• <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.

    一本久久精品| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 亚洲最大成人中文| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| www.色视频.com| 日本五十路高清| 色网站视频免费| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 91精品国产九色| 国产在视频线精品| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产三级在线视频| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 在线播放国产精品三级| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| av在线播放精品| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| or卡值多少钱| 色综合站精品国产| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 七月丁香在线播放| 国产成人91sexporn| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 久久久久久久久大av| 精品久久久久久久久av| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 如何舔出高潮| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 中文字幕久久专区| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产高潮美女av| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产精品,欧美在线| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 中文字幕制服av| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 久久久久国产网址| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产成人福利小说| 免费av毛片视频| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 全区人妻精品视频| av福利片在线观看| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| av专区在线播放| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 内地一区二区视频在线| 丝袜喷水一区| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 国产成人aa在线观看| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 舔av片在线| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 1000部很黄的大片| 国产老妇女一区| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| av在线亚洲专区| 免费观看精品视频网站| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 中文资源天堂在线| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 亚洲av一区综合| 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产成人91sexporn| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 亚洲综合色惰| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 欧美bdsm另类| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 久久99精品国语久久久| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 免费观看在线日韩| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 成年版毛片免费区| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国产91av在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 亚洲成色77777| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 色网站视频免费| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 国产老妇女一区| www.av在线官网国产| 麻豆成人av视频| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 成人综合一区亚洲| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 日韩视频在线欧美| 日本一本二区三区精品| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 永久免费av网站大全| 伦精品一区二区三区| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国产91av在线免费观看| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 免费看日本二区| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 青春草国产在线视频| 欧美3d第一页| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国产乱来视频区| 亚洲人成网站在线播| av黄色大香蕉| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆 | a级毛色黄片| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲无线观看免费| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 精品酒店卫生间| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 全区人妻精品视频| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 日日啪夜夜撸| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 美女黄网站色视频| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 乱人视频在线观看| 国产免费视频播放在线视频 | 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 欧美成人a在线观看| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 亚洲图色成人| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 亚洲最大成人中文| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 22中文网久久字幕| 精品久久久久久电影网 | 一级爰片在线观看| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 色视频www国产| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 岛国毛片在线播放| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 日本午夜av视频| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 午夜免费激情av| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 午夜视频国产福利| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 两个人视频免费观看高清| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 三级毛片av免费| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 丝袜喷水一区| 看免费成人av毛片| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 黄片wwwwww| 久久精品影院6| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 久久久久性生活片| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 国产午夜精品论理片| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 国产一级毛片在线| 亚洲不卡免费看| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说 | 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 91av网一区二区| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看 | av女优亚洲男人天堂| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 亚洲综合精品二区| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 精品国产三级普通话版| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 一本久久精品| 99热这里只有精品一区| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 亚洲av男天堂| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 在现免费观看毛片| 一级av片app| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 少妇的逼好多水| 六月丁香七月| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 在线播放无遮挡| 中文天堂在线官网| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 精品久久久久久久末码| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产老妇女一区| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 成人二区视频| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 三级经典国产精品| 国产极品天堂在线| 亚州av有码| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 高清视频免费观看一区二区 | .国产精品久久| 日本与韩国留学比较| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | av在线蜜桃| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 美女黄网站色视频| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 大香蕉久久网| av免费观看日本| 综合色丁香网| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 国产黄片美女视频| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 久久精品影院6| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 一级av片app| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 久久久精品94久久精品| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲成色77777| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看 | 只有这里有精品99| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 99热这里只有是精品50| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 免费看av在线观看网站| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 欧美性感艳星| 久99久视频精品免费| 久久久欧美国产精品| 免费看a级黄色片| 日韩强制内射视频| 99久国产av精品| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 精品国产三级普通话版| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 嫩草影院新地址| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 全区人妻精品视频| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 乱人视频在线观看| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产老妇女一区| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 国产毛片a区久久久久| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 国产在线一区二区三区精 | 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 精品久久久噜噜| av国产免费在线观看| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 好男人视频免费观看在线| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 久久精品影院6| 亚洲图色成人| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 一级黄片播放器| 国产乱人视频| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 色播亚洲综合网| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 久久精品夜色国产| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 亚洲五月天丁香| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲av.av天堂| 老司机福利观看| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 久99久视频精品免费| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 老司机影院成人| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 高清av免费在线| 99久久人妻综合| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 99久国产av精品| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 99热精品在线国产| 七月丁香在线播放| 老司机福利观看| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 亚洲成色77777| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 精品酒店卫生间| 欧美zozozo另类| 久久久久久久久久成人| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 成人综合一区亚洲| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 久久精品影院6| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 秋霞伦理黄片| 高清av免费在线| 国产色婷婷99| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 久久99精品国语久久久| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 在线免费十八禁| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国产在视频线精品| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲在线观看片| 国产精品,欧美在线| av线在线观看网站| 午夜a级毛片| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | av女优亚洲男人天堂| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 51国产日韩欧美| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 三级毛片av免费| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 99热全是精品| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 99热全是精品| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说 | 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 欧美日本视频| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 色综合色国产| 亚洲综合精品二区| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 久久精品夜色国产| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 成年免费大片在线观看| 成人三级黄色视频| 亚洲不卡免费看| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 亚洲av一区综合| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 久久6这里有精品| 小说图片视频综合网站| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 国产乱人视频| 极品教师在线视频| 久久这里只有精品中国| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产av不卡久久| av在线亚洲专区| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 国产一级毛片在线| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产成人福利小说| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 嫩草影院入口| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 日韩欧美三级三区| 赤兔流量卡办理| 日本免费a在线| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 欧美色视频一区免费| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说 | 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 色吧在线观看| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 综合色丁香网| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| eeuss影院久久| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕|