• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Complementiser and Complement Clause Preference for Verb-Heads in the Written English of Nigerian Undergraduates

    2018-01-25 08:48:34JulietUdoudomOgbonnaAnyanwu
    Language and Semiotic Studies 2017年4期

    Juliet Udoudom & Ogbonna Anyanwu

    University of Uyo, Nigeria

    1. Introduction

    Linguistic behaviour, whether in native or non-native linguistic environments, is determined by the ability of the language-user to make appropriate linguistic choices from a plethora of alternatives available in the relevant language system. Such choices may be made from the sound system, the vocabulary, the syntactic or the semantic system of the language in use, with the result that appropriate pronunciation is chosen for intelligible speech production to be achieved. Also, suitable lexical items and appropriate collocational patterns are selected for the construction of phrases, clauses, and sentences;and lexical items are utilized for the expression of intended meaning. The linguistic choices made by language users are expectedly informed by the existing linguistic principles governing usages in particular language systems (Lyons, 1981, 2008; Chomsky,1966, 1972; Radford, 1988), even though innovations and creativity are established as inherent properties of natural languages (Banjo, 1995; Yule, 2000; Chomsky, ibid.). For instance, Chomsky (1972) observes in relation to language users’ sentence construction practices:

    The normal use of language is innovative in the sense that much of what we say in the course of normal language use is entirely new, not a repetition of anything that we have heard before,and not even similar in pattern…to sentences or discourse that we have heard in the past.(Chomsky, 1972, p. 12)

    However, linguistic innovations and creativity are expected to be practised in conformity with the norms of the language in use, given that adherence to such norms make for uniformity in usage and cohesiveness within a particular speech community. Some syntactic studies have shown, however, that linguistic principles are not always adhered to; hence, appropriate linguistic choices are not always made. In English non-native linguistic contexts such as in Nigeria, the grammatical constructions of speakers of English as a second language have been observed to be fraught with deviant usages,resulting from inappropriate linguistic choices (Banjo, 1969, 1979; Adesanoye, 1973;Eka, 1979; Jibril, 1979; Jowit, 1991; Alo & Mesthrie, 2008, etc.).

    The present paper investigates an aspect of the syntactic construction of Nigerian users of English as a second language. It specifically examines the preference of complementiser and complement clause type for certain verb-heads by some Nigerian undergraduate users of English. The investigation seeks to determine and highlight the complementiser and complement clause types that are most preferred by the respondents:this is with a view to evaluate the appropriateness of such choices especially when viewed in line with subcategorization features of the verb-heads which select the complementiser and the complement clauses.

    The rest of the paper is organised as follows: in section 2, we provide an overview of clauses in English, while in sections 3 and 4, we present the methodology and data/discussion of the data respectively. Section 5 is the conclusion.

    2. Clauses in English

    A clause is generally considered to be a group of words with its own verb (finite or non-finite) and its own subject, and is capable of functioning as a single unit within the sentence context in which it occurs. Consider the sentences in (1):

    (1) (a) He claimed [that he was hungry]

    (b) The items [which were listed to be bought] have been given to him.

    (c) The men rented the place [when they arrived for the event].

    In (1a-c), the bracketed constituents are clauses functioning as noun object (1a),adjective, describing the noun ‘items’ (1b), and adverbial clause of time (1c). In the same way that clauses can perform object, adjectival or adjunct functions in their containing structures they can also realize complement functions in relevant/appropriate syntactic contexts, since the term ‘complement’ is not a categorial term, but a functional term just as subject and object (cf. Aarts, 2001; Adger, 2003). Traditionally, clauses in English may be distinguished into two types: those which are capable of independent existence and those which are not. The first type of clause is often described variously as a root, independent, super-ordinate, main, matrix or principal clause (Quirk &Greenbaum, 1974). The second type is referred to as a dependent, subordinate or minor clause. This type is so described because it is generally incapable of occurring on its own, instead, it is licensed by some other constituent within the structure in which it occurs for its meaning (ibid., p. 54). It is in this sense that subordinate (minor) clauses are also known as embedded clauses. In (1a-c) above, the bracketed constituents (even though each contains identifiable subjects and verbs) are not independent as shown in(2).

    (2) (a) …that he was hungry

    (b) …which was listed to be bought

    (c) …where the event occurred.

    Each of these needs a syntactic host to function as subject, object or complement (cf.Quirk & Greenbaum, 1974; Quirk et al., 1985; Borsely, 1991; Aarts, 2001; Adger, 2003,etc.). The focus of the present paper, however, is on clauses which function to serve as complements to V-heads in English and the kinds of complementisers which introduce them. We will therefore provide an overview on the nature and structure of the types of subordinate clause which regularly serve as complements of verbs in English.

    2.1 Overview of complement clauses in English

    As stated in the preceding sub-section, clauses which function as complements are typically subordinate clauses, hence they are referred to as complement clauses (Radford,1988, 1997; Borsely, 1991; Aarts, 2001; Adger, 2003; Moravcsik, 2006). Complement clauses are typically introduced by clause-introducers referred to as complementisers.In English,that,whether,forandifare examples of forms that can function as complementisers. The sentences in (3) exemplify complement clauses in English.

    (3) (a) We know for certain [thatthe government will approve the project]

    (b) The forecast could not really say [whetherit would rain tomorrow]

    (c) Both parties would obviously prefer [forthe matter to be resolved amicably]

    (d) They wanted to know [ifthey should come]

    In each of (3a-d), the bracketed constituent is the complement clause. As can be observed,each group of bracketed constituents has a word at the beginning of the group:thatin (a),whetherin (b),forin (c) andifin (d).

    Clauses which function as complements may be classified syntactically into three major sub-types, namely ordinary clauses (OCs), exceptional clauses (ECs), and small clauses (SCs) (Radford, 1988, p. 353). Ordinary clauses like those bracketed in (3) form an S-bar constituent with their immediate constituents: complementiser and sentence (ibid.,p. 294). Complement clauses described as exceptional clauses are typically of the form [NP to VP] as those bracketed in (4) below:

    (4) (a) I know [the Chairman to be honest]

    (b) Some believe [the verdict to be fair]

    (c) I consider [the flight to have arrived early]

    (d) They reported [the matter to be before a judge]

    As can be observed in (4), exceptional clauses cannot be introduced by an overt complementiser such asfor,if,whether, andthat, and this accounts for the ungrammaticality in (5).

    (5) (a) *I know [for the chairman to be honest]

    (b) *Some believe [if the verdict to be fair]

    (c) *I consider [whether the flight to have arrived early]

    (d) *They reported [that the matter to be before a judge]

    Thus, based on this property of exceptional clauses, they have the status of S and not S-bar since they lack the complementisers which are constituents of S-bar (ibid., p. 317). Small clauses on the other hand are those bracketed in (6).

    (6) (a) They want [Mr. Okpon out of the race]

    (b) Some house members believe [the Minister incapable of fraud]

    (c) Most people find [education quite exciting]

    (d) Why not let [everyone into one hall]

    As can be seen, the structure of the bracketed constituents in (6a-d) show that small clauses have the canonical [NP XP] structure, where XP may be instantiated by an adjective phrase, a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase. Also apparent from the structure of small clauses in (6) is that they have neither the C nor the inflection (I)constituents.

    The internal structure of each of the clause types shows that the ordinary clause (S-bar)contains both a C and an I constituent; the exceptional clause contains an I constituent but no C and the small clause lacks both the C and I constituents (ibid, p. 356). The small clause has also been referred to as a “verbless clause” (Radford, ibid.; Eka, 1994). Our focus in the present study is on the ordinary clause. Two reasons inform our focus on this syntactically determined clause-type. A cursory look at their constituent parts shows that an ordinary clause contains a complementiser, which, as will be clear later, determines a head’s selection of an appropriate complement clause. Also, verb-heads in English generally select complement clauses with the [C-S] structure. Thus, a complement clause usually contains a complementiser as an obligatory constituent and such a complementiser heads the ordinary clause (Radford, 1988, p. 295; Adger, 2003, p. 290). We shall briefly examine the structure of ordinary clauses in English.

    2.2 Internal structure of ordinary clauses

    Following the explanation of a clause offered in (2.1) as a group of words with its own subject and verb, the traditional phrase structure (PS) rule expanding clauses is (7), where NP is the maximal phrasal expansion of N, and VP is similarly the maximal phrasal expansion of V.

    (7) S→NP modal (M) VP

    However, as would be observed from the rule in (7), it does not seem to capture the constituent structure in which the subject NP is preceded by a C such asthat,for,whetherorif. Two possibilities regarding the constituent structure of clauses which contain C constituents have been put forward: first by Emonds (1976, p. 142) and Soames and Perlmutter (1976, p. 63) who note that C is generated within S as a sister to the Subject NP of the relevant clause by a rule such as (8), and second, by Bresnan (1970) who argues that a C and S merge to form a larger clausal unit referred to as S-bar (S’). Bresnan’s (1970)analysis incorporates two PS rules as in (9a) and (9b).

    (8) S→C NP M VP

    (9) (a) S’→C S

    (b) S→NP M VP

    The rules in (9) can be represented on a tree schema as in figure 1:

    Figure 1. Tree structure representation of an English S-bar constituent

    However, as Radford (1981) proposes, to accommodate both the finite indicative clauses as well as infinitival complement clauses within a phrase structure rule schema,and also capture the obvious structural parallelism between the N element in indicative clauses and the infinitival particle ‘to’, it is assumed that M and ‘to’ elements are members of the category inflection (I) (following Chomsky, 1981, p. 18). On this proposal therefore the basic internal structure of ordinary clauses is as specified in the two rules in (10):

    (10) (a) S’→C S

    (b) S→NP I VP

    I indicates whether the relevant complement clause is finite or non-finite. Ordinary clauses are therefore of the schematic form in figure 2.

    Figure 2. Tree structure representation of an English ordinary clause

    The present study partly follows both Bresnan’s (1970) and Chomsky’s (1981) analyses of the constituent structure of complement clauses in English. It further assumes that a subordinate clause which functions as a complement role must have a complementiser as one of its immediate and obligatory constituents (Radford, 1988, p. 295; Adger,2003). Due to the centrality of the C constituent in clause complementation, we shall provide an overview on the complementiser highlighting its status as a distinct linguistic category.

    2.3 Complementisers in English: An overview

    Complementisers denote a specific category of words and evidence for the classification of words likethat,whether,forandifas complementisers has been offered in Adger (2003,pp. 290-291) as follows:

    (11) (a) they occur at the start of (hence introduce) embedded clauses;

    (b) they form constituents with the clauses which follow them and not with the embedding verb of the main clause; and

    (c) they would move with their following clauses and not be stranded in the event of pseudo-clefting.

    Following Radford (1988, p. 302), it is assumed here that the C can be expanded into a bundlle of features such as (12).

    (12) C = [±WH, ±FINITE]

    The feature rule of the C constituent in (12) will generate the feature complexes in (13a-d):

    (13) (a) [+WH, +FINITE] can be filled by ‘whether/if’

    (b) [+WH, -FINITE] can be filled by ‘whether’

    (c) [-WH, +FINITE] can be filled by ‘that’

    (d) [-WH, -FINITE] can be filled by ‘for’

    Thus, the features of complementisers in English as specified (13a-d) can be summarized as in (14).

    (14) (a) that = [-WH, +FINITE]

    (b) for = [-WH, -FINITE]

    (c) whether = [+WH, +FINITE]

    (d) if = [+WH, +FINITE]

    The information in (13) and (14) can be expressed in syntactic and morphological terms on the basis of which Radford (1988, p. 302) classifies complmentisers in English. On the syntactic criterion, complementisers can occur in interrogative or noninterrogative clauses and are therefore specified as [+WH]; on the morphological criterion, complementisers may serve to introduce finite or non-finite clauses and thus have the feature specification [+FINITE]. Whereas [+WH] denotes the syntactic feature of complementiser, [+FINITE] specifies their morphological feature. The classificatory and distributional information about complementisers in English shown in (13) and (14)is summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1. Complementisers in English and their pattern of occurrence within complement clauses

    3. Methodology

    The data for this study were obtained from written responses (based on a free composition task designed to elicit grammaticality judgment intuition) of 420 Nigerian undergraduates(respondents) through a stratified random sampling method. The free composition task was designed to test the respondents’ most preferred choices of English complementisers and complement clause types for verb-heads in English within the range of complement clauses headed bythat,whether,orandif. The respondents were drawn from six federal universities: the University of Uyo, Uyo, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguiri,and University of Abuja, Abuja. The justification for the choice of six federal universities is based on the fact that the undergraduate population in the federal universities is representative of the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria, as well as the speakers of the various Nigerian languages. This is because the federal universities in Nigeria operate a state-bystate quota admission system which allows for admission of students in both the Sciences and Arts courses from the different ethnic nationalites (Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ibibio,Edo, Izon, Tiv, etc), especially in states around where a particular federal university is located. Thus, in every federal university in Nigeria, at least six ethnic nationalities are represented.

    The respondents were given a written test which required them to fill out their complementiser preferences to complement clauses of certain verb-heads in English.Some of the complementiser/complement clause-types preferred by the respondents recurred both in the same respondents’ outputs as well as in the choices of other respondents. All the different complentiser choices were sorted out, analyzed, and summarized into a comprehensive list (Tables 2 and 3) .

    4. Presentation and Discussion of Data

    As stated earlier, data for this study were collected through a grammaticality test which was designed to determine respondents’ ability in selecting complementiser/clausal complements which are syntactically and semantically compatible with their associated V-heads. The data elicited from the respondents were analyzed and observed to feature small clauses, exceptional clauses, and ordinary clauses.The results of the study show evidence for the preference of complement clauses introduced by the complementisersthatandwhether. Thus, the complement clauses produced by the respondents featured morethatandwhetherclauses than complement clauses introduced by complementisers likeifandfor. By counting the tokens of occurrence of complemetisers and complemet clause types, and also calculating their simple percentages, it was specifically noted that the total number ofthatclauses was 128, representing 54.46% of the total number of complement clauses produced by the respondents, while the complement clauses introduced by the complementiserwhetherwas 73, representing 31.07% of the total number of complement clauses produced by the respondents. The complement clause type with the higher preference choice is described here as the “preferred choices”, while those with preference choice below 40% are, in the context of the present investigation, referred to as “l(fā)ow preferred choices”. The percentages of preferred and low preferred complement clause choices are shown in Table 2. Table 3 contains the actual instances of the complement clauses produced by the respondents.

    Table 2. Preferred and low preferred complement clause choice in %

    Table 3. Sample of complement clauses in the respondents’ outputs

    * The asterisk is used to indicate respodents’ structures whose grammaticality statuses are in doubt.

    4.1. Preference of complement clauses headed by the that-complementiser

    Respondents’ verb-clause complementation responses presented in Table 3 show that different V-heads select clausal complements introduced by different complementisers(Borsely, 1991; Haegeman, 1994), since the choice of a complement by a V-head is determined largely by semantic considerations (Radford, 1997).

    With respect to the choice of complement clauses, it is clear from Table 3 that the respondents showed preference for complement clauses introduced by the complementiserthat. The 54% recorded forthatclauses among the respondents may be indicative of respondents’ mind set, regardingthatas the appropriate complementiser in the particular contexts given the semantic properties of the embedding verbs as well as the morphological and syntactic properties of the complement clauses with whichthatenters into constituency.

    The first five entries in Table 3 show V-heads which subcategorise for clausal complements introduced bythat. The first two entries in Table 3 feature the V-heads, ‘told’ and‘suggested’. The respondents’ use of the V-heads, ‘told’ and ‘suggested’ shows that each of them takes a nominal and a PP complement in addition to subcategorized clausal complements. It is on this criterion that the two have been analyzed as taking two complements; the nominal/PP complement and the clausal complement headed bythat.The preference ofthatclauses as complements of the V-heads ‘told’ and ‘suggested’ is consistent with the feature rules in (13) and (14). The features of the complementiserthatare [-WH] and [+FINITE], indicating that syntactically,thatusually introduces non-interrogative clausal constituents, and morphologically it occurs in complement clauses whose verbs show morphological contrasts of past and non-past tense. On the semantic dimension, the V-heads ‘told’ and ‘suggested’ are classified as ASSERTIVE predicates (Bresnan, 1970, 1979) on the basis of which each of them selects athat-clause complement (Radford, 1997) which is [+DECLARATIVE] and introduces a statementmaking clause, and not an interrogative one.

    The respondents’ preference choice of thethatclause complements as shown in entries 3, 4, and 5 in Table 3, further demonstrates appropriate intuitive knowledge on the part of the respondents. The embedding verbs ‘thought’, ‘knew’ and ‘realized’ are classified semantically as COGNITIVE verbs (Bresnan, 1979), and on the basis of this semantic property, select clausal complements introduced by the complementiserthat.Each of the clauses in the entries 3, 4, and 5 in Table 3 possesses both the syntactic and the morphological features which clausal complements of the respective V-heads should select as complements. That is, the clausal constituents in entries 3, 4, and 5 are finite,non-interrogative clauses and that is why they are introduced bythat, a complementiser with the features [-WH], [+FINITE].

    Similarly, entries 6, 9, 10, and 11 exemplify felicitous choices by the respondents’showing that the verbal heads ‘preferred’, ‘doubted’ and ‘hoped’ are the verbs of the respective embedded clauses as shown in entiries 6, 9, 10, and 11. The grammaticality pattern in 6-11 is explicable in terms of the fact that, generally, verbs in English impose restrictions on the complementisers which introduce the complement clauses selected to complement them. Such restrictions are in turn determined not only by syntactic and morphological considerations (see figs. 6 and 7), but also by the semantic properties which relevant heads possess, such as MANDATIVE, ASSERTIVE, COGNITIVE, etc.(Bresnan, 1979).

    The embedding verb of Table 3 for entries 6 and 9 is ‘preferred’, and it is characterized semantically as a DESIDERATIVE predicate (Bresnan, 1979, p. 82). Given this semantic property, the verb ‘preferred’ can require a non-infinitival complement clause introduced by a complementiser with the features [-WH], [+FINITE], as occurred in the respondents’ output. The choice of athatclause therefore does not violate the C-selection restrictions of the verb ‘preferred’. Also due to its semantic classification as a DUBITATIVE predicate, the embedding verb in entry 10, ‘doubted’ (Bresnan,1979, p. 67) can require a complement clause introduced by a finite non-interrogative complementiser such as ‘that’ with the features [-WH], [+FINITE]. As is apparent from the data collected, an felicitous choice of the complementiserthatwas made, a choice which does not violate the C-selection principles of complement-taking predicate such as‘doubted’ (Radford, 1997).

    4.2 Preference of complement clauses headed by the whether-complementiser

    A 31.07% choice preference was indicated for complement clauses introduced by the complementiserwhetherin the respondents’ output. Considered against the preference forthatclauses discussed earlier (3.1), respondents’ choice preference forwhetherheaded clauses shows a 23.39% difference. This is significant since it suggests that the respondents were not aware of the linguistic fact that some complementisers possess morphological and syntactic features, which determine the range of complement clauses that they should introduce. With respect to its features, the complementiserwhetheris marked by [+WH], [+FINITE], specifying that it introduces finite interrogative complement causes in morpho-syntactic contexts. On semantic grounds(cf. Bresnan, 1979) thewhether-clause, since it is an interrogative clause itself, occurs after INTERROGATIVE and DUBITATIVE predicates. The choice of interrogative complement clauses introduced by the complementiserwhetherin Table 3, entry 12 is, therefore, consistent with the C-selection principles of the verb-head. However, an analysis of the constituent structure of the embedded clause in entry 13 shows that it is an infinitival sentence. This is signaled by the presence of the infinitival particle ‘to’,which precedes the verb ‘write’. The complementizerwhetherhas the morphological feature [+FINITE] and should introduce embedded clauses with a finite verb. This is not the case with entry 13 in Table 3. To create an appropriate morphological context for the complementiserwhether, the VP of the complement clause has to be finite so that the clause would read ‘whether the union should/could write to the president’.

    Entries 14, 15, 23, and 24 also feature complement clauses introduced by the complementiserwhether. As with the embedding verbs in entries 12 and 13, the embedding verbs of the complement clauses in entries 14, 15, 23 and 24 should require complementisers with the features [+WH], [+FINITE]. It is observed from the respondents’ output that the complementiserwhetheris chosen to introduce the complement clause in entry 14. This is semantically appropriate given the classification of the embedding verb ‘wondered’ as a DUBITATIVE predicate (Bresnan, 1979, p. 82).However, the choice of awhetherclause as the clausal complement of the verb ‘said’ in entry 15 violates the C-selection principle which restricts the choice of a head’s complement to one which is semantically compatible with the head in question—in this case the embedding verb ‘said’. In the entry 15, the verb ‘said’ is characterized as an ASSERTIVE predicate, and therefore, should take athatcomplement such that the entry would be:‘said [that government will increase prices of petroleum products]sincethatis a finite non-interrogative complementiser which normally introduces statement/declarative subordinate clauses.

    Respondents’ choice of the complementiserwhetheras the clause-introducer of the complement clause entry 23 of Table 3 conforms to the C-selection requirements of complement choice on the syntactic, morphological, and semantic criteria. On the syntactic criterion,whetherhas the feature [+WH] since it functions to introduce interrogative complement clauses. On the morphological criterion,whetheris marked by [+FINITE], and can therefore head finite or infinitival clauses in appropriate contexts. The embedding verb ‘decided’ in entry 24 of Table 3 is an ASSERTIVE predicate and should normally be complemented by a statement-making/declarative complement clause, and not an interrogative one as entry 24 indicates. Thus, even though the complementisersthatandwhetherhave a similar morphological feature[+FINITE], they have different syntactic features whilethatis marked for [-WH],whereaswhetheris [+WH]. The difference in syntactic marking makes respondents’preference for ‘whether’ inappropriate in the context of entry 24. The choice of awhetherclause in this instance is explicable in terms of the fact that in Englishwhether/ifare in complementary distribution tothat(Adger, 2003, p. 292): hence the difference in syntactic marking on the two complementiserswhetherandthatseems to have been blurred.

    4.3 Preference of complement clauses headed by the if-complementiser

    Table 3 indicates that a preferred choice of 8.94% was recorded in favour of the complementiserif, a clause-introducer, which, in contrast towhether, ‘can only introduce finite complement clauses’ (Radford, 1988, p. 302). Respondents’ choice of the complementiserifas the clause-introducer of the complement clauses ‘to accept the government’s proposals on the subsidy issue’ (entry 25) and ‘to send the union’s position to the Minister of Labour and Productivity’ (entry 26) violates C-selection restrictions on complements of V-heads on morphological grounds. As is apparent in (13a) and (14d),ifintroduces only finite subordinate clauses, hence it bears the morphological feature [+FINITE].Thus, even though the embedding verb is semantically an interrogative verb, the morphological motivation for its choice is not fulfilled in the complementation contexts under examination. The more appropriate morphological environment for the said complementiser in the two entries are shown in entries 25 and 26.

    Entry 25 ... wondered [if the union can/should accept the government’s proposal on the subsidy issue]

    Entry 26 … did not ask [if the union can/should send her position to the Minister of Labour and Productivity]

    Entries 27, 28, and 29 demonstrate respondents’ intuitive knowledge of C-selection restrictions on the complement clause. As is evident from the data, the choice of the complementiserifsatisfies both the syntactic and the morphological requirements on complementiser choice by the V-heads. Since the complementiserifis marked by [+WH,+FINITE], it is appropriate on these two grounds to introduce the respective complement clauses in the entries. Furthermore, the embedding verbs ‘wondered’, ‘knew’ and ‘a(chǎn)sked’are DUBITATIVE, COGNITIVE, and INTERROGATIVE predicates respectively, and require anifclause complement clause since it (if) is semantically compatible with the semantic properties of the verbs.

    4.4 Preference of complement clauses headed by the for-complementiser

    The complementiserforrecorded the lowest preference choice among the respondents.In terms of its inherent feature,foris specified as [-WH, -FINITE], indicating that syntactically it introduces non-interrogative complement clauses and morphologically occurs in infinitival clauses. The preference score recorded for this complementiser is 5.53%, as Table 3 indicates. This low preference choice may be attributed to the fact that the respondents in this study may have associatedformore with its prepositional function than with its role as a complementiser.

    In Table 3, entries 30, 32, and 33 demonstrate respondents’ familiarity with the semantic properties which V-heads ‘preferred’, ‘dying’, and ‘desired’ possess on the basis of which appropriate C-selection restrictions on complements were enforced. In entry 30, the embedding verb is ‘preferred’. Semantically, it is classified as a MANDATIVE predicate (Quirk, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985, pp. 155-157). Following this the complement clause which should complement the verb ‘preferred’ is one introduced by a noninterrogative infinitival complementiser such asfor. These requirements are met, henceforis an appropriate complementiser choice to introduce the complement clauses subcategorized for by the V-head ‘prefer’.

    The C-selection conditions for the complement clause choice for entries 32 and 33 V-heads ‘dying’ and ‘desired’ are satisfied since ‘dying’ is an EMOTIVE predicate and‘desired’ a DESIDERATIVE predicate (Bresnan, 1979). The complementiserforbears syntactic and morphological features which make it semantically compatible with the V-heads. However, respondents’ preferred choice ofthatas the complement clauseintroducer in entries 31 and 34 is inconsistent with the C-selection restrictions which the V-heads in the entries under study impose on the complementiser introducing their complement clauses. The embedding V-head in entry 31 is ‘was aiming’, classified semantically as a DESIDERATIVE predicate (Bresnan, 1979). It typically takes infinitival complement clauses introduced byfor, which is inherently specified by the features: [-WH,-FINITE], and notthat,which, as has been shown earlier (3.1) introduces finite noninterrogative complement clauses.

    Similarly, the verb ‘a(chǎn)stounded’ in entry 34, owing to its semantic properties as an EMOTIVE predicate (Bresnan, 1979), restricts the complementiser which should introduce its complement clause tofor, since this complementiser bears features semantically compatible with its own. We might say that the more appropriate rendering of entries 31 and 34 are as indicated below:

    Entry 31 … was aiming [for negotiations to commence soon]

    Entry 34 … was astounded the union [for the government to act in such a manner]

    Besides the inappropriate choice of the complementiser for entries 31 and 34 V-heads,the morphological criterion is not met. The clauses in the two entries are finite clauses signaled by the presence of the modals ‘will/can’, whereasforbears the morphological feature [-FINITE].

    5. Conclusion

    This paper has examined complementiser and complement clause preference choice in the written English of some Nigerian undergraduates. The analyses of the data obtained from the respondents showed that both inappropriate and appropriate complement clauses choices were made. The respondents’ outputs showed a general tendency for a high preference ofthatcomplement clauses in comparison to other types of clause. It is also observed from the respondents’ choices that complementisers constitute a distinct category of items, possessing idiosyncratic morphological, syntactic and semantic features which are sensitive to the choice of the type of complement clauses they introduce. Thus, the morphological, syntactic, and semantic features of a complementiser must be compatible with the morphological, syntactic and semantic features of the complement clause with which the complementiser enters into constituency. This is also in line with the fact that selecting predicates (V-heads) may reject certain complement clauses on account of the complementiser which introduces the complement clause. The consequence of the failure in satisfying this requirement results in some of the infelicitous complement sentences found in respondents’ outputs.

    Aarts, B. (2001).English syntax and argumentation(2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Publishers.

    Adesanoye, F. (1973).Varieties of written English in Nigeria(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Ibadan.

    Adger, D. (2003).Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Alo, M. A., & Mesthrie, R. (2008). Nigerian English: Morphology and syntax. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.),Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia(pp. 323-339). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.

    Banjo, A. (1979). Beyond intelligibility. In E. Ubahakwe (Ed.),Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria(pp. 7-13). Ibadan: African University Press.

    Banjo, A. (1995). On codifying Nigerian English: Research so far. In A. Bamgbose et al. (Eds.),New Englishes: A West African perspective(pp. 203-231). Ibadan: Mosuro Publishers.

    Borsely, R. D. (1991).Syntactic theory: A unified approach. London: Edward Arnold.

    Bresnan, J. W. (1970). On complementisers: Towards a syntactic theory of complement types.Foundations of Language,6, 297-327.

    Bresnan, J. W. (1979).Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York: Garland.

    Chomsky, N. (1966).Topics in the theory of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.

    Chomsky, N. (1972).Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Chomsky, N. (1981).Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Culicover, P. W. (1976).Syntax. New York: Academic Press.

    Eka, D. (1979).A comparative study of Efik and English phonology(Unpublished master’s thesis).Ahmadu Bello University.

    Emonds, J. E. (1976).A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.

    Haegeman, L. (1994).Introduction to government and binding theory. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

    Jowit, D. (1991).Nigerian English usage: An introduction. Ibadan: Heineman.

    Jubril, M. (1979). Regional variation in Nigerian spoken English. In E. Ubahakwe (Ed.),Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria(pp. 43-53). Ibadan: African University Press.

    Lyons, J. (1981).Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Moravcsik, E. (2006).An introduction to syntax: Fundamentals to syntactic analysis. London:Continuum.

    Quirk, R., & Greenbaun, S. (1974).A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.

    Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985).A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

    Radford, A. (1981).Transformational syntax: A students’ guide to Chomsky’s extended standard theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Radford, A. (1988).Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Radford, A. (1997).Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Soames, S., & Perlmutter, D. M. (1979).Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English.Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Yule, G. (2000).The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 日韩欧美三级三区| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 青草久久国产| 91成年电影在线观看| 免费少妇av软件| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 国产单亲对白刺激| 免费看十八禁软件| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 欧美午夜高清在线| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| kizo精华| 免费少妇av软件| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 久久人妻av系列| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| tocl精华| 欧美日韩黄片免| 国产又爽黄色视频| 视频区图区小说| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 在线播放国产精品三级| 在线天堂中文资源库| 国产av国产精品国产| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 窝窝影院91人妻| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 老司机影院毛片| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 欧美在线黄色| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 91成人精品电影| 日本五十路高清| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 精品国产亚洲在线| 91字幕亚洲| 精品亚洲成国产av| 天天影视国产精品| 搡老岳熟女国产| av视频免费观看在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产精品免费大片| 国产精品电影一区二区三区 | 久久久国产一区二区| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 极品教师在线免费播放| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 国产区一区二久久| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 久久性视频一级片| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 成人国语在线视频| 人人澡人人妻人| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 91字幕亚洲| av线在线观看网站| 精品一区二区三卡| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 午夜福利欧美成人| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 国产成人精品在线电影| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 中文欧美无线码| 国产av又大| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 亚洲av美国av| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 日本a在线网址| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 久久香蕉激情| 国产男女内射视频| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 91老司机精品| 午夜91福利影院| 高清欧美精品videossex| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 午夜视频精品福利| www.自偷自拍.com| 99re在线观看精品视频| 人妻一区二区av| 成在线人永久免费视频| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 黄频高清免费视频| av网站免费在线观看视频| 国产av又大| 大码成人一级视频| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 精品久久久精品久久久| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 999精品在线视频| 18禁观看日本| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 91精品三级在线观看| av有码第一页| 满18在线观看网站| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 老司机福利观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 国产精品免费视频内射| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 丁香六月天网| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲综合色网址| 看免费av毛片| a级毛片黄视频| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 一级片'在线观看视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 曰老女人黄片| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 精品一区二区三卡| 五月开心婷婷网| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 超色免费av| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 国产麻豆69| 大码成人一级视频| 精品第一国产精品| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 国产野战对白在线观看| av在线播放免费不卡| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 精品福利永久在线观看| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 国产激情久久老熟女| 丝袜美足系列| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 香蕉丝袜av| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 久久青草综合色| 一本久久精品| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 99久久人妻综合| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 制服诱惑二区| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 一级毛片电影观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 久久久久国内视频| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 欧美大码av| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| av天堂在线播放| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| av视频免费观看在线观看| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 天堂动漫精品| 精品福利永久在线观看| 精品国产一区二区久久| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 欧美在线黄色| 69av精品久久久久久 | 水蜜桃什么品种好| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| av有码第一页| 成人免费观看视频高清| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久 | 极品教师在线免费播放| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 午夜免费鲁丝| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 久久热在线av| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 18在线观看网站| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 国产又爽黄色视频| 色94色欧美一区二区| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 国产成人系列免费观看| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 老熟女久久久| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 免费观看av网站的网址| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 国产精品免费视频内射| tube8黄色片| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 免费不卡黄色视频| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 精品福利观看| 另类精品久久| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 极品教师在线免费播放| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 久热这里只有精品99| 性少妇av在线| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说 | 青草久久国产| 色综合婷婷激情| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| av网站在线播放免费| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲国产av新网站| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 宅男免费午夜| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 久久久精品区二区三区| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 欧美在线一区亚洲| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 日本欧美视频一区| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| av不卡在线播放| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 青草久久国产| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| tube8黄色片| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 91麻豆av在线| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 在线 av 中文字幕| 岛国毛片在线播放| 高清av免费在线| 91成人精品电影| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 无人区码免费观看不卡 | 免费高清在线观看日韩| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 电影成人av| 午夜91福利影院| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 在线av久久热| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 在线看a的网站| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| kizo精华| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 久久久久国内视频| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 国产激情久久老熟女| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 久久热在线av| av在线播放免费不卡| 精品国产一区二区久久| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 国产1区2区3区精品| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 一级毛片电影观看| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 亚洲av美国av| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 成在线人永久免费视频| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 无人区码免费观看不卡 | 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 香蕉丝袜av| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| av网站在线播放免费| 免费看a级黄色片| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 精品福利永久在线观看| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 日本av免费视频播放| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 久久 成人 亚洲| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 亚洲国产av新网站| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 久9热在线精品视频| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 成人免费观看视频高清| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 蜜桃在线观看..| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 婷婷成人精品国产| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 免费观看人在逋| netflix在线观看网站| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 久久人妻av系列| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 欧美日韩黄片免| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| av有码第一页| 窝窝影院91人妻| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 成人国产av品久久久| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 18禁观看日本| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 久久九九热精品免费| 在线 av 中文字幕| 男女免费视频国产| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 久久中文字幕一级| 9191精品国产免费久久| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 亚洲国产av新网站| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 另类精品久久| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 精品国产亚洲在线| 18在线观看网站| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 咕卡用的链子| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲av电影在线进入| netflix在线观看网站| 老司机影院毛片| 精品高清国产在线一区| 五月开心婷婷网| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 精品福利永久在线观看| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 精品福利永久在线观看| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 亚洲第一青青草原| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 曰老女人黄片| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 久久青草综合色| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 高清毛片免费观看视频网站 | 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站 | 1024视频免费在线观看| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 免费观看av网站的网址| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲九九香蕉| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 曰老女人黄片| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 成人免费观看视频高清| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 国产高清激情床上av| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 91成年电影在线观看| a级毛片黄视频| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 十八禁网站免费在线| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| av不卡在线播放| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产单亲对白刺激| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 91av网站免费观看| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 不卡av一区二区三区| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 夫妻午夜视频| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 午夜91福利影院| 黄频高清免费视频| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 99国产精品99久久久久| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 一本久久精品| 中国美女看黄片| 中文字幕制服av| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 黄色怎么调成土黄色|