现代汉语让步条件句认知研究
|
摘要
本课题运用认知语言学、篇章语言学、功能语法、类型学、语法化等理论从语义、句法、语用、篇章等角度力图全面、充分考察现代汉语让步条件句。我们的分析显示，构式语法、原型范畴、主观性可有效描写各种类型的让步条件句。
全文共分8章，首尾两章为绪论和结论，其他各章如下。
第2章讨论了让步条件句的定义、分类，句法语义特征。让步句表反因果关系，分为事实让步句和让步条件句。事实让步句表同因异果，而让步条件句表异因同果。让步条件句是表达多个不同的条件下具有同一结果的句子，既是让步句又是条件句。让步条件句的共有语义特征有：多条件性、同果性、无关性。现代汉语让步条件句可分为三种：单项让步条件句；双项让步条件句；全项让步条件句。
第3章讨论了让步条件句的构式网络和扩展机制。三种让步条件句因其句法或语义的某些方面不能从其构成成分的特征或语法中已经存在的其他构式推导出来,因此都是构式。三种让步条件构式是基本层次范畴，让步条件构式则是它们的上位范畴。三种让步条件句以复句为原型，扩展出具有家族相似性的内部网络和外部网络。扩展出的各构式继承了原型构式的多因性和同果性，保留、改变和丢失了反因果性、无关性、预设性、级差性、虚拟性、条件关系等语义特征。因此，可把所有让步条件句的语义概括为“多元同一”。原型构式衍生出单句构式有泛化、隐喻、转喻等机制，涉及多义性连接、隐喻扩展连接、实例连接等。
第4章讨论了让步条件句的主观性。让步条件句具有强主观性，虚拟性、情态、语义级差、让步标记等方面反映了说话人的视角、情感和认识。三种让步条件句的认知图式是说话人对同一概念内容从不同角度识解的结果，反映说话人的不同视角和扫描方式。带虚拟义的单项让步条件句经常表达愿望、建议、请求、抱怨、遗憾等，体现了说话人的情感。让步条件句中经常出现情态助动词，后分句经常是否定句，反映了说话人的态度、判断、意欲、评价等主观认识和情感。单项让步条件句的级差义也是一种主观认识。此外，有些让步条件标记含有心理义和主观否定义。
第5章讨论了让步条件句在语篇层面的问题。让步条件句，尤其是单项让步条件句，的基本语用功能是在语篇中做背景信息，补充说明、辅助论证某个主题。让步条件句与前文有四种衔接方式：①p与前文有联系；②q与前文有联系；③p、q分别与前文有联系；④整句与前文有逻辑联系。具体衔接手段有：照应、连接词及词汇衔接。让步条件句的篇章结构功能主要有三种：承接上文；承上转下；归总前文。单项让步条件句中“即使p也q”使用频率最高，多出现于书面语中，“哪怕p也q”、“就算p也q”多出现在口语中，“任凭p也q”、“纵使p也q”使用频率很低。
第6章考察了让步条件标记的语义来源。现代汉语让步条件句标记的来源与让步条件句的级差义、无关义、虚拟义有关。让步条件标记“即X”类、“就X”类、“宁X”类来源于级差义和虚拟义。“哪怕”类、“任X”类、“纵X”类、“不X”类来源于无关义和虚拟义。与跨语言研究成果比较发现，现代汉语让步条件标记的产生和发展具有跨语言的共性。
第7章考察了让步条件句的共时变异和历时演变。单项让步条件构式与事实让步、全项让步条件、递进、选择、条件构式有语义关联，前人关于与连词有关的语义地图需要修正。让步条件句语法化的基本方向是：语义上由双事件向单事件发展，句法上由主从句向单句演变。此外，还有部分让步条件句演变为事实让步复句。让步条件句演变的动因和机制有：泛化、推理、主观化、语境吸收，认知凸显等。
由以上具体结论，可获得如下宏观认识。
1.现代汉语让步句表反因果关系，分为事实让步句和让步条件句。让步条件句包含单项让步条件句、双项让步条件句、全项让步条件句。将三者归为同一个范畴是基于三者在句法、语义、语用、篇章、演化等多方面具有共性，而同属让步句的事实让步句却不具备这些共性。这些共性有：1）都有多条件性、同果性、无关性语义；2）都由作为原型的复句扩展出单句构式，单项让步条件句和全项让步条件句还都扩展出“p，但q”构式；3）功能上主要是在语篇中做背景信息，补充说明、辅助论证某个主题；4）单项让步条件句和全项让步条件句都具有较强的主观性；5）标记的语义来源都与无关义或级差义有关，标记中的动词性成分都有心理义。
2.三种句子各自都是原型范畴，并各自以复句为原型扩展出多个边缘构式，形成各自的构式网络，表达“多元同一”意义。
3.三种句式内部，单项让步条件句和全项让步条件句的语义、功能共性较多，单项让步条件句的扩展构式最多、所表功能最多。
4.单项让步条件句和双项让步条件句分别与全项让步条件句具有语义、演变上的联系，后者系由前二者演变而来。
This work attempted to offer a comprehensive, descriptively adequate account ofconcessive conditionals in modern Chinese from a semantic, syntactic, pragmatic anddiscourse perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, Text Linguistics, Functional Grammar,Language Typology, Grammaticalization theory are used in the paper. The analysis showscognitive approach such as Construction Grammar, Prototype Categories，Subjectivity cansuccessfully describe all kinds of concessive conditionals.
The paper is divided into eight chapters. The first chapter is the introduction and thelast one the conclusion, other chapters are as follows.
Chapter2discusses the definition, classification, syntactic and semantic features ofconcessive conditionals. Concessions in modern Chinese indicates Anti-causal relationship,are divided into factual concessions and concessive conditionals. factual concessionsexpress that the same cause lead to the different effects, but concessive conditionalsexpress that the different causes lead to the same effect. Concessive conditionals aresentences that indicate that there is the same consequence under the some differentconditions, are both concessions and conditionals. The common semantic features ofconcessive conditionals as follows: multi-conditionals, the same consequence, irrelevance.Concessive conditionals are divided into three subtypes: one-condition concessiveconditionals, two-condition concessive conditionals and universal concessive conditionals.
Chapter3discusses construction network of concessions conditionals and mechanismof extension. Three concessive conditionals constructions all are construction becausecertain aspects of their syntax or semantics cannot be derived from the properties of theircomponent parts or from other constructions existing in the language. Three concessiveconditionals constructions are basic level categories, and concessive conditionalsconstructions is their superordinate categories. each of three constructions evolves intosome untypical or marginal constructions based on compound sentence as the prototype,forms internal and external networks of constructions with family resemblance. Each ofderived constructions inherits some semantic features such as multi-condition,same-consequence, and retains, changes and loses such semantic features as anti-cause,irrelevance, presupposition, scalarity, irrealis, conditional relation. So the meaning of allthe concessions conditionals can be generalized into "multiple things are the same". Themechanisms for prototype construction developing into other constructions are generalization, metaphor, metonymy and so on, and the means of link are polysemy links,metaphorical extension links, and instance links.
Chapter4discusses subjectivity of concessive conditionals. concessive conditionalsshow strong subjectivity, and some elements such as irrealis, modal, semantic scalarity,concessive markers reflect the speaker's cognitive perspective, affect and epistemic status.The cognitive schema of three concessive conditionals is a result that the speakersconstrue the same conceptual content from a different point of view of knowledge,reflecting different perspectives and mental scanning of the speaker. One-conditionconcessive conditionals with virtual meaning often express desire, proposal, request,complaining and so on, which reflects the feelings of the speaker. Most of concessiveconditionals have modal auxiliary, and their latter clauses are often negative sentence,which reflects the speaker's subjective awareness and emotional such as attitude, judgment,sentiment and evaluation. In addition, scalarity of one-condition concessive conditionalsalso is subjective cognition, and some markers of concessive conditionals contain mentalmeaning and subjective negative meaning.
Chapter5discusses how concessive conditionals exit in discourse. The basicpragmatic function of concessive conditionals, especially one-condition concessiveconditionals, is to serve as discourse background information to clarify a topic, a point.There are four ways by which concessive conditionals tie the preceding sentences:1） pties the preceding sentences;2）q ties the preceding sentences;3）p, q tie the precedingsentences respectively;4） The whole sentence is related logically to the precedingsentences. Concrete means of cohesion are: anaphora, conjunction and lexical cohesion.There are three discourse structure function of concessive conditionals: to connect theabove text; to connect the above and the following text; summarize the preceding text.Among one-condition concessive conditionals, sentence "jishi p ye q" has the highestfrequency of use, appears normally in the written language,"napa p ye q","jiusuan p ye q"often appear in the spoken language," renping p ye q " and " zongshi p ye q "have thelowest frequency of use.
Chapter6examines semantic source of markers of concessive conditionals. Thesemantic source of markers of concessive conditionals in modern Chinese is correlatedwith such meanings as scalarity, irrelevance, irrealis. Among concession conditionsmarkers,"ji X" categories,"jiu X" categories,"ning X" categories origin from themeaning of scalarity, irrealis;"napa" categories,"ren X" categories,"zong X" categories origin from the meaning of irrelevance, irrealis. Compared with the cross-languageresearch foundings, it is claimed that the emergence and development of markers ofconcessions condition in modern Chinese show a cross-language language universaltendencies.
Chapter7examines synchronic variation and diachronic evolution of concessiveconditionals. One-condition concessive conditionals correlate semantically with thefactual concessions, universal concessive conditionals, progressive compound sentences,disjunctive compound sentences, conditions compound sentences, and according to thissemantic correlation we amended the previous semantic map for conjunctions. The basicdirection of grammaticalization of concessive conditionals is as follows: developing fromdual events to a single event semantically; developing from compound sentences to asingle clause syntactically. In addition, some of concessive conditionals change intofactual concessions. The motivation and mechanism for concessive conditionals to changeare as follows: generalization, inference, subjectivisation, absorb of text, cognitiveprominence.
From the above specific conclusions, the following views are obtained.
First, Concessions in modern Chinese indicates Anti-causal relationship, are dividedinto factual concessions and concessive conditionals. Concessive conditionals are dividedinto three subtypes: one-condition concessive conditional(abbreviated as OCC),two-condition concessive conditional(abbreviated as TCC) and universal concessiveconditional(abbreviated as UCC).The reason why these three subtypes are analyzed assubtypes of one general construction type is that they all have many commoncharacteristics in semantics, syntax, pragmatics, discourse and diachronic change, butfactual concessions have not these ones. These common characteristics are as follows.1）These three constructions all imply such semantic features as multi-conditionals, the sameconsequence, irrelevance;2） All develop into a clause based on a compound sentence asprototype,and one-condition concessive conditional and universal concessive conditionaldevelop into factual concessions “p，but q”;3）Their pragmatic function is to encodebackground information in discourse, such as elaborating on a foregoing statement orexplicate one's point;4） both one-condition concessive conditional and universalconcessive conditional exhibit strong subjectivity;5） Semantic origins of these markersof concessive conditionals is all related to such meaning as irrelevance or scalarity，andverbal component of these markers all denote psychological meaning;6） individual concessions conditional and full concession conditions based on the generalizationmechanism to develop a single sentence, evolved out of the fact concessive complexsentences.
Second, the three kinds of sentences all are prototype categories, and each evolve sfrom compound sentence as a prototype to some untypical or marginal constructions,forms the respective network of construction, expresses the meaning of "multiple thingsare the same ".
Third, there exit a great number of semantic, functional commonalities betweenone-condition concessive conditionals and universal concessive conditionals among thesethree constructions, and one-condition concessive conditionals evolve into the mostconstructions, express the most pragmatic function.
Fourth, one-condition concessive conditional and two-condition concessiveconditionals relate to semantically and diachronically universal concessive conditional,the latter evolved from the former two.
全文共分8章，首尾两章为绪论和结论，其他各章如下。
第2章讨论了让步条件句的定义、分类，句法语义特征。让步句表反因果关系，分为事实让步句和让步条件句。事实让步句表同因异果，而让步条件句表异因同果。让步条件句是表达多个不同的条件下具有同一结果的句子，既是让步句又是条件句。让步条件句的共有语义特征有：多条件性、同果性、无关性。现代汉语让步条件句可分为三种：单项让步条件句；双项让步条件句；全项让步条件句。
第3章讨论了让步条件句的构式网络和扩展机制。三种让步条件句因其句法或语义的某些方面不能从其构成成分的特征或语法中已经存在的其他构式推导出来,因此都是构式。三种让步条件构式是基本层次范畴，让步条件构式则是它们的上位范畴。三种让步条件句以复句为原型，扩展出具有家族相似性的内部网络和外部网络。扩展出的各构式继承了原型构式的多因性和同果性，保留、改变和丢失了反因果性、无关性、预设性、级差性、虚拟性、条件关系等语义特征。因此，可把所有让步条件句的语义概括为“多元同一”。原型构式衍生出单句构式有泛化、隐喻、转喻等机制，涉及多义性连接、隐喻扩展连接、实例连接等。
第4章讨论了让步条件句的主观性。让步条件句具有强主观性，虚拟性、情态、语义级差、让步标记等方面反映了说话人的视角、情感和认识。三种让步条件句的认知图式是说话人对同一概念内容从不同角度识解的结果，反映说话人的不同视角和扫描方式。带虚拟义的单项让步条件句经常表达愿望、建议、请求、抱怨、遗憾等，体现了说话人的情感。让步条件句中经常出现情态助动词，后分句经常是否定句，反映了说话人的态度、判断、意欲、评价等主观认识和情感。单项让步条件句的级差义也是一种主观认识。此外，有些让步条件标记含有心理义和主观否定义。
第5章讨论了让步条件句在语篇层面的问题。让步条件句，尤其是单项让步条件句，的基本语用功能是在语篇中做背景信息，补充说明、辅助论证某个主题。让步条件句与前文有四种衔接方式：①p与前文有联系；②q与前文有联系；③p、q分别与前文有联系；④整句与前文有逻辑联系。具体衔接手段有：照应、连接词及词汇衔接。让步条件句的篇章结构功能主要有三种：承接上文；承上转下；归总前文。单项让步条件句中“即使p也q”使用频率最高，多出现于书面语中，“哪怕p也q”、“就算p也q”多出现在口语中，“任凭p也q”、“纵使p也q”使用频率很低。
第6章考察了让步条件标记的语义来源。现代汉语让步条件句标记的来源与让步条件句的级差义、无关义、虚拟义有关。让步条件标记“即X”类、“就X”类、“宁X”类来源于级差义和虚拟义。“哪怕”类、“任X”类、“纵X”类、“不X”类来源于无关义和虚拟义。与跨语言研究成果比较发现，现代汉语让步条件标记的产生和发展具有跨语言的共性。
第7章考察了让步条件句的共时变异和历时演变。单项让步条件构式与事实让步、全项让步条件、递进、选择、条件构式有语义关联，前人关于与连词有关的语义地图需要修正。让步条件句语法化的基本方向是：语义上由双事件向单事件发展，句法上由主从句向单句演变。此外，还有部分让步条件句演变为事实让步复句。让步条件句演变的动因和机制有：泛化、推理、主观化、语境吸收，认知凸显等。
由以上具体结论，可获得如下宏观认识。
1.现代汉语让步句表反因果关系，分为事实让步句和让步条件句。让步条件句包含单项让步条件句、双项让步条件句、全项让步条件句。将三者归为同一个范畴是基于三者在句法、语义、语用、篇章、演化等多方面具有共性，而同属让步句的事实让步句却不具备这些共性。这些共性有：1）都有多条件性、同果性、无关性语义；2）都由作为原型的复句扩展出单句构式，单项让步条件句和全项让步条件句还都扩展出“p，但q”构式；3）功能上主要是在语篇中做背景信息，补充说明、辅助论证某个主题；4）单项让步条件句和全项让步条件句都具有较强的主观性；5）标记的语义来源都与无关义或级差义有关，标记中的动词性成分都有心理义。
2.三种句子各自都是原型范畴，并各自以复句为原型扩展出多个边缘构式，形成各自的构式网络，表达“多元同一”意义。
3.三种句式内部，单项让步条件句和全项让步条件句的语义、功能共性较多，单项让步条件句的扩展构式最多、所表功能最多。
4.单项让步条件句和双项让步条件句分别与全项让步条件句具有语义、演变上的联系，后者系由前二者演变而来。
This work attempted to offer a comprehensive, descriptively adequate account ofconcessive conditionals in modern Chinese from a semantic, syntactic, pragmatic anddiscourse perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, Text Linguistics, Functional Grammar,Language Typology, Grammaticalization theory are used in the paper. The analysis showscognitive approach such as Construction Grammar, Prototype Categories，Subjectivity cansuccessfully describe all kinds of concessive conditionals.
The paper is divided into eight chapters. The first chapter is the introduction and thelast one the conclusion, other chapters are as follows.
Chapter2discusses the definition, classification, syntactic and semantic features ofconcessive conditionals. Concessions in modern Chinese indicates Anti-causal relationship,are divided into factual concessions and concessive conditionals. factual concessionsexpress that the same cause lead to the different effects, but concessive conditionalsexpress that the different causes lead to the same effect. Concessive conditionals aresentences that indicate that there is the same consequence under the some differentconditions, are both concessions and conditionals. The common semantic features ofconcessive conditionals as follows: multi-conditionals, the same consequence, irrelevance.Concessive conditionals are divided into three subtypes: one-condition concessiveconditionals, two-condition concessive conditionals and universal concessive conditionals.
Chapter3discusses construction network of concessions conditionals and mechanismof extension. Three concessive conditionals constructions all are construction becausecertain aspects of their syntax or semantics cannot be derived from the properties of theircomponent parts or from other constructions existing in the language. Three concessiveconditionals constructions are basic level categories, and concessive conditionalsconstructions is their superordinate categories. each of three constructions evolves intosome untypical or marginal constructions based on compound sentence as the prototype,forms internal and external networks of constructions with family resemblance. Each ofderived constructions inherits some semantic features such as multi-condition,same-consequence, and retains, changes and loses such semantic features as anti-cause,irrelevance, presupposition, scalarity, irrealis, conditional relation. So the meaning of allthe concessions conditionals can be generalized into "multiple things are the same". Themechanisms for prototype construction developing into other constructions are generalization, metaphor, metonymy and so on, and the means of link are polysemy links,metaphorical extension links, and instance links.
Chapter4discusses subjectivity of concessive conditionals. concessive conditionalsshow strong subjectivity, and some elements such as irrealis, modal, semantic scalarity,concessive markers reflect the speaker's cognitive perspective, affect and epistemic status.The cognitive schema of three concessive conditionals is a result that the speakersconstrue the same conceptual content from a different point of view of knowledge,reflecting different perspectives and mental scanning of the speaker. One-conditionconcessive conditionals with virtual meaning often express desire, proposal, request,complaining and so on, which reflects the feelings of the speaker. Most of concessiveconditionals have modal auxiliary, and their latter clauses are often negative sentence,which reflects the speaker's subjective awareness and emotional such as attitude, judgment,sentiment and evaluation. In addition, scalarity of one-condition concessive conditionalsalso is subjective cognition, and some markers of concessive conditionals contain mentalmeaning and subjective negative meaning.
Chapter5discusses how concessive conditionals exit in discourse. The basicpragmatic function of concessive conditionals, especially one-condition concessiveconditionals, is to serve as discourse background information to clarify a topic, a point.There are four ways by which concessive conditionals tie the preceding sentences:1） pties the preceding sentences;2）q ties the preceding sentences;3）p, q tie the precedingsentences respectively;4） The whole sentence is related logically to the precedingsentences. Concrete means of cohesion are: anaphora, conjunction and lexical cohesion.There are three discourse structure function of concessive conditionals: to connect theabove text; to connect the above and the following text; summarize the preceding text.Among one-condition concessive conditionals, sentence "jishi p ye q" has the highestfrequency of use, appears normally in the written language,"napa p ye q","jiusuan p ye q"often appear in the spoken language," renping p ye q " and " zongshi p ye q "have thelowest frequency of use.
Chapter6examines semantic source of markers of concessive conditionals. Thesemantic source of markers of concessive conditionals in modern Chinese is correlatedwith such meanings as scalarity, irrelevance, irrealis. Among concession conditionsmarkers,"ji X" categories,"jiu X" categories,"ning X" categories origin from themeaning of scalarity, irrealis;"napa" categories,"ren X" categories,"zong X" categories origin from the meaning of irrelevance, irrealis. Compared with the cross-languageresearch foundings, it is claimed that the emergence and development of markers ofconcessions condition in modern Chinese show a cross-language language universaltendencies.
Chapter7examines synchronic variation and diachronic evolution of concessiveconditionals. One-condition concessive conditionals correlate semantically with thefactual concessions, universal concessive conditionals, progressive compound sentences,disjunctive compound sentences, conditions compound sentences, and according to thissemantic correlation we amended the previous semantic map for conjunctions. The basicdirection of grammaticalization of concessive conditionals is as follows: developing fromdual events to a single event semantically; developing from compound sentences to asingle clause syntactically. In addition, some of concessive conditionals change intofactual concessions. The motivation and mechanism for concessive conditionals to changeare as follows: generalization, inference, subjectivisation, absorb of text, cognitiveprominence.
From the above specific conclusions, the following views are obtained.
First, Concessions in modern Chinese indicates Anti-causal relationship, are dividedinto factual concessions and concessive conditionals. Concessive conditionals are dividedinto three subtypes: one-condition concessive conditional(abbreviated as OCC),two-condition concessive conditional(abbreviated as TCC) and universal concessiveconditional(abbreviated as UCC).The reason why these three subtypes are analyzed assubtypes of one general construction type is that they all have many commoncharacteristics in semantics, syntax, pragmatics, discourse and diachronic change, butfactual concessions have not these ones. These common characteristics are as follows.1）These three constructions all imply such semantic features as multi-conditionals, the sameconsequence, irrelevance;2） All develop into a clause based on a compound sentence asprototype,and one-condition concessive conditional and universal concessive conditionaldevelop into factual concessions “p，but q”;3）Their pragmatic function is to encodebackground information in discourse, such as elaborating on a foregoing statement orexplicate one's point;4） both one-condition concessive conditional and universalconcessive conditional exhibit strong subjectivity;5） Semantic origins of these markersof concessive conditionals is all related to such meaning as irrelevance or scalarity，andverbal component of these markers all denote psychological meaning;6） individual concessions conditional and full concession conditions based on the generalizationmechanism to develop a single sentence, evolved out of the fact concessive complexsentences.
Second, the three kinds of sentences all are prototype categories, and each evolve sfrom compound sentence as a prototype to some untypical or marginal constructions,forms the respective network of construction, expresses the meaning of "multiple thingsare the same ".
Third, there exit a great number of semantic, functional commonalities betweenone-condition concessive conditionals and universal concessive conditionals among thesethree constructions, and one-condition concessive conditionals evolve into the mostconstructions, express the most pragmatic function.
Fourth, one-condition concessive conditional and two-condition concessiveconditionals relate to semantically and diachronically universal concessive conditional,the latter evolved from the former two.
引文
[1]白梅丽.现代汉语中“就”和“才”的语义分析[J].中国语文,1987,(5).
[2]蔡维天.谈“只”与“连”的形式语义[J].中国语文,2004,(2).
[3]柴森.谈强调反问的“又”和“还”[J].世界汉语教学,1999,(3).
[4]池昌海,凌瑜.让步连词“即使”的语法化[J].江南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,(2).
[5]陈丽,马贝加.假设连词“使”的语法化动因[J].温州大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(4).
[6]陈立民.也说“就”和“才”[J].当代语言学,2005,(1).
[7]陈满华.关于构式的范围和类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008,(6).
[8]陈颖.紧缩句的有标关联和无标关联[D].华中科技大学,2005
[9]崔显丽.《清平山堂话本》连词研究[D].辽宁师范大学,2010.
[10]戴悉心.“即使”句的分类及其语义语用分析[J].世界汉语教学，2001,(2).
[11]邓云华,石毓智,.从限止到转折的历程[J].语言教学与研究,2006,(3).
[12]丁俊苗.《醒世姻缘传》复句研究[D].西北师范大学,2003.
[13]董为光.副词“都”的“逐一看待”特性[J].语言研究,2003,(1).
[14]董正存.汉语全称量限表达研究[D].天津：南开大学，2010.
[15]范崇峰.魏晋南北朝佛教文献连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2004.
[16]范晓.说语义成分[J].汉语学习,2003,(1).
[17]方松.《太平经》连词研究[D].西南大学,2010.
[18]高文盛,席嘉《.朱子语类》中的让步连词“虽”及相关问题[J].江南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(5).
[19]高增霞.副词“还”的基本义[J].世界汉语教学,2002,(2).
[20]高增霞.从非句化角度看汉语的小句整合[J].中国语文,2005,(1).
[21]龚千炎.现代汉语的假设让步句[A].中国语文杂志社编.语法研究和探索(3).北京：北京大学出版社,1985.
[22]韩栋.“即便”的词汇化初探[J].衡水学院学报,2009,(2).
[23]何鑫.“元曲四大家”杂剧连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2007.
[24]洪波.“连”字句续貂[J].语言教学与研究,2001,(2).
[25]胡爱东.类同比较性让步句式“不是p，也是q”的句法语义分析[D].华中师范大学,2003.
[26]黄淑芬.漳州方言连词研究[D].福建师范大学,2008.
[27]黄晓冬.“无论A，也/都B”句的语义分析[J].汉语学习,2001,(5).
[28]江燮松.德语中不定代词的语义、用法及其汉译诸问题(下)[J].四川外语学院学报,1989,(3).
[29]蒋冀骋,徐朝红.连词“正使”的产生和发展[J].汉语学报,2009,(3).
[30]金鑫.汉语有标让步复句研究[D].华中师范大学,2010.
[31]金允经,金昌吉.现代汉语转折连词组的同异研究[J].汉语学习,2001,(2).
[32]李国庆.现代汉语的“不是P,也是Q”复句[J].安徽教育学院学报,2002,(5).
[33]李军,王永娜.也谈转折复句的内部分类[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2004,(2).
[34]李军华，李长华.“呢”字句的情态类型与语气词“呢”的情态意义考察[J].语言研究,2010,(3).
[35]李凰.“再X也Y”的构式分析[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2009,(4).
[36]李思明.《朱子语类》的让步复句[J].安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),1996,(1).
[37]李宗江.“即、便、就”的历时关系[J].语文研究.1997,(1).
[38]梁欢.汉语转折连词的历时考察[D].广西大学,2007.
[39]梁吉平.汉语任何义条件连词的历史演变[D].温州大学,2009.
[40]凌瑜.让步连词演变及语法功能研究例说[D].浙江大学,2007.
[41]梁蕴华.现代紧缩结构定量分析[D].北京语言文化大学,1997
[42]梁蕴华.现代汉语紧缩结构分析[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,(2).
[43]刘昌华.让步复句与主观量范畴[J].扬州教育学院学报,2009,(1).
[44]刘丞.试析前项隐含的“又”字句[J].华文教学与研究，2010，（4）
[45]刘红妮.“哪怕”的词汇化[J].南开语言学刊,2010,(1).
[46]刘加昆.逻辑语义框架下的让步句语意重心分析[J].语文学刊,2006,(9).
[47]刘雪春.“即使……也……”式复句的逻辑分析[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998,(3).
[48]刘艳.《颜氏家训》复句研究[D].新疆师范大学,2008.
[49]刘永红.转折复句语意重心的逻辑语义分析[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2003,(1).
[50]刘玉梅.构式语法研究的新进展——《构式与语言演变》评介[J].外语教学与研究,2010,(4).
[51]刘玉梅. Goldberg认知构式语法的基本观点——反思与前瞻[J].现代外语,2010,(2).
[52]刘玉梅.“吧”族词形成的认知机制研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,(1).
[53]栾建珊.《荀子》连词研究[D].新疆大学,2004.
[54]马真.说“也”[J].中国语文,1982,（4）.
[55]毛晓新.《歧路灯》连词研究[D].贵州大学,2009.
[56]梅立崇.现代汉语的“即使”假言句[J].世界汉语教学.1995，（1）
[57]梅思斌“.X是X”在让步复句中的句法和语义考察[J].大理学院学报,2010,(11).
[58]孟凯.中古汉语让步复句探析[J].长春大学学报,2004,(1).
[59]苗兴伟.语用协调的语篇功能[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001,(4).
[60]屈颜平.禹州方言连词、副词、介词研究[D].河南大学,2010.
[61]杉村博文.现代汉语“疑问代词+也/都……”结构的语义分析[J].世界汉语教学,1992,(3).
[62]邵敬敏,饶春红.说“又”——兼论副词研究的方法[J].语言教学与研究,1985,(2).
[63]沈家煊.复句三域“行、知、言”[J].中国语文,2003,(3).
[64]沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究,2001(4).
[65]宋青.《醒世姻缘传》连词研究[D].贵州大学,2009.
[66]孙怀芳.《金瓶梅》连词研究[D].山东大学,2008.
[67]孙琦.《颜氏家训》连词研究[D].辽宁师范大学,2006
[68]孙锡信.“即”、“便”、“就”虚化过程中的错项移植[A]，《语言研究辑刊》第二辑，上海：上海辞书出版社,2005.
[69]孙云.谈谈即使句、宁可句、无论句[J].内蒙古师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1983,(2).
[70]唐凤燕.现代汉语“即使”复句探析[D].暨南大学,2003.
[71]陶伏平.湖南慈利通津铺话连词、介词研究[D].湖南师范大学,2008.
[72]王灿龙.“宁可”的语用分析及其他[J].中国语文,2003,(3).
[73]王还.就和才[J].汉语学习,1956,(12).
[74]王慧萍、潘秋平.从语义地图谈“然后”[A].吴福祥、张谊生编.语法化与语法研究（五）。北京：商务印书馆,2011.
[75]王进超.明代三种小说主从关系连词研究[D].苏州大学,2010.
[76]王磊.《真诰》连词研究[D].四川大学,2004.
[77]王群.试论“才”和“就”语义变化的双向性和不平衡性[J].语言科学,2005,(6).
[78]王收奇.“即使连X(,)Y”嵌套式[J].汉语学习,2005,(2).
[79]王淑华.晚唐五代连词研究[D].山东大学,2009.
[80]王天佑.“宁可、宁愿、宁肯”的语法化[J].延安大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(5).
[81]王霞.转折连词“不过”的来源及语法化过程[J].河北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003,(2).
[82]王勇，徐杰.汉语存在句的构式语法研究[J].语言研究,2010,(3)
[83]王永华,王永娜.转折复句中预设的作用和触发手段[J].阜阳师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008,(6).
[84]王跃平.试析虚拟性让步句的规约隐涵和预设[J].徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(2).
[85]王月婷.《新校元刊杂剧三十种》连词研究[D].苏州大学,2008.
[86]王忠玲.转折复句语义分类的新尝试[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2001,(5).
[87]卫斓.疑问代词任指用法的使用条件[J].南京大学学报(哲学人文社科版),1998,(3).
[88]温振兴.《搜神记》连词研究[D].山西大学,2003.
[89]邬新花.东汉佛经与《论衡》连词比较研究[D].湖南师范大学,2006.
[90]吴福祥.南方语言正反问句的来源[J1.民族语文,2008,(1).
[91]吴福祥.南方民族语言关系小句结构式语序的演变和变异——基于接触语言学和语言类型学的分析[J].语言研究,2009,(3).
[92]吴福祥.语法化的新视野——接触引发的语法化[J].当代语言学,2009,(3).
[93]吴福祥.多功能语素与语义图模型[J].语言研究,2011,(1).
[94]谢洪欣.元明时期汉语连词研究[D].山东大学,2008.
[95]谢奇勇.也谈转折复句的内层蕴涵[J].湘潭师范学院学报(社会科学版),2004,(6).
[96]谢晓明,肖任飞.表全项让步条件的“说·什么”紧缩句[J].语言研究,2008,(2).
[97]席嘉.转折副词“可”探源[J].语言研究,2003,(2).
[98]席嘉.汉语无条件构式的历时演化考察[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(5).
[99]邢福义.现代汉语的“即使”实言句[J].语言教学与研究,1985,(4).
[100]邢向东.陕北晋语沿河方言愿望类虚拟语气的表达手段[J].语文研究,2005,(2).
[101]徐朝红.中古汉译佛经连词研究[D].湖南师范大学,2008.
[102]徐颂列.“任何”与“所有”[J].杭州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1989,(4).
[103]徐天兴.连词“即使”的历时考察[J].河南科技学院学报,2009,(2).
[104]徐阳春,侯友兰.论让步[J].山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(1).
[105]杨艳.表让步的“就是”与主观量[J].东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,(6).
[106]杨月蓉.“但是”与“却”的相容性和相斥性——兼论转折句的语义关系[J].中国语文,2000,(2).
[107]于丽娟.《梁书》连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2006.
[108]袁勤.《朱子语类》复音连词研究[D].四川大学,2007.
[109]袁雪梅.转折连词“然”和“然而”的形成[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(5).
[110]袁毓林.“都”的加合性语义功能及其分配性效应[J].当代语言学,2005,(4).
[111]张爱丽.《宋书》连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.
[112]张爱雄. No matter让步分句的五种新形式[J].大学英语（学术版）,2006,(1).
[113]张宝胜.“宁可”复句的语义特征[J].语言研究,2007,(1).
[114]张楚楚a.论英语情态动词动力情态的主观性[J].山东外语教学,2007,(2).
[115]张楚楚b.论英语情态动词道义情态的主观性[J].外国语,2007,(5).
[116]张楚楚.英语情态动词认识情态的主观性[J].西安外国语大学学报,2009,(3).
[117]张洪超,刘昌华,.让步复句的预设研究[J].徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(3).
[118]张丽丽.从使役到条件[J].台大文史哲学报,2006,(65).
[119]张丽丽.试论纵予连词“即”、“便”、“就”的形成[J].台大文史哲学报,2009,（71）.
[120]张敏.“语义地图模型”：原理、操作及在汉语多功能语法形式研究中的运用.2010年全国语言学暑期高级讲习班讲义（南开）,2010.
[121]张秋梅.《儿女英雄传》连词计量研究[D].苏州大学,2009.
[122]张仁.说转折[J].语文研究,2000,(1).
[123]张旭.估价副词“就”和“才”的语用过程分析[J].天津师大学报(社会科学版),1999,(2).
[124]张谊生.“就是”的篇章衔接功能及其语法化历程[J].世界汉语教学,2002,(6).
[125]赵琴.《淮南子》连词研究[D].苏州大学,2010.
[126]郑丽.再论“即使”的语法化问题[J].牡丹江大学学报,2010,(9).
[127]周刚.说“再”[J].汉语学习,1994,(3).
[128]周会娟.《韩非子》有标复句研究[D].新疆大学,2009.
[129]周文娟.《新编五代史平话》连词研究[D].苏州大学,2009.
[130]周晓林.假设连词“哪怕”的演变及其动因[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2009,(1).
[131]朱城.试论转折连词“然”的形成[J].古汉语研究,2007,(3).
[132]朱冠明.情态与汉语情态动词[J].山东外语教学,2005,(2).
[133]朱军.汉语范围构式“从X到Y”研究[J].语言研究,2010,(2).
[134]祝东平.“再”、“还”重复义与动词性词语的“有界”、“无界”[J].汉语学习,2010,(5).
[135] Di Meola, C. Synchronic variation as a result of grammaticalization: concessivesubjunctions in German and Italian[J]. Linguistics,2001.39(1):133-149.
[136] Fillmore, C., P. Kay&M. O Connor. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammaticalconstructions: The case of let alone[J].Language,1988.64:501-538.
[137] Finnegan, E. Subjectivity and subjectification[A]. In D. Stein&S.Wright.(ed.),Subjectivity and Subjectification[C]. Cambridge:CUP,1995:1-24.
[138] Haiman. Conditionals are topics[J].Language,1978.54:564-589.
[139] Hamblin, C. Questions[J]. Australasian Journal of Philosophy.1958.36:159–168.
[140] Haspelmath, Martin. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic mapsandcross-linguistic comparison[A]. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology ofLanguage,vol.2[C].New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2003:211-243.
[141] Haspelmath, M.&E. K nig. Concessive conditionals in the languages ofEurope[A]. In J. van der Auwera&Donall O Baoill(ed.), Adverbial constructionsin the languages of Europe[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,1998:563-640.
[142] Huang, Shi-Zhe (黄师哲). Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: Acase study of Dou[D]. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,1996.
[143] Horn, Laurence. A presuppositional analysis of only and even[C]. Papers from the5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.1996:97-108.
[144] Iten, C. Because and although: a case of duality?[C]. UCL Working Papers inLinguistics9.1997:55-76.
[145] Karttunen, L. Syntax and semantics of questions[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1977.1:3–44.
[146] Kay, Paul.Even[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy.1990.13:59-111.
[147] K nig, E. Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessiveconnectives[A].In J. FIsiak,(eds.), Historical semantics:historicalword-formation[C].Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1985:263-282
[148] K nig, E. Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations[A]. In D. Zaefferer(ed.),Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics[C]. Dordrecht: Foris,1989.
[149] K nig, Ekkehard&Peter Siemund. Causal and Concessive Clauses: Formal andSemantic Relations[A]. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth&Bernd Kortmann(eds.),Cause–Condition–Concession–Contrast: Cognitive and DiscoursePerspectives[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2000:341-360.
[150] Moreno-Ríos，Sergio.，Juan A.García-Madruga＆Ruth M.J.Byrne. Inferencesfrom semifactual “even if” conditionals [J].Acta Psychologica.2008.128:197-209.
[151] Traugott, E. C. On the rise of epistemicmeanings in English: An example ofsubjectification in semantic change[J].Language,1989,65:31-55.
[152] Traugott, E. C. subjectivization in grammaticalization[A]. In Stein,D.&S. Wright(eds.),Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives[C]. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1995
[153] Verhagen, Arie. Concession implies causality, though in some other space[A]. InE. Couper-Kuhlen&B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast:Cognitive and discourse perspectives[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2000:361-380.
[154] Zaefferer, Dietmar. Conditionals and unconditonals in universal grammar andsituation semantics[A]. In Robin Cooper, Kuniaki Mukai, and JohnPerry(eds.),Situation theory and its applications I [C]. CSLI,1990:471–492.
[155]北京大学中文系现代汉语教研室编.现代汉语[M].北京市：商务印书馆,1993.
[156]丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999[1961].
[157]郭志良.现代汉语转折词语研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1999.
[158]何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
[159]胡裕树主编.现代汉语（重订本）[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1995.
[160]黄伯荣,廖序东编.现代汉语（修订三版）（下）[M].北京:高等教育出版社，2002[1991].
[161]姜望琪.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
[162]黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992[1924].
[163]黎锦熙,刘世儒著.汉语语法教材第3编复式句和篇章结构.北京:商务印书馆,1962.
[164]廖秋忠.廖秋忠文集[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992
[165]陆俭明，马真.现代汉语虚词散论[M].北京:语文出版社,1999.
[166]吕叔湘.《吕叔湘文集（第一卷）中国文法要略》[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2002[1941].
[167]吕叔湘主编.《现代汉语八百词（增订本）》[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[168]吕叔湘,江蓝生.近代汉语指代词[M].上海:学林出版社,1985.
[169]马建忠.马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆,1983[1898].
[170]马真.现代汉语虚词研究方法论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[171]毛意忠.法语现代语法[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2002.
[172]彭利贞.现代汉语情态研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007
[173]钱乃荣编.现代汉语[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2001.
[174]邵敬敏编.现代汉语通论[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.
[175]石安石.语义论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1993.
[176]石毓智.肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,2001
[177]王力.中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985[1943].
[178]王力.汉语语法史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1989.
[179]王维贤，张学成，卢曼云等.现代汉语复句新解[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1994.
[180]王兆渠等编.现代德语实用语法[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2001。
[181]席嘉.近代汉语研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010.
[182]现代汉语词典（第5版）.社科院语言所词典编辑室[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[183]邢福义.汉语复句研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[184]邢福义.复句与关系词语[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社，1985.
[185]徐阳春.现代汉语复句句式研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002
[186]叶宝奎、曾传兴、张修仁编.现代汉语[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000
[187]张斌.新编现代汉语[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2002
[188]张斌主编.现代汉语虚词词典[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[189]张静.新编现代汉语(修订本)[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1984
[190]张韧弦.形式语用学导论[M]．上海:复旦大学出版社,2008.
[191]张盛彬.认识逻辑学——关于“转识成智”的逻辑研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2008.
[192]张雄武编.西班牙语语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1978.
[193]周刚.连词与相关问题[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2002.
[194] Croft，William. Typology and universals,2nd edition[M]. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
[195] Croft, William. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in TypologicalPerspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007.
[196] Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure[M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1995.
[197] Goldberg, A. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization inLanguage[M]. Oxford:OUP,2006.
[198] Halliday，M.A.K and R.Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. London： Longman,1976.
[199] Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite Pronouns[M]. Oxford Studies in Typology and.Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1997.
[200] Heine, Bernd. and Tania Kutev. Language contact and grammatical change[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005.
[201] Holton,David.， Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. Greek: AnEssential Grammar of the Modern Language[M]. London＆New York：Routledge,2004.
[202] Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003[1993].
[203] Huddleston, Rodney&Geoffrey K. Pullum. A Student's Introduction to Englishgrammar[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[204] Jaggar,Phlip.J Hausa[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2001.
[205] Jackendoff, R.S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1972
[206] K nig, Ekkehard. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A ComparativePerspective[M].London and New York: Routledge,1991.
[207] Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[208] Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Volume I[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
[209] Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II[M].Stanford: Stanford University Press,1991.
[210] Langacker, Ronald W. Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction [M]. New York：Oxford University Press,2008.
[211] Levinson, Stephen C. pragmatics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University,1983.
[212] Matrasl, Yaron. Language contact[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press，2009.
[213] Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPresss,1986.
[214] Palmer， F.R. Mood and Modality[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPresss,2001.
[215] Quirk, Randolph et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M].London: Longman Group Limited,1985.
[216] Stein, D.&S. Wright (eds.).Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: LinguisticPerspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995
[217] Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects ofsemantic structure [M]. Cambridge: CUP,1990.
[218] Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization：Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M].New York:Oxford University Press,1995.
[219] Traugott, E. C.&R. B. Dasher. Regularity in Semantic Change[M]. Cambridge:CUP,2002.
[220] Ungerer, F&Schmid, H, J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].AddisonWesley: Longman Limited,1996.
[2]蔡维天.谈“只”与“连”的形式语义[J].中国语文,2004,(2).
[3]柴森.谈强调反问的“又”和“还”[J].世界汉语教学,1999,(3).
[4]池昌海,凌瑜.让步连词“即使”的语法化[J].江南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,(2).
[5]陈丽,马贝加.假设连词“使”的语法化动因[J].温州大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(4).
[6]陈立民.也说“就”和“才”[J].当代语言学,2005,(1).
[7]陈满华.关于构式的范围和类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008,(6).
[8]陈颖.紧缩句的有标关联和无标关联[D].华中科技大学,2005
[9]崔显丽.《清平山堂话本》连词研究[D].辽宁师范大学,2010.
[10]戴悉心.“即使”句的分类及其语义语用分析[J].世界汉语教学，2001,(2).
[11]邓云华,石毓智,.从限止到转折的历程[J].语言教学与研究,2006,(3).
[12]丁俊苗.《醒世姻缘传》复句研究[D].西北师范大学,2003.
[13]董为光.副词“都”的“逐一看待”特性[J].语言研究,2003,(1).
[14]董正存.汉语全称量限表达研究[D].天津：南开大学，2010.
[15]范崇峰.魏晋南北朝佛教文献连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2004.
[16]范晓.说语义成分[J].汉语学习,2003,(1).
[17]方松.《太平经》连词研究[D].西南大学,2010.
[18]高文盛,席嘉《.朱子语类》中的让步连词“虽”及相关问题[J].江南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(5).
[19]高增霞.副词“还”的基本义[J].世界汉语教学,2002,(2).
[20]高增霞.从非句化角度看汉语的小句整合[J].中国语文,2005,(1).
[21]龚千炎.现代汉语的假设让步句[A].中国语文杂志社编.语法研究和探索(3).北京：北京大学出版社,1985.
[22]韩栋.“即便”的词汇化初探[J].衡水学院学报,2009,(2).
[23]何鑫.“元曲四大家”杂剧连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2007.
[24]洪波.“连”字句续貂[J].语言教学与研究,2001,(2).
[25]胡爱东.类同比较性让步句式“不是p，也是q”的句法语义分析[D].华中师范大学,2003.
[26]黄淑芬.漳州方言连词研究[D].福建师范大学,2008.
[27]黄晓冬.“无论A，也/都B”句的语义分析[J].汉语学习,2001,(5).
[28]江燮松.德语中不定代词的语义、用法及其汉译诸问题(下)[J].四川外语学院学报,1989,(3).
[29]蒋冀骋,徐朝红.连词“正使”的产生和发展[J].汉语学报,2009,(3).
[30]金鑫.汉语有标让步复句研究[D].华中师范大学,2010.
[31]金允经,金昌吉.现代汉语转折连词组的同异研究[J].汉语学习,2001,(2).
[32]李国庆.现代汉语的“不是P,也是Q”复句[J].安徽教育学院学报,2002,(5).
[33]李军,王永娜.也谈转折复句的内部分类[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2004,(2).
[34]李军华，李长华.“呢”字句的情态类型与语气词“呢”的情态意义考察[J].语言研究,2010,(3).
[35]李凰.“再X也Y”的构式分析[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2009,(4).
[36]李思明.《朱子语类》的让步复句[J].安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),1996,(1).
[37]李宗江.“即、便、就”的历时关系[J].语文研究.1997,(1).
[38]梁欢.汉语转折连词的历时考察[D].广西大学,2007.
[39]梁吉平.汉语任何义条件连词的历史演变[D].温州大学,2009.
[40]凌瑜.让步连词演变及语法功能研究例说[D].浙江大学,2007.
[41]梁蕴华.现代紧缩结构定量分析[D].北京语言文化大学,1997
[42]梁蕴华.现代汉语紧缩结构分析[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,(2).
[43]刘昌华.让步复句与主观量范畴[J].扬州教育学院学报,2009,(1).
[44]刘丞.试析前项隐含的“又”字句[J].华文教学与研究，2010，（4）
[45]刘红妮.“哪怕”的词汇化[J].南开语言学刊,2010,(1).
[46]刘加昆.逻辑语义框架下的让步句语意重心分析[J].语文学刊,2006,(9).
[47]刘雪春.“即使……也……”式复句的逻辑分析[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998,(3).
[48]刘艳.《颜氏家训》复句研究[D].新疆师范大学,2008.
[49]刘永红.转折复句语意重心的逻辑语义分析[J].暨南大学华文学院学报,2003,(1).
[50]刘玉梅.构式语法研究的新进展——《构式与语言演变》评介[J].外语教学与研究,2010,(4).
[51]刘玉梅. Goldberg认知构式语法的基本观点——反思与前瞻[J].现代外语,2010,(2).
[52]刘玉梅.“吧”族词形成的认知机制研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,(1).
[53]栾建珊.《荀子》连词研究[D].新疆大学,2004.
[54]马真.说“也”[J].中国语文,1982,（4）.
[55]毛晓新.《歧路灯》连词研究[D].贵州大学,2009.
[56]梅立崇.现代汉语的“即使”假言句[J].世界汉语教学.1995，（1）
[57]梅思斌“.X是X”在让步复句中的句法和语义考察[J].大理学院学报,2010,(11).
[58]孟凯.中古汉语让步复句探析[J].长春大学学报,2004,(1).
[59]苗兴伟.语用协调的语篇功能[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001,(4).
[60]屈颜平.禹州方言连词、副词、介词研究[D].河南大学,2010.
[61]杉村博文.现代汉语“疑问代词+也/都……”结构的语义分析[J].世界汉语教学,1992,(3).
[62]邵敬敏,饶春红.说“又”——兼论副词研究的方法[J].语言教学与研究,1985,(2).
[63]沈家煊.复句三域“行、知、言”[J].中国语文,2003,(3).
[64]沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究,2001(4).
[65]宋青.《醒世姻缘传》连词研究[D].贵州大学,2009.
[66]孙怀芳.《金瓶梅》连词研究[D].山东大学,2008.
[67]孙琦.《颜氏家训》连词研究[D].辽宁师范大学,2006
[68]孙锡信.“即”、“便”、“就”虚化过程中的错项移植[A]，《语言研究辑刊》第二辑，上海：上海辞书出版社,2005.
[69]孙云.谈谈即使句、宁可句、无论句[J].内蒙古师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1983,(2).
[70]唐凤燕.现代汉语“即使”复句探析[D].暨南大学,2003.
[71]陶伏平.湖南慈利通津铺话连词、介词研究[D].湖南师范大学,2008.
[72]王灿龙.“宁可”的语用分析及其他[J].中国语文,2003,(3).
[73]王还.就和才[J].汉语学习,1956,(12).
[74]王慧萍、潘秋平.从语义地图谈“然后”[A].吴福祥、张谊生编.语法化与语法研究（五）。北京：商务印书馆,2011.
[75]王进超.明代三种小说主从关系连词研究[D].苏州大学,2010.
[76]王磊.《真诰》连词研究[D].四川大学,2004.
[77]王群.试论“才”和“就”语义变化的双向性和不平衡性[J].语言科学,2005,(6).
[78]王收奇.“即使连X(,)Y”嵌套式[J].汉语学习,2005,(2).
[79]王淑华.晚唐五代连词研究[D].山东大学,2009.
[80]王天佑.“宁可、宁愿、宁肯”的语法化[J].延安大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(5).
[81]王霞.转折连词“不过”的来源及语法化过程[J].河北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003,(2).
[82]王勇，徐杰.汉语存在句的构式语法研究[J].语言研究,2010,(3)
[83]王永华,王永娜.转折复句中预设的作用和触发手段[J].阜阳师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008,(6).
[84]王跃平.试析虚拟性让步句的规约隐涵和预设[J].徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(2).
[85]王月婷.《新校元刊杂剧三十种》连词研究[D].苏州大学,2008.
[86]王忠玲.转折复句语义分类的新尝试[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2001,(5).
[87]卫斓.疑问代词任指用法的使用条件[J].南京大学学报(哲学人文社科版),1998,(3).
[88]温振兴.《搜神记》连词研究[D].山西大学,2003.
[89]邬新花.东汉佛经与《论衡》连词比较研究[D].湖南师范大学,2006.
[90]吴福祥.南方语言正反问句的来源[J1.民族语文,2008,(1).
[91]吴福祥.南方民族语言关系小句结构式语序的演变和变异——基于接触语言学和语言类型学的分析[J].语言研究,2009,(3).
[92]吴福祥.语法化的新视野——接触引发的语法化[J].当代语言学,2009,(3).
[93]吴福祥.多功能语素与语义图模型[J].语言研究,2011,(1).
[94]谢洪欣.元明时期汉语连词研究[D].山东大学,2008.
[95]谢奇勇.也谈转折复句的内层蕴涵[J].湘潭师范学院学报(社会科学版),2004,(6).
[96]谢晓明,肖任飞.表全项让步条件的“说·什么”紧缩句[J].语言研究,2008,(2).
[97]席嘉.转折副词“可”探源[J].语言研究,2003,(2).
[98]席嘉.汉语无条件构式的历时演化考察[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(5).
[99]邢福义.现代汉语的“即使”实言句[J].语言教学与研究,1985,(4).
[100]邢向东.陕北晋语沿河方言愿望类虚拟语气的表达手段[J].语文研究,2005,(2).
[101]徐朝红.中古汉译佛经连词研究[D].湖南师范大学,2008.
[102]徐颂列.“任何”与“所有”[J].杭州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1989,(4).
[103]徐天兴.连词“即使”的历时考察[J].河南科技学院学报,2009,(2).
[104]徐阳春,侯友兰.论让步[J].山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(1).
[105]杨艳.表让步的“就是”与主观量[J].东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,(6).
[106]杨月蓉.“但是”与“却”的相容性和相斥性——兼论转折句的语义关系[J].中国语文,2000,(2).
[107]于丽娟.《梁书》连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2006.
[108]袁勤.《朱子语类》复音连词研究[D].四川大学,2007.
[109]袁雪梅.转折连词“然”和“然而”的形成[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(5).
[110]袁毓林.“都”的加合性语义功能及其分配性效应[J].当代语言学,2005,(4).
[111]张爱丽.《宋书》连词研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.
[112]张爱雄. No matter让步分句的五种新形式[J].大学英语（学术版）,2006,(1).
[113]张宝胜.“宁可”复句的语义特征[J].语言研究,2007,(1).
[114]张楚楚a.论英语情态动词动力情态的主观性[J].山东外语教学,2007,(2).
[115]张楚楚b.论英语情态动词道义情态的主观性[J].外国语,2007,(5).
[116]张楚楚.英语情态动词认识情态的主观性[J].西安外国语大学学报,2009,(3).
[117]张洪超,刘昌华,.让步复句的预设研究[J].徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(3).
[118]张丽丽.从使役到条件[J].台大文史哲学报,2006,(65).
[119]张丽丽.试论纵予连词“即”、“便”、“就”的形成[J].台大文史哲学报,2009,（71）.
[120]张敏.“语义地图模型”：原理、操作及在汉语多功能语法形式研究中的运用.2010年全国语言学暑期高级讲习班讲义（南开）,2010.
[121]张秋梅.《儿女英雄传》连词计量研究[D].苏州大学,2009.
[122]张仁.说转折[J].语文研究,2000,(1).
[123]张旭.估价副词“就”和“才”的语用过程分析[J].天津师大学报(社会科学版),1999,(2).
[124]张谊生.“就是”的篇章衔接功能及其语法化历程[J].世界汉语教学,2002,(6).
[125]赵琴.《淮南子》连词研究[D].苏州大学,2010.
[126]郑丽.再论“即使”的语法化问题[J].牡丹江大学学报,2010,(9).
[127]周刚.说“再”[J].汉语学习,1994,(3).
[128]周会娟.《韩非子》有标复句研究[D].新疆大学,2009.
[129]周文娟.《新编五代史平话》连词研究[D].苏州大学,2009.
[130]周晓林.假设连词“哪怕”的演变及其动因[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2009,(1).
[131]朱城.试论转折连词“然”的形成[J].古汉语研究,2007,(3).
[132]朱冠明.情态与汉语情态动词[J].山东外语教学,2005,(2).
[133]朱军.汉语范围构式“从X到Y”研究[J].语言研究,2010,(2).
[134]祝东平.“再”、“还”重复义与动词性词语的“有界”、“无界”[J].汉语学习,2010,(5).
[135] Di Meola, C. Synchronic variation as a result of grammaticalization: concessivesubjunctions in German and Italian[J]. Linguistics,2001.39(1):133-149.
[136] Fillmore, C., P. Kay&M. O Connor. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammaticalconstructions: The case of let alone[J].Language,1988.64:501-538.
[137] Finnegan, E. Subjectivity and subjectification[A]. In D. Stein&S.Wright.(ed.),Subjectivity and Subjectification[C]. Cambridge:CUP,1995:1-24.
[138] Haiman. Conditionals are topics[J].Language,1978.54:564-589.
[139] Hamblin, C. Questions[J]. Australasian Journal of Philosophy.1958.36:159–168.
[140] Haspelmath, Martin. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic mapsandcross-linguistic comparison[A]. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology ofLanguage,vol.2[C].New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2003:211-243.
[141] Haspelmath, M.&E. K nig. Concessive conditionals in the languages ofEurope[A]. In J. van der Auwera&Donall O Baoill(ed.), Adverbial constructionsin the languages of Europe[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,1998:563-640.
[142] Huang, Shi-Zhe (黄师哲). Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: Acase study of Dou[D]. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,1996.
[143] Horn, Laurence. A presuppositional analysis of only and even[C]. Papers from the5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.1996:97-108.
[144] Iten, C. Because and although: a case of duality?[C]. UCL Working Papers inLinguistics9.1997:55-76.
[145] Karttunen, L. Syntax and semantics of questions[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1977.1:3–44.
[146] Kay, Paul.Even[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy.1990.13:59-111.
[147] K nig, E. Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessiveconnectives[A].In J. FIsiak,(eds.), Historical semantics:historicalword-formation[C].Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,1985:263-282
[148] K nig, E. Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations[A]. In D. Zaefferer(ed.),Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics[C]. Dordrecht: Foris,1989.
[149] K nig, Ekkehard&Peter Siemund. Causal and Concessive Clauses: Formal andSemantic Relations[A]. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth&Bernd Kortmann(eds.),Cause–Condition–Concession–Contrast: Cognitive and DiscoursePerspectives[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2000:341-360.
[150] Moreno-Ríos，Sergio.，Juan A.García-Madruga＆Ruth M.J.Byrne. Inferencesfrom semifactual “even if” conditionals [J].Acta Psychologica.2008.128:197-209.
[151] Traugott, E. C. On the rise of epistemicmeanings in English: An example ofsubjectification in semantic change[J].Language,1989,65:31-55.
[152] Traugott, E. C. subjectivization in grammaticalization[A]. In Stein,D.&S. Wright(eds.),Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives[C]. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1995
[153] Verhagen, Arie. Concession implies causality, though in some other space[A]. InE. Couper-Kuhlen&B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast:Cognitive and discourse perspectives[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2000:361-380.
[154] Zaefferer, Dietmar. Conditionals and unconditonals in universal grammar andsituation semantics[A]. In Robin Cooper, Kuniaki Mukai, and JohnPerry(eds.),Situation theory and its applications I [C]. CSLI,1990:471–492.
[155]北京大学中文系现代汉语教研室编.现代汉语[M].北京市：商务印书馆,1993.
[156]丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999[1961].
[157]郭志良.现代汉语转折词语研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1999.
[158]何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
[159]胡裕树主编.现代汉语（重订本）[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1995.
[160]黄伯荣,廖序东编.现代汉语（修订三版）（下）[M].北京:高等教育出版社，2002[1991].
[161]姜望琪.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003。
[162]黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992[1924].
[163]黎锦熙,刘世儒著.汉语语法教材第3编复式句和篇章结构.北京:商务印书馆,1962.
[164]廖秋忠.廖秋忠文集[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992
[165]陆俭明，马真.现代汉语虚词散论[M].北京:语文出版社,1999.
[166]吕叔湘.《吕叔湘文集（第一卷）中国文法要略》[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2002[1941].
[167]吕叔湘主编.《现代汉语八百词（增订本）》[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[168]吕叔湘,江蓝生.近代汉语指代词[M].上海:学林出版社,1985.
[169]马建忠.马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆,1983[1898].
[170]马真.现代汉语虚词研究方法论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[171]毛意忠.法语现代语法[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2002.
[172]彭利贞.现代汉语情态研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007
[173]钱乃荣编.现代汉语[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,2001.
[174]邵敬敏编.现代汉语通论[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.
[175]石安石.语义论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1993.
[176]石毓智.肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,2001
[177]王力.中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985[1943].
[178]王力.汉语语法史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1989.
[179]王维贤，张学成，卢曼云等.现代汉语复句新解[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1994.
[180]王兆渠等编.现代德语实用语法[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2001。
[181]席嘉.近代汉语研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010.
[182]现代汉语词典（第5版）.社科院语言所词典编辑室[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[183]邢福义.汉语复句研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[184]邢福义.复句与关系词语[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社，1985.
[185]徐阳春.现代汉语复句句式研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002
[186]叶宝奎、曾传兴、张修仁编.现代汉语[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000
[187]张斌.新编现代汉语[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2002
[188]张斌主编.现代汉语虚词词典[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[189]张静.新编现代汉语(修订本)[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1984
[190]张韧弦.形式语用学导论[M]．上海:复旦大学出版社,2008.
[191]张盛彬.认识逻辑学——关于“转识成智”的逻辑研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2008.
[192]张雄武编.西班牙语语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1978.
[193]周刚.连词与相关问题[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2002.
[194] Croft，William. Typology and universals,2nd edition[M]. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
[195] Croft, William. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in TypologicalPerspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007.
[196] Goldberg, A. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure[M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1995.
[197] Goldberg, A. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization inLanguage[M]. Oxford:OUP,2006.
[198] Halliday，M.A.K and R.Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. London： Longman,1976.
[199] Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite Pronouns[M]. Oxford Studies in Typology and.Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1997.
[200] Heine, Bernd. and Tania Kutev. Language contact and grammatical change[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005.
[201] Holton,David.， Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. Greek: AnEssential Grammar of the Modern Language[M]. London＆New York：Routledge,2004.
[202] Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003[1993].
[203] Huddleston, Rodney&Geoffrey K. Pullum. A Student's Introduction to Englishgrammar[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[204] Jaggar,Phlip.J Hausa[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2001.
[205] Jackendoff, R.S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1972
[206] K nig, Ekkehard. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A ComparativePerspective[M].London and New York: Routledge,1991.
[207] Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press,1987.
[208] Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Volume I[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.
[209] Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II[M].Stanford: Stanford University Press,1991.
[210] Langacker, Ronald W. Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction [M]. New York：Oxford University Press,2008.
[211] Levinson, Stephen C. pragmatics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University,1983.
[212] Matrasl, Yaron. Language contact[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press，2009.
[213] Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPresss,1986.
[214] Palmer， F.R. Mood and Modality[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPresss,2001.
[215] Quirk, Randolph et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M].London: Longman Group Limited,1985.
[216] Stein, D.&S. Wright (eds.).Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: LinguisticPerspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995
[217] Sweetser, E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects ofsemantic structure [M]. Cambridge: CUP,1990.
[218] Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization：Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M].New York:Oxford University Press,1995.
[219] Traugott, E. C.&R. B. Dasher. Regularity in Semantic Change[M]. Cambridge:CUP,2002.
[220] Ungerer, F&Schmid, H, J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].AddisonWesley: Longman Limited,1996.