时间状语从句与一般过去时关系研究——以英汉时空性差异为视角[J]，《外语界》（1）:37–45。
- 王文斌、李雯雯，2022，从中国高阶英语学习者的时间状语从句语序分布看思维模式迁移[J]，《外语教学理论与实践》（3）:74–84。
- 袁毓林，2024,ChatGPT等大型语言模型对语言学理论的挑战与警示[J]，《当代修辞学》（1）:2–17。
- 周义凯、刘海涛，2024,ChatGPT掌握现代汉语书面语的句长规律了吗？[J]，《语言文字应用》（2）:124–134。
- Cowan, N. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory:A reconsideration of mentalstorage capacity[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24(1):87–114.
- Diessel, H. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses[J].Linguistics 43(3):449–470.
- Diessel, H. 2008. Iconicity of sequence:A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporaladverbial clauses in English[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3):465–490.
- Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity:Locality of syntactic dependencies[J]. Cognition 68(1):1–76.
- Hawkins, J. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 21(2):223–261.
- Kweon, Soo-Ok. 2008. A corpus-based analysis of the ordering of main and adverbial clauses inKorean learners of English[J]. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(1):159–176.
- Liu, Haitao. 2007. Dependency relations and dependency distance:A statistical view based onTreebank[A]. In K. Gerdes, T. Reuther&L. Wanner(eds.), Meaning-Text Theory 2007:Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory[C]. München:OttoSagner. 269–278.
- Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty[J].Journal of Cognitive Science 9(2):159–191.
- Liu, Haitao, Chunshan Xu&Junying Liang. 2017. Dependency distance:A new perspective onsyntactic patterns in natural languages[J]. Physics of Life Reviews 21:171–193.
- Yadav, H., et al. 2020. Word order typology interacts with linguistic complexity:A cross-linguisticcorpus study[J]. Cognitive Science 44(4):Article No. e12822.
- Zipf, G. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort:An Introduction to HumanEcology[M]. Cambridge, MA:Addison-Wesley Press.