基于语料库的中国学习者英语概念迁移研究
|
摘要
长久以来，语言与思维之关系一直是学界争论不休的话题。客观主义忽视语言及其对客观事物反映的差异性，假想了一种并不存在的客观性，错误地认为只要客观存在相同，人们的语言所表达的核心概念便不会有差异。语言相对论对客观主义进行了批判，提出人类的思维并非对客观世界真真切切的反映，语言能影响人类的习惯性思维方式及其世界观的形成。这一理论历经二三百年几代学者的努力，从海曼到沃尔夫，最终发展为“萨丕尔——沃尔夫假说”。该假说因涉及语言、文化、思维等复杂的关系而受到褒贬，甚至被边缘化达二三十年，但随着近年来新认知语言学的兴起而得以复兴。一批“新沃尔夫主义者”继承了语言相对论的思想，继续在更广阔的领域验证并发展该假说（详见第二章）。使该假说得到了越来越多学者的关注和研究。受该假说影响，近年来有些学者在二语习得研究领域，建构了概念迁移理论并进行了实证研究，取得了令人瞩目的研究成果（详见第三章）。然而到目前为止，还未见有学者对我国学习者英语学习概念迁移现象进行实证研究（详见第四章）。因此本研究以语言相对论作为语言哲学基础，采用二语习得概念迁移理论，对我国英语初学者的英语学习与概念迁移规律进行探索性研究。该研究一方面基于语言相对论和概念迁移理论建构适合我国英语学习者的概念迁移理论框架，并对其进行验证，一方面探索我国学习者英语学习与概念迁移的规律，以期为提高我国英语学习者的学习效率提供有益的启示。
本论文在第一章简要描述了本研究的选题背景、研究内容与研究思路及其意义、目的后，在第二章首先回顾了语言相对论假说的思想传承，为该假说的发展过程提供一个清晰的脉络，为语言相对论思想的澄清提供理论背景。具体而言，语言相对论假说自诞生之日起便引起众多学者的关注，对其褒贬不一。本研究（第二章）着重分析了该理论受到批判与重新兴起的主要原因，并在分析原因的基础上，结合新认知语言学的观点及新沃尔夫主义者的实证研究，说明沃尔夫语言相对论假说的合理性，目的在于通过分析，澄清对沃尔夫语言假说的某些误解，从而说明二语概念迁移理论的哲学基础，同时期待学界正确认识与理解该理论，从而继续拓展该理论。
二语迁移研究已有六十多年历史，而以语言相对论为语言哲学基础进行的二语概念迁移研究还处于萌芽阶段（详见第三章）。本研究的第三章首先介绍了二语“迁移”术语的演变及其定义，从“迁移”的十个维度总结了二语迁移的类型，并回顾了二语迁移研究的发展历史及其最新观点。简言之，二语迁移研究经历了从基于行为主义心理学和结构主义语言学的“对比分析假设”，到基于普遍语法的“可及性假设”，再到基于“中介语”理论的“偏误分析”，发展到目前以语言相对论为语言哲学基础，在认知框架内建构二语概念迁移理论，并进行验证性的研究。在综述的基础上指出，二语概念迁移研究对我国英语教与学的研究具有重要意义及广阔的发展前景。
在对语言相对论的思想和二语概念迁移理论充分综述与论证的基础上，第三章从三个维度（“语言文化概念”维度、“英语语言学习过程”维度与“中介语形式层面的表征”维度）建构了本研究的理论框架——“汉语背景的英语学习概念迁移”理论框架。在“语言文化概念”维度中，首先描述和论证了汉族文化与汉语语言范畴系统之间相互影响、相互反映的关系，同时讨论这一语言范畴系统与汉语者概念范畴系统之间影响与反映的关系。然后，分别描述意合与形合语言组织方式影响下的汉、英语言范畴系统的特征。之后描述汉语整体型思维方式影响下的概念范畴系统。在“英语语言学习过程”维度中，分别讨论并定义本研究所涉及的词汇概念范畴迁移、语法概念范畴迁移与语法隐喻概念范畴迁移，并论证意义迁移与概念迁移的关系。在“中介语形式层面的表征”维度，我们以词汇与句法为例，论证词汇概念迁移与语法概念迁移、语法隐喻概念迁移在中介语形式层面的表征。
在本研究理论框架明晰后，便涉及到本研究的研究方法问题。所以，第四章首先讨论语料库在二语习得研究中的重要性，并概括语料库在二语习得研究中所能回答的研究问题。然后，对我国基于学习者语料库的二语习得研究进行较系统的综述。文献综述发现，我国基于语料库的二语研究已成为国内实证研究的主流，所研究的领域涉及词汇、语法（句法）与语篇，科研成果也逐渐增多，但目前尚未见有人从二语概念迁移理论的视角研究我国英语学习者的母语概念迁移问题。该综述为本研究基于语料库的二语概念迁移研究提供了重要的理论与实证研究背景，同时，也为本研究的研究方法选择提供了必要的支撑。在论证了二语习得语料库研究方法的重要性和可行性之后，第五章详细描述了本研究所采用的语料库研究方法，即本研究所使用的语料库、检索方法、统计方法、语料库软件，以及本研究的研究步骤。这为其他学者对本研究的发现进行重复性验证性研究（replicative study）提供了可能，而重复性验证性研究是任何理论验证研究不可或缺的。
通过基于语料库的量化和质化分析（见第六章、第七章、第八章）本研究发现：
1）在词汇学习过程中，词汇概念范畴的正/负迁移源于英汉词汇概念意义/概念属性的同中有异，语法概念范畴的负迁移源于英汉语法概念范畴系统的本质区别。（1）在动词、介词学习上，我国英语初学者概念迁移偏误频率很高，涉及词汇概念范畴迁移和语法概念范畴迁移两个方面。（2）在副词学习上，我国英语初学者语法概念范畴迁移偏误频率较高，主要在[位置]、[肯定性]、[主系表结构]这三个语法概念范畴/概念表征上发生迁移偏误。（3）在冠词学习上，我国初学者时常忽略单数可数名词前的定冠词或不定冠词。该偏误的根本原因在于母语“缺乏[冠词]语法概念范畴系统”这一概念表征的负迁移。（4）表现在动词、介词、副词与冠词上的概念迁移偏误均具有系统性、规律性特征。
2）在句法学习过程中，我国英语初学者在七类句法上出现偏误较多：如连缀句、时态偏误、语序偏误、数的偏误、“Be sentence”中“be”的缺失、主谓不一致、主/谓/宾缺失。根据每类英语句法偏误与学习者母语（汉语）在相应句法形式、意义上的相似性，可以推断学习者句法偏误的原因为母语语言形式与意义的负迁移，而从认知层面上看，避免或减少这七类偏误均涉及学习者语法概念范畴系统的调整或重构，因此，这七类偏误的认知根源在于母语语法概念范畴系统的负迁移。这七类偏误是初学者最常犯的偏误，已具有系统性、规律性特征。
3）在语法隐喻学习过程中,概念迁移具有阶段性发展特征。（1）学习者高中时隐喻使用水平较低，使用高级隐喻的类型较少，频次较低，偏误较多；心理过程内部隐喻没有使用，外在经验向内在经验映射的隐喻少有使用，表征方式内的隐喻使用更少，双重隐喻或多重隐喻也未使用，更未出现名词化隐喻。（2）英语专业一、二年级与高中时的隐喻使用相比没有显著提高；但三、四年级较前两个时期已有显著提高。
在报告这些发现的同时，我们还在部分研究中（第六章）以母语为德语的奥地利英语初学者语料和新加坡双语者语料为参照系，对我国英语学习者的词汇习得/误用与概念迁移的关系进行了讨论。通过比较，发现我国学习者的很多语言误用属于我国学习者所独有的习得特征，母语为德语的奥地利英语初学者未见出现同样迁移问题，其英语学习产出更接近英语本族语特征。所以，本研究有理由认为我国学习者的很多语言误用均受母语（汉语）的概念系统影响，具有系统性、阶段性与独特性特征，从而揭示了该学习者群体的认知规律与发展历程。本研究的发现一方面在很大程度上支持并验证了“汉语背景的英语学习概念迁移理论框架”，为二语概念迁移的进一步研究奠定了理论基础；另一方面对我国英语学习者英语词汇、语法、语法隐喻的教与学，以及二语概念迁移的研究方法也具有重要的启示意义。
The relationship between language and cognition (thought) is perhaps the most debatedand controversial topic in linguistic studies. Some linguists believe that language is anarbitrary symbolic system that truthfully reflects the real objective world. Consequently, thethought expressed by a human language would be the same as long as the object in the naturalworld is the same. However, some others argue that human language could not exactly reflectthe objective world, but it could influence people’s habitual thought and world view. Thisbelief has been argued and studied by many scholars for several generations during the pasttwo hundred years, and has been developed into “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” through Hamannto Whorf. Though the “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” has encountered much criticism and it wassilent for more than two decades, it has been recently rerecognized by many scholars. Forexample, the new cognitive linguistics has carried out many experimental studies which haveyielded convincing results to support the Neo-Whorfianist hypothesis of linguistic relativity.Influenced by the Neo-Whorfianist hypothesis of linguistic relativity, some scholars haverecently constructed a L2conceptual transfer theory in L2acquisition studies and carried outsome studies to verify the theory. However, up till now there are no theoretical and empiricalstudies that have been done in this area in China. Therefore, this study intends to examine therelationship between English learning and conceptual transfer in the English production ofChinese learners of English as a L2/foreign language. Specifically, the study identifies thesystematic features of the most frequently used English lexicon, grammar and grammaticalmetaphors in ICCI and its extended corpus by Chinese learners of English compared withthose of the beginning German-speaking learners of English from a conceptual transferperspective. The identified systematic features of these most frequently used English words,sentence structures and grammatical metaphors are analyzed by a corpus-based approach, anddiscussed in terms of conceptual or categorization system within the conceptual transfertheory in SLA.
After having highlighted the research background, research questions, research methodand significance (Chapter1), I review the theoretical foundations of this study (see Chapter2).In the review, I trace the development of the Neo-linguistic relativity hypothesis and discussthe understanding and misunderstanding of it. More specifically, Linguistic RelativityHypothesis has been criticized by many scholars since its birth. The current theoreticalreview (Chapter2) examines its ups and downs, and analyzes the main reasons for thecontroversies. In the examination, it is pointed out that some empirical studies have largelytestified the hypothesis and more studies should be carried out to further validate the hypothesis. In the review I argue that the hypothesis is rationale in relation to the review ofrecent findings/works of cognitive linguists and the Neo-Whorfianists. In the review I alsoargue that this hypothesis has provided a philosophical foundation and background for thenewly developed conceptual Transfer theory in SLA studies.
Based upon the review of the hypothesis and the conceptual transfer theory, I develop atheoretical framework for the current study in relation to the context of English learning inChina, and at the same time for a better understanding of this theory in order to carry outmore extended empirical studies in the cultural context of China.
Language transfer has long been regarded as one of the most important areas in SLA,but most of the studies in this area are UG driven and formal error analysis based with a focuson the L2forms rather than meaning and cognition. As mentioned earlier, recently informedby the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, scholars in SLA have developed the ConceptualTransfer Theory. Therefore, in Chapter3, I firstly review the development of languagetransfer studies with a focus on its definitions and relevant empirical studies. Languagetransfer studies have been developed from behavioral psychology and structurallinguistics-based contrastive analysis to interlanguage theory-based error analysis, and to theNeo-linguistic relativity hypothesis-informed conceptual transfer framework.
Based on the review, it is pointed out that the Conceptual Transfer Theory can providean important theoretical perspective for the current study. Drawing upon the conceptualtransfer theory in SLA, I develop the theoretical framework (“Conceptual TransferTheoretical Framework in English Learning”) in consideration of the context of Englishlearning in China. The theoretical framework consists of three dimensions, namely thedimension of “language, culture and thought”; the dimension of “English learning process”;the dimension of “representations on linguistic level”.
The dimension of “language, culture and thought” refers to the complicated relations attwo levels, one is the relationship of mutual influence and reflection between Chinese cultureand Chinese language category systems, and the other is the relationship between Chineselanguage category systems and conceptual category systems. In the discussion of thedimension, it is argued that the characteristics of the Chinese and English language categorysystems are influenced by the paratactic or hypotactic way of language organization, andtherefore the acquisition of Chinese conceptual categories are influenced by Chinese integralway of thinking.
The dimension of “English learning process” refers to the learning process where certainChinese lexicalized concepts, grammatical concepts and grammatical metaphoricalizedconcepts might be automatically transferred into the second language (English). In thediscussion of the dimension, the relationship between meaning transfer and conceptualtransfer are distinguished with examples.
The dimension of “Representations on linguistic level” refers to the characteristics oflearners’ errors committed in their interlanguage in terms of lexicon morphosyntactics andgrammatical metaphors. In the discussion of the dimension, how the transfer of theseconcepts is analyzed is discussed in relation to their linguistic representations or realizations.
After the theoretical framework is established, I review the previous corpus basedresearch in SLA in order to provide a rationale for the corpus approach adopted by the currentstudy (Chapter4). The review starts with why a corpus-based approach is important and whatresearch questions that corpus can answer in SLA studies. And then the corpus-based SLAstudies are summarized with comments. The literature review shows that corpus has becomethe most widely used research method in the SLA empirical studies. Although thecorpus-based studies are involved with a wide range of research domains, such as lexicon,grammar/syntax and discourse, there has been no study on Chinese learners of English from aconceptual transfer perspective. The detailed review not only provides a necessary academicbackground for this study, but it also supports the corpus approach this study has chosen as aresearch method. After the discussion of the rationale for the corpus-based approach, Idescribe in detail (Chapter5) the corpora, retrieval methods, statistical methods, concordancesoftwares used in the current study in relation to the research procedures.
Through the corpus-based quantitative and qualitative analysis, this study finds:
1) the conceptual transfer errors in terms of lexicon such as verbs, prepositions, adverbs,and articles made by the Chinese beginning learners of English as an interlanguage are veryhigh in frequency, and the transfers are mainly involved with lexicalized conceptual transferand grammaticalized conceptual transfer.
2) grammaticalized conceptual transfer errors in adverbs made by Chinese beginninglearners of English are high in frequency. They are mainly involved with threegrammaticalized conceptual categories/representations, that is,[POSITION][POSITIVITY]and [SCP STRUCTURE]. Besides, Chinese learners of English very often omit the definite orindefinite articles before singular countable nouns in the use of articles. Furthermore, theyfrequently commit some grammaticalized conceptual transfer errors represented on thesyntactic level, such as, run-on sentences, tense errors, word order errors, number errors, theomission of “be” in “be sentence”, subject-verb disagreement, the omission of subject/predicate/object. Through the detailed analyses, it is found that the syntactic errors made arequite similar with the syntactic features of Chinese, and since it involves the changing orrestructuring of the original conceptual categories to avoid or lessen the errors, all the errorsin question are due to the L1negative transfer of grammaticalized concepts, which is viewedas a proof of L1negative transfer of concepts as well as L1transfer of form and meaning.Thus generally speaking, the negative transfer of grammaticalized concepts can be attributedto the essential differences between the conceptual category systems in the two languages.
3) the use of Grammatical Metaphor (GM) by the beginning learners of English in seniormiddle schools is comparatively low and simple (most of GM types were not used or rarelyused), and the use of GM by the intermediate learners in first two grades of English-Majors asa group has no significant improvement compared with that of the middle school students.However, the use of GM by the advanced learners in the last two grades of English-Majorshas significant improvement compared with the former two groups both in terms of frequencyand diversity. This phenomenon, on the one hand, can be also attributed to the L1positiveand negative transfer of grammatical metaphoricalized concepts; and on the other itdemonstrates that learners’ conceptual transfer errors are developmental, that is, learners atdifferent developing stages might commit different errors in terms of the grammatical andmetaphoricalized concepts.
Based on the findings, this study concludes:1) both the positive and negative transfersfound in interlanguage (English) of Chinese learners in terms of lexicon, grammar, andgrammatical metaphors can be attributed to the similarity and differences of theconceptualization and categorization between Chinese and English.2) all the conceptualtransfer errors are systematic, regular and unique compared with those of German beginninglearners of English.3) these findings have largely testified the “conceptual transfer theoreticalframework in English learning” and laid a foundation for a further more sophisticatedresearch of conceptual transfer in SLA. Based upon the findings and conclusions, someimplications for English learning and teaching are also offered.
本论文在第一章简要描述了本研究的选题背景、研究内容与研究思路及其意义、目的后，在第二章首先回顾了语言相对论假说的思想传承，为该假说的发展过程提供一个清晰的脉络，为语言相对论思想的澄清提供理论背景。具体而言，语言相对论假说自诞生之日起便引起众多学者的关注，对其褒贬不一。本研究（第二章）着重分析了该理论受到批判与重新兴起的主要原因，并在分析原因的基础上，结合新认知语言学的观点及新沃尔夫主义者的实证研究，说明沃尔夫语言相对论假说的合理性，目的在于通过分析，澄清对沃尔夫语言假说的某些误解，从而说明二语概念迁移理论的哲学基础，同时期待学界正确认识与理解该理论，从而继续拓展该理论。
二语迁移研究已有六十多年历史，而以语言相对论为语言哲学基础进行的二语概念迁移研究还处于萌芽阶段（详见第三章）。本研究的第三章首先介绍了二语“迁移”术语的演变及其定义，从“迁移”的十个维度总结了二语迁移的类型，并回顾了二语迁移研究的发展历史及其最新观点。简言之，二语迁移研究经历了从基于行为主义心理学和结构主义语言学的“对比分析假设”，到基于普遍语法的“可及性假设”，再到基于“中介语”理论的“偏误分析”，发展到目前以语言相对论为语言哲学基础，在认知框架内建构二语概念迁移理论，并进行验证性的研究。在综述的基础上指出，二语概念迁移研究对我国英语教与学的研究具有重要意义及广阔的发展前景。
在对语言相对论的思想和二语概念迁移理论充分综述与论证的基础上，第三章从三个维度（“语言文化概念”维度、“英语语言学习过程”维度与“中介语形式层面的表征”维度）建构了本研究的理论框架——“汉语背景的英语学习概念迁移”理论框架。在“语言文化概念”维度中，首先描述和论证了汉族文化与汉语语言范畴系统之间相互影响、相互反映的关系，同时讨论这一语言范畴系统与汉语者概念范畴系统之间影响与反映的关系。然后，分别描述意合与形合语言组织方式影响下的汉、英语言范畴系统的特征。之后描述汉语整体型思维方式影响下的概念范畴系统。在“英语语言学习过程”维度中，分别讨论并定义本研究所涉及的词汇概念范畴迁移、语法概念范畴迁移与语法隐喻概念范畴迁移，并论证意义迁移与概念迁移的关系。在“中介语形式层面的表征”维度，我们以词汇与句法为例，论证词汇概念迁移与语法概念迁移、语法隐喻概念迁移在中介语形式层面的表征。
在本研究理论框架明晰后，便涉及到本研究的研究方法问题。所以，第四章首先讨论语料库在二语习得研究中的重要性，并概括语料库在二语习得研究中所能回答的研究问题。然后，对我国基于学习者语料库的二语习得研究进行较系统的综述。文献综述发现，我国基于语料库的二语研究已成为国内实证研究的主流，所研究的领域涉及词汇、语法（句法）与语篇，科研成果也逐渐增多，但目前尚未见有人从二语概念迁移理论的视角研究我国英语学习者的母语概念迁移问题。该综述为本研究基于语料库的二语概念迁移研究提供了重要的理论与实证研究背景，同时，也为本研究的研究方法选择提供了必要的支撑。在论证了二语习得语料库研究方法的重要性和可行性之后，第五章详细描述了本研究所采用的语料库研究方法，即本研究所使用的语料库、检索方法、统计方法、语料库软件，以及本研究的研究步骤。这为其他学者对本研究的发现进行重复性验证性研究（replicative study）提供了可能，而重复性验证性研究是任何理论验证研究不可或缺的。
通过基于语料库的量化和质化分析（见第六章、第七章、第八章）本研究发现：
1）在词汇学习过程中，词汇概念范畴的正/负迁移源于英汉词汇概念意义/概念属性的同中有异，语法概念范畴的负迁移源于英汉语法概念范畴系统的本质区别。（1）在动词、介词学习上，我国英语初学者概念迁移偏误频率很高，涉及词汇概念范畴迁移和语法概念范畴迁移两个方面。（2）在副词学习上，我国英语初学者语法概念范畴迁移偏误频率较高，主要在[位置]、[肯定性]、[主系表结构]这三个语法概念范畴/概念表征上发生迁移偏误。（3）在冠词学习上，我国初学者时常忽略单数可数名词前的定冠词或不定冠词。该偏误的根本原因在于母语“缺乏[冠词]语法概念范畴系统”这一概念表征的负迁移。（4）表现在动词、介词、副词与冠词上的概念迁移偏误均具有系统性、规律性特征。
2）在句法学习过程中，我国英语初学者在七类句法上出现偏误较多：如连缀句、时态偏误、语序偏误、数的偏误、“Be sentence”中“be”的缺失、主谓不一致、主/谓/宾缺失。根据每类英语句法偏误与学习者母语（汉语）在相应句法形式、意义上的相似性，可以推断学习者句法偏误的原因为母语语言形式与意义的负迁移，而从认知层面上看，避免或减少这七类偏误均涉及学习者语法概念范畴系统的调整或重构，因此，这七类偏误的认知根源在于母语语法概念范畴系统的负迁移。这七类偏误是初学者最常犯的偏误，已具有系统性、规律性特征。
3）在语法隐喻学习过程中,概念迁移具有阶段性发展特征。（1）学习者高中时隐喻使用水平较低，使用高级隐喻的类型较少，频次较低，偏误较多；心理过程内部隐喻没有使用，外在经验向内在经验映射的隐喻少有使用，表征方式内的隐喻使用更少，双重隐喻或多重隐喻也未使用，更未出现名词化隐喻。（2）英语专业一、二年级与高中时的隐喻使用相比没有显著提高；但三、四年级较前两个时期已有显著提高。
在报告这些发现的同时，我们还在部分研究中（第六章）以母语为德语的奥地利英语初学者语料和新加坡双语者语料为参照系，对我国英语学习者的词汇习得/误用与概念迁移的关系进行了讨论。通过比较，发现我国学习者的很多语言误用属于我国学习者所独有的习得特征，母语为德语的奥地利英语初学者未见出现同样迁移问题，其英语学习产出更接近英语本族语特征。所以，本研究有理由认为我国学习者的很多语言误用均受母语（汉语）的概念系统影响，具有系统性、阶段性与独特性特征，从而揭示了该学习者群体的认知规律与发展历程。本研究的发现一方面在很大程度上支持并验证了“汉语背景的英语学习概念迁移理论框架”，为二语概念迁移的进一步研究奠定了理论基础；另一方面对我国英语学习者英语词汇、语法、语法隐喻的教与学，以及二语概念迁移的研究方法也具有重要的启示意义。
The relationship between language and cognition (thought) is perhaps the most debatedand controversial topic in linguistic studies. Some linguists believe that language is anarbitrary symbolic system that truthfully reflects the real objective world. Consequently, thethought expressed by a human language would be the same as long as the object in the naturalworld is the same. However, some others argue that human language could not exactly reflectthe objective world, but it could influence people’s habitual thought and world view. Thisbelief has been argued and studied by many scholars for several generations during the pasttwo hundred years, and has been developed into “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” through Hamannto Whorf. Though the “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” has encountered much criticism and it wassilent for more than two decades, it has been recently rerecognized by many scholars. Forexample, the new cognitive linguistics has carried out many experimental studies which haveyielded convincing results to support the Neo-Whorfianist hypothesis of linguistic relativity.Influenced by the Neo-Whorfianist hypothesis of linguistic relativity, some scholars haverecently constructed a L2conceptual transfer theory in L2acquisition studies and carried outsome studies to verify the theory. However, up till now there are no theoretical and empiricalstudies that have been done in this area in China. Therefore, this study intends to examine therelationship between English learning and conceptual transfer in the English production ofChinese learners of English as a L2/foreign language. Specifically, the study identifies thesystematic features of the most frequently used English lexicon, grammar and grammaticalmetaphors in ICCI and its extended corpus by Chinese learners of English compared withthose of the beginning German-speaking learners of English from a conceptual transferperspective. The identified systematic features of these most frequently used English words,sentence structures and grammatical metaphors are analyzed by a corpus-based approach, anddiscussed in terms of conceptual or categorization system within the conceptual transfertheory in SLA.
After having highlighted the research background, research questions, research methodand significance (Chapter1), I review the theoretical foundations of this study (see Chapter2).In the review, I trace the development of the Neo-linguistic relativity hypothesis and discussthe understanding and misunderstanding of it. More specifically, Linguistic RelativityHypothesis has been criticized by many scholars since its birth. The current theoreticalreview (Chapter2) examines its ups and downs, and analyzes the main reasons for thecontroversies. In the examination, it is pointed out that some empirical studies have largelytestified the hypothesis and more studies should be carried out to further validate the hypothesis. In the review I argue that the hypothesis is rationale in relation to the review ofrecent findings/works of cognitive linguists and the Neo-Whorfianists. In the review I alsoargue that this hypothesis has provided a philosophical foundation and background for thenewly developed conceptual Transfer theory in SLA studies.
Based upon the review of the hypothesis and the conceptual transfer theory, I develop atheoretical framework for the current study in relation to the context of English learning inChina, and at the same time for a better understanding of this theory in order to carry outmore extended empirical studies in the cultural context of China.
Language transfer has long been regarded as one of the most important areas in SLA,but most of the studies in this area are UG driven and formal error analysis based with a focuson the L2forms rather than meaning and cognition. As mentioned earlier, recently informedby the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, scholars in SLA have developed the ConceptualTransfer Theory. Therefore, in Chapter3, I firstly review the development of languagetransfer studies with a focus on its definitions and relevant empirical studies. Languagetransfer studies have been developed from behavioral psychology and structurallinguistics-based contrastive analysis to interlanguage theory-based error analysis, and to theNeo-linguistic relativity hypothesis-informed conceptual transfer framework.
Based on the review, it is pointed out that the Conceptual Transfer Theory can providean important theoretical perspective for the current study. Drawing upon the conceptualtransfer theory in SLA, I develop the theoretical framework (“Conceptual TransferTheoretical Framework in English Learning”) in consideration of the context of Englishlearning in China. The theoretical framework consists of three dimensions, namely thedimension of “language, culture and thought”; the dimension of “English learning process”;the dimension of “representations on linguistic level”.
The dimension of “language, culture and thought” refers to the complicated relations attwo levels, one is the relationship of mutual influence and reflection between Chinese cultureand Chinese language category systems, and the other is the relationship between Chineselanguage category systems and conceptual category systems. In the discussion of thedimension, it is argued that the characteristics of the Chinese and English language categorysystems are influenced by the paratactic or hypotactic way of language organization, andtherefore the acquisition of Chinese conceptual categories are influenced by Chinese integralway of thinking.
The dimension of “English learning process” refers to the learning process where certainChinese lexicalized concepts, grammatical concepts and grammatical metaphoricalizedconcepts might be automatically transferred into the second language (English). In thediscussion of the dimension, the relationship between meaning transfer and conceptualtransfer are distinguished with examples.
The dimension of “Representations on linguistic level” refers to the characteristics oflearners’ errors committed in their interlanguage in terms of lexicon morphosyntactics andgrammatical metaphors. In the discussion of the dimension, how the transfer of theseconcepts is analyzed is discussed in relation to their linguistic representations or realizations.
After the theoretical framework is established, I review the previous corpus basedresearch in SLA in order to provide a rationale for the corpus approach adopted by the currentstudy (Chapter4). The review starts with why a corpus-based approach is important and whatresearch questions that corpus can answer in SLA studies. And then the corpus-based SLAstudies are summarized with comments. The literature review shows that corpus has becomethe most widely used research method in the SLA empirical studies. Although thecorpus-based studies are involved with a wide range of research domains, such as lexicon,grammar/syntax and discourse, there has been no study on Chinese learners of English from aconceptual transfer perspective. The detailed review not only provides a necessary academicbackground for this study, but it also supports the corpus approach this study has chosen as aresearch method. After the discussion of the rationale for the corpus-based approach, Idescribe in detail (Chapter5) the corpora, retrieval methods, statistical methods, concordancesoftwares used in the current study in relation to the research procedures.
Through the corpus-based quantitative and qualitative analysis, this study finds:
1) the conceptual transfer errors in terms of lexicon such as verbs, prepositions, adverbs,and articles made by the Chinese beginning learners of English as an interlanguage are veryhigh in frequency, and the transfers are mainly involved with lexicalized conceptual transferand grammaticalized conceptual transfer.
2) grammaticalized conceptual transfer errors in adverbs made by Chinese beginninglearners of English are high in frequency. They are mainly involved with threegrammaticalized conceptual categories/representations, that is,[POSITION][POSITIVITY]and [SCP STRUCTURE]. Besides, Chinese learners of English very often omit the definite orindefinite articles before singular countable nouns in the use of articles. Furthermore, theyfrequently commit some grammaticalized conceptual transfer errors represented on thesyntactic level, such as, run-on sentences, tense errors, word order errors, number errors, theomission of “be” in “be sentence”, subject-verb disagreement, the omission of subject/predicate/object. Through the detailed analyses, it is found that the syntactic errors made arequite similar with the syntactic features of Chinese, and since it involves the changing orrestructuring of the original conceptual categories to avoid or lessen the errors, all the errorsin question are due to the L1negative transfer of grammaticalized concepts, which is viewedas a proof of L1negative transfer of concepts as well as L1transfer of form and meaning.Thus generally speaking, the negative transfer of grammaticalized concepts can be attributedto the essential differences between the conceptual category systems in the two languages.
3) the use of Grammatical Metaphor (GM) by the beginning learners of English in seniormiddle schools is comparatively low and simple (most of GM types were not used or rarelyused), and the use of GM by the intermediate learners in first two grades of English-Majors asa group has no significant improvement compared with that of the middle school students.However, the use of GM by the advanced learners in the last two grades of English-Majorshas significant improvement compared with the former two groups both in terms of frequencyand diversity. This phenomenon, on the one hand, can be also attributed to the L1positiveand negative transfer of grammatical metaphoricalized concepts; and on the other itdemonstrates that learners’ conceptual transfer errors are developmental, that is, learners atdifferent developing stages might commit different errors in terms of the grammatical andmetaphoricalized concepts.
Based on the findings, this study concludes:1) both the positive and negative transfersfound in interlanguage (English) of Chinese learners in terms of lexicon, grammar, andgrammatical metaphors can be attributed to the similarity and differences of theconceptualization and categorization between Chinese and English.2) all the conceptualtransfer errors are systematic, regular and unique compared with those of German beginninglearners of English.3) these findings have largely testified the “conceptual transfer theoreticalframework in English learning” and laid a foundation for a further more sophisticatedresearch of conceptual transfer in SLA. Based upon the findings and conclusions, someimplications for English learning and teaching are also offered.
引文
[1] Alford D. Part I: Demise of the Whorf Hypothesis[M]. Phoenix: New Directions in the Study of Man.v. IV, nos.1and2.1980.
[2] Alloway T, Corley M. Speak Before You Think: The role of language in verb concepts[J]. Journal ofCognition and Culture,2004,4.
[3] Alshayban A S. Copula omission by EFL Arab learners[D].(Doctoral dissertation, Colorado StateUniversity).2012.
[4] Ard J, Homburg T. Verification of Language Transfer[C]. In: Gass S, Selinker L, eds.1983.
[5] Ayoun D, Salaberry M R. Acquisition of English tense-aspect morphology by advanced Frenchinstructed learners[J]. Language Learning,2008.58.
[6] Bardovi-Harlig K. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use[M].Oxford: Blackwell.2000.
[7] Barron A. Learning to Say ‘you’ in German: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a studyabroad context[C]. In: DuFon M A, Churchill E,eds. Language learners in study abroad contexts.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,2006.
[8] Berlin B, Kay P. Basic Color Terms: their universality and evolution[M]. Berkeley: UniversityCalifornia Press.1969.
[9] Bloom A. The Linguistic Shaping of Though: a study in the impact of language on thinking in Chinaand the West[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.1981.
[10] Boas F. Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages[M]. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.1911.
[11] Boroditsky L, Ramscar M. The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought[J]. PsychologicalScience,2002.13(2).
[12] Boroditsky L. Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors[J]. Cognition,2000,75(1).
[13] Boroditsky L. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time[J].Cognitive Psychology,2001,43(1).
[14] Boroditsky L. Linguistic Relativity[C]. In: Nadel L, ed. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London:MacMillan Press.2003.
[15] Boroditsky L. Comparison and the development of knowledge[J]. Cognition,2007,102(1).
[16] Boroditsky L. Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently about time?[C] In: Love B C,McRae K, Sloutsky V M, eds. Proceedings of the30thAnnual Conference of the Cognitive ScienceSociety. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society,2008.
[17] Boroditsky L. How does our language shape the way we think?[C] In: Brockman ed. What's Next?Dispatches on the Future of Science. Vintage Press.2009.
[18] Boroditsky L. How Languages Construct Time[C]. In: Dehaene, Brannon, eds. Space, Time andNumber in the Brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought. Elsevier.2011.
[19] Boroditsky L, Fuhrman O, McCormick K. Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently abouttime?[J] Cognition.2010.
[20] Bowerman M. The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: cognitive versus linguisticdeterminants[C]. In: Gumperz J, Levinson S, eds, Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.1996.
[21] Brock C A. The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1986,(20).
[22] Brown A, Gullberg M. Convergence in Established and Emerging Language Systems: evidence fromspeech and gesture in L1Japanese[C]. Paper presented at the2ndInternational Conference on FirstLanguage Attrition (ICFLA), August17–20, Amsterdam, Netherlands.2005.
[23] Brown R. Linguistic Determinism and Parts of Speech[J]. The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology,1957,55(1).
[24] Butterworth B. Commentary on “How Can Syntax Support Number Word Acquisition?” by KristenSyrett, Julien Musolino, and Rochel Gelman[J]. Language Learning and Development,2012,8(2).
[25] Carruthers P. Language in cognition[C]. In: Margolis E, Samuels R, Stich S, eds, The Oxfordhandbook of philosophy of cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2008.
[26] Celce-Murcia M, Larsen-Freeman D. The grammar book: an ESL/EFL teacher’s course[M]. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.1983.
[27] Chan H L, Finberg J, Costello W, et al. L2Acquisition of Tense-aspect Morphology Lexical Aspect,Morphological Regularity, and Transfer[C]. In: Filipovic L, Jaszczolt, K M, eds, Space and Time inLanguages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.2012.
[28] Chao Y R. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese[M]. Los Angeles: University of California.1968.
[29] Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Dordrecht: Foris.1981.
[30] Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M]. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.1965.
[31] Chomsky N. Language and Mind[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.1968.
[32] Chomsky N. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar[M]. The Hague: Mouton.1972.
[33] Chomsky, N, Language and the Study of Mind[M]. Tokyo: Sanshusha.1982.
[34] Chomsky N. Modular Approaches to the Study of Mind[M]. San Diego: San Diego State UniversityPress.1984.
[35] Chomsky N. Language and Thought[M]. Wakefield, R I: Moyer Bell.1993.
[36] Churchill E, DuFon M A. Evolving Threads in Study Abroad Research[C]. In: DuFon M A, ChurchillE, eds. Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,2006.
[37] Comrie B. Tense[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1985.
[38] Cook V.(Ed), Portraits of the L2User[M]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.2002.
[39] Corbett G. Number[M]. Cambridge University Press.2000.
[40] Corder S P. A Role for the Mother Tongue[C]. In: Gass S, Selinker L, eds,1983.
[41] Crompton P.“Where”,“In Which”, and “In That”: A Corpus-Based Approach to Error Analysis[J].Regional Language Center Journal,2005,36(2).
[42] Dechert H, Raupach M, eds. Transfer in Language Production[C]. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.1989.
[43] Devyani S. Typological diversity in New Englishes[J]. English World-Wide,2009,30(2).
[44] Dewaele J M, Veronique D. Gender Assignment and Gender Agreement in Advanced FrenchInterlanguage: Across-sectional study[J]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2001,4.
[45] Dietrich R, Klein W, Noyau C. The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language[M],Amsterdam: John Benjamins.1995.
[46] Doukas T, Marinis T. The Acquisition of Person and Number Morphology Within the Verbal Domainin Early Greek[J]. Language Studies Working Papers，2012,4.
[47] Dryer M. Word order patterns in Sino-Tibetan[C]. In: Thurgood G, LaPolla R, eds. The Sino-Tibetanlanguages. London: Routledge.2003.
[48] Dulay H, Burt M. Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition[J]. LanguageLearning,1974,24(1).
[49] Dulay H, Burt M. Goofing: An Indicator of Children’s Second Language Learning Strategies[C].Gass S, Selinker L, eds.1983.
[50] Eberhard K M. The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreementin English[J]. Journal of Memory and Language.1999,41(4).
[51] Ferguson C A. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity. Pidginization and creolization oflanguages[C]. In: Hymes D, ed. Pidginazation and Creolization of Langages. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1971.
[52] Fillmore C. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning[C]. Proceedings of the First AnnualMeeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Amsterdam: North Holland,1975.
[53] Fillmore C. Scenes-and-frames Semantics[C]. In: Zampolli A, ed. Linguistic Structures Processing.Amsterdam: North Holland,1977.
[54] Fillmore C. Frame Semantics[C]. In: Linguistic Society of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the MorningCalm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing,1982.
[55] Fillmore C. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding[J]. Quaderni di Semantica,1985,6.
[56] Fishman J A. Whorfianism of the Third Kind: ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societalasset[C]. In: The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: perspectives on language and ethnicity, ed.Amsterdam: Mouton.1985.
[57] Fodor J. The Modularity of Mind: an essay on faculty psychology[M]. Cambridge: MITPress/Bradford.1984.
[58] Frankel R. Ancient Technologies: Complete vs. Conceptual Transfer[J]. Tel Aviv: Journal of theInstitute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University,2012.39(1).
[59] Gass, S. and Selinker, L. Second Language Acquisition: an introductory course[M]. Mahwah, NJ.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2001.
[60] Gass S, Selinker L, eds. Language Transfer in Language Learning: series on issues in secondlanguage research. Rowley[C]. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.1983.
[61] Gass S M. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory: the role of language transfer[C]. In:Ritchie W C, Bhatia T K, eds. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: AcademicPress,1996.
[62] Gentner D, Boroditsky L. Individuation, Relativity, and Early Word Learning[C]. In: BowermanandM, Levinson S, eds. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.2001.
[63] Gentner D, Imai M. Across-linguistic Study of Early Word Meaning: universal ontology and linguisticinfluence[J]. Cognition,1997,62(2).
[64] Gibbs R. The Poetics of the Mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1994.
[65] Gipper H. Is There a Linguistic Relativity Principle?[C] In: Pinxten R, ed. Universalism versusrelativism in language and thought: proceedings of a colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf hypotheses,Paris: Mouton.1976.
[66] Gorokhova E. Acquisition of English articles by native speakers of Spanish[C]. In: Morava E C,Goldberg B S, ed. Meaning as Explanation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,1995.
[67] Granger S, ed. Learner English on Computer[C]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.1998.
[68] Gumperz J, Levinson S, eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.1996.
[69] Halliday M A K. An introduction to functional grammar[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press.2007.
[70] Halliday M A K, Hasan R. Cohesion in English[M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2007.
[71] Heider E. Universals in Color Naming and Memory[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology,1972,93.
[72] Higgins D, Burstein J, Marcu, D, et al, Evaluating multiple aspects of coherence in student essays[C].In: Proceedings of the NAACL,2004.
[73] Hiki M. A Study of Learners’ Judgments of Noun Countability[D]. doctoral dissertation, IndianaUniversity.1991.
[74] Hinkel E. L2Tense and Time Reference[J]. TESOL Quarterly,1992,26.
[75] Holmes V, B. Dejean de la Batie, Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreignlearners of French[J]. Applied Psycholinguistics,1999,20.
[76] Hornby A S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary[M]. Beijing: The CommercialPress.1997.
[77] Humboldt W. über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Spranchbaues und ihren Einfluss auf diegeistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: k niglichen Akademie der wissenschaften.Transl.1988as On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on theMental Development of Mankind[M], transl. P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1836.
[78] Hunt E, Agnoli F. The Whorfian Hypothesis: a cognitive psychology perspective[J]. PsychologicalReview,1991,98.
[79] Imai M, Mazuka R. Reevaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role ofuniversal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation[C]. In: Gentner D,Goldin-Meadow S, eds, Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2003.
[80] Ionin T, Wexler K. Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by childsecond language learners of English[J]. Second Language Research.2002,18(2).
[81] Jarvis S. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlanguage Lexicon[M]. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityLinguistics Club.1998.
[82] Jarvis S. Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal[J]. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition,2011,14(1).
[83] Jarvis S, Pavlenko A. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition[M]. New York: Routledge.2008.
[84] Jarvis S. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlingual Lexicon[M]. Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.1998.
[85] Jarvis S. Probing the Effects of the L2on the L1: A case study[C]. In: Cook V, ed, Effects of thesecond language on the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.2003.
[86] Jiang Y J. Chinglish and China English[J]. English Today,1995,11:51-56.
[87] Kagan D M. Run-on and Fragment Sentences: an error analysis[J]. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish,1980,14(2).
[88] Kaplan R B. Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education[J]. Language Learning,1996.1.
[89] Kay P, Kempton W. What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?[J] American Anthropologist,1984.86.
[90] Kecskes I, Papp T. Foreign Language and Mother Tongue[M]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.2000.
[91] Kellerman E, Smith M S, eds. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition[C]. Oxford:Pergamon Press.1986.
[92] Kellerman E. An Eye for an Eye: Constraints of the L2Lexicon[C]. In: Kellerman E, Smith M S, eds,1986.
[93] Kellerman E. Transfer to Nowhere[J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,1995,15.
[94] Kinginger C. Farrell K. Assessing Development of Meta-pragmatic Awareness in Study Abroad[J].Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,2004,10.
[95] Ko H, Ionin T, Wexler K. The role of presuppositionality in the Second Language acquisition ofEnglish articles[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,2010.41(2).
[96] Koerner E. On the Sources of the ‘Sapir Whorf Hypothesis’[C]. In: Koerner E F K, ed,2007. EdwardSapir: critical assessments of leading linguists. London: Routledge.2002.
[97] K pcke K M. The acquisition of plural marking in English and German revisited: schemata versusrules[J]. Journal of Child language,1998.25.
[98] Kwan-Terry A. The acquisition of word order in English and Cantonese Interrogative sentence: aSingapore Case study[J]. RELC Journal,1986.17.
[99] Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures[M]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.1957.
[100] Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1980.
[101] Lakoff G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1987.
[102] Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.1987.
[103] Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2: Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.1991.
[104] Lardiere D. Acquiring (or assembling) functional categories in second language acquisition[C]. In:Belikova A, Meroni L, Umeda M, eds. Proceedings of the2ndConference on Generative Approachesto Language Acquisition North America (GALANA). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla ProceedingsProject.2007.
[105] Lardiere D. Feature-assembly in second language acquisition[C]. In: Liceras J, Zobl H, GoodluckH, eds. The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.2008.
[106] Leech G. Preface[C]. In: Granger S, ed. Learners English on Computer. New York: Longman.1998.
[107] Lenneberg E. Cognition in ethnolinguistics[J]. Language,1953,29.
[108] Levinson S. Frames of Reference and Molyneux’s question:crosslinguistic evidence[C]. In: Bloom P,Peterson M, eds, Language and space. Cambridge: MIT Press.1996.
[109] Levinson S. Space in Language and Cognition: explorations in cognitive diversity[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.2003.
[110] Li X, Zong Ch Q. A Hierarchical Parsing Approach with Punctuation Processing for Long ComplexChinese Sentences[C]. In: Companion Volume to the Proceedings of Conference includingPosters/Demos and Tutorial Abstracts. Jeju Island, Korea,2005.
[111] Liceras J M, Fernández Fuertes R, Alba de la Fuente A. Overt subjects and copula omission in theSpanish and the English grammar of English-Spanish bilinguals: on the locus and directionality ofinterlinguistic influence[J]. First Language,2012,32(1-2).
[112] Littlemore J. Metaphoric Competence: A Language Learning Strength of Students With a HolisticCognitive Style[J]. Tesol Quarterly,2001,35(3).
[113] Liu Y B, Zhang H P. Use and Misuse of Cohesive Devices in the Writings of EFL Chinese Learners:A Corpus-based Study. Tono et al.(eds), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in LearnerCorpus Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.2012.
[114] Liu Y B, Zhang H P.(under review) English Word Learning and Conceptual Transfer:A corpus studyof most frequently used English verbs by Chinese beginning learners, International Journal ofCorpus linguistics.2013.
[115] Lucy J. A Methodological Critique of Berlin and Kay’s Basic Color Terms[C]. PsychologicalAnthropology Discussion Group of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, May.1974.
[116] Lucy J. Cross-cultural Differences in Müller-Lyer Illusion Susceptibility[C]. Invited discussant,Society for Cross-Cultural Research, Fourth Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL,21-23February.1975.
[117] Lucy J. An Empirical Approach to the Whorfian Hypothesis[C]. Psycholinguistics Colloquium,Northwestern University, Evanston, IL,18November.1981a.
[118] Lucy J. Cultural Factors in Memory for Color: the problem of usage[C]. Symposium on Semantics,Ethnolinguistics, and Cognition,80thAnnual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,1981b.
[119] Lucy J. Whorf's View of the Linguistic Mediation of Thought[C]. Symposium on Semiotic Mediationin Psychosocial Activity,81stAnnual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,Washington, DC,5December,1982.
[120] Lucy J. Direct Report of Speech in Yucatec Maya[C]. Symposium on Mayan Linguistics,82ndAnnualMeeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago, IL,20November,1983.
[121] Lucy J. Consideración Funcional de Clasificadores Numéricos del Maya Yucateco[C].[A functionalconsideration of numeral classifiers in Yucatec Maya.] Taller Maya [Maya Workshop] VII, Mérida,Yucatán, México,31July,1984.
[122] Lucy J. The Historical Relativity of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis[J]. The QuarterlyNewsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition,1985,7(4).
[123] Lucy J. Linguistic Diversity and Cognition[C]. Cross-Cultural Workshop, University of Chicago,Chicago, IL,4February.1986.
[124] Lucy J. The role of language in the development of representation: A comparison of the views ofPiaget and Vygotsky[J]. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative HumanCognition,1988,10(4).
[125] Lucy J. Linguistic relativity and discourse about nuclear war[C]. In: Urban G, Lee B, eds, Gender,Reason, and Nuclear Policy: Report of a Colloquium Held at the University of Chicago. Chicago:Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies,1989,(35).
[126] Lucy J. Benjamin Lee Whorf [C]. In: International Dictionary of Anthropologists. New York:Garland,1991.
[127] Lucy J. Language Diversity and Thought: a reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis[M].Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1992a.
[128] Lucy J. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativityhypothesis[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1992b.
[129] Lucy J. Reflexive language in the human disciplines[C]. In: Lucy J A, ed. Reflexive Language:Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press,1993a.
[130] Lucy J. Metapragmatic presentationals: Reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya[C]. In:Lucy J A, ed. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1993b.
[131] Lucy J. The role of semantic value in lexical comparison: Motion and position roots in YucatecMaya[J]. Linguistics,1994,32(4/5).
[132] Lucy J. The Scope of Linguistic Relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research[C]. In:Gumperz J, Levinson S, eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1996.
[133] Lucy J. The Linguistics of “Color”[C]. In: Hardin C L, Maffi L, eds. Color Categories in Thoughtand Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997.
[134] Lucy J. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[C]. In: Craig E, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London:Routledge,1998.8.
[135] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity[C]. In: Wilson R, Keil F, eds. The MIT Encyclopedia of the CognitiveSciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,1999.
[136] Lucy J. Systems of Nominal Classification: a concluding discussion[C]. In: Senft G, ed. Systems ofNominal Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
[137] Lucy J. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[C]. In: Smelser N, Baltes P, eds. International Encyclopedia of theSocial and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Science,2001.20.
[138] Lucy J. Language, Culture, and Mind[C]. In: Achard M, Kemmer S, eds. Language, Culture, andMind. Stanford, CA: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications
[distributed by the University of Chicago Press],2004.
[139] Lucy J. Through the Window of Language: assessing the influence of language diversity onthought[J]. Theoria.2005,(54).
[140] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity: an overview and Case Study[C]. Seminar, Department of Linguistics,School for Doctorates, CRATILO (Scuola di Dottorato CRATILO), Pisa, Italy,17September,2007a.
[141] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity and Language Categories[C]. Seminar, POLYCAT Working Group,Paris, France,20September,2007b.
[142] Lucy J. The Referential Semantics of Yucatec Maya Root Nouns: an exploration in method[C].Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Chicago, IL,3January.2008a.
[143] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity[C]. Week-long workshop on Experimental Methods in CognitiveLinguistics. Odense, Denmark,7-12July.2008b.
[144] Lucy J, Wertsch J. Vygotsky and Whorf: A comparative analysis[C]. In: Hickmann M, ed, Social andFunctional Approaches to Language and Thought. New York: Academic Press,1987.
[145] Lucy J, Shweder R. Whorf and His Critics: linguistic and nonlinguistic influences on colormemory[J]. American Anthropologist,1979,81.
[146] Lucy J, Gaskins S. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: Acomparative approach[C]. In: Levinson S, Bowerman M, eds, Language Acquisition and ConceptualDevelopment. Cambridge University Press,2001.
[147] Lucy J, Gaskins S. Interaction of Language Type and Referent Type in the Development ofNonverbal Classification Preferences[C]. In: Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S, eds, Language in Mind:Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2003.
[148] Malt B. Concept Structure and Category Boundaries[C]. In: Nakamura G, Medin D, Taraban R, eds.Categorization by Humans and Machines. New York: Academic Press,1993.
[149] Malt B, Sloman S. Linguistic Diversity and Object Naming by Non-native Speakers of English[J].Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2003,6.
[150] Martin L. Eskimo words for snow: A case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropologicalexample[J]. American Anthropologist,1986,88(2).
[151] Matthews D, Lieven E, Theakston A, et al. The role of frequency in the acquisition of English wordorder[J]. Cognitive Development,2005,20(1).
[152] Maurits L, Perfors A F, Navarro D J. Joint acquisition of word order and word reference[C]. In:Taatgen N A, Rijn H V, eds. Proceedings of the31stAnnual Conference of the Cognitive ScienceSociety. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.2009.
[153] McCafferty S. Gesture and Creating Zones of Proximal Development for Second LanguageLearning[J]. The Modern Language Journal,2002,86.
[154] Miller R. The Linguistic Relativity Principle and Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics: A history andappraisal[M]. Paris: Mouton.1968.
[155] Mühlh usler P, Harré R. Pronouns and People: The linguistic construction of social and personalidentity[M]. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.1990.
[156] Munro M J, Derwing T M. Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech ofSecond Language Learners[J]. Language Learning,1995,45(1).
[157] Murphy G. The Big Book of Concepts[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.2002.
[158] Murphy G, Medin D. The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence[J]. Psychological Review,1985,92.
[159] Musolino J. The logical syntax of number words: Theory, acquisition and processing[J]. Cognition,2009,111.
[160] Neelernan A, Weerman F. L1and L2Word Order Acquisition[J]. Language Acquisition.1997,6(2).
[161] Negen J, Sarnecka B W. Number-Concept Acquisition and General Vocabulary Development[J].Child Development.2012,83(6).
[162] Negueruela E, Lantolf J, Rehn Jordan, S, et al. The “Private Function” of Gesture in SecondLanguage Speaking Activity: A study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish[J].International Journal of Applied Linguistics,2004,14.
[163] Odlin T. Crosslinguistic Influence[C]. In: Doughty C, Long M, eds. The Handbook of SecondLanguage Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell:2003.
[164] Odlin T. Crosslinguistic Influence and Conceptual Transfer: What are the concepts?[J] AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics,2005,25.
[165] Odlin T. Conceptual Transfer and Meaning Extensions[C]. In: Robinson P, Ellis N, eds. Handbook ofCognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Routledge:2008.
[166] Odlin T. Language Transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1989.
[167] Okasha S. Conceptual Transfer in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon[M]. Trafford on Demand Pub.2012.
[168] Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1979.
[169] Ortony A. Metaphor, language, and thought[C]. In: Ortony A, ed. Metaphor and thought.2ndedn.Cambridge: CUP.1993.
[170] Pavlenko A, Driagina V. Russian Emotion Vocabulary in American Learners’ Narratives[J]. ModernLanguage Journal,2007,91.
[171] Pavlenko A. Eyewitness Memory in Latebilinguals: evidence for discursive relativity[J]. TheInternational Journal of Bilingualism,2003,7.
[172] Penn J. Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas: the origins of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis inGerman Thought[M]. Paris: Mouton.1972.
[173] Peters A M. Strategies in the acquisition of syntax[C]. In: Fletcher P, MacWhinney B, eds. TheHandbook of Child Language. Oxford: Blackwell,1995.
[174] Piaget J. The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structure[M]. Trans. by ArnoldRosin. New York: Viking.1977.
[175] Pooley R C. Subject-Verb Agreement[J]. American Speech,1934,9(1).
[176] Pourcel S. Investigating Linguistic Relativity: a research methodology[J]. Durham Working Papersin Linguistics,2002,8.
[177] Prodeau M. Gender and Number in French L2: Can we find out more about the constraints onproduction in L2?[C] In: Dewaele J-M, ed. Focus on French as a foreign language:Multidisciplinary approaches. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,2005.
[178] Pullum G. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study ofLanguage[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.1991.
[179] Quirk R S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M].Cambridge University Press.1985.
[180] Ringbom H. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning[M]. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.1987.
[181] Rizzi L. On the grammatical basis of language development: a case study [C]. In: Cinque G, RichardS K, eds. The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press,2005.
[182] Rollins P. Benjamin Lee Whorf: lost generation theories of language, mind, and religion[M]. AnnArbor, MI: University Microfilms International.1980.
[183] Rollinson I T. An exploration into word order in learner corpora: The WOSLAC Project[C]. In:Davies M, Rayson P, Hunston S, et al. eds. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference.University of Birmingham, UK.2007.
[184] Rosch E. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,1975,(104).
[185] Rosch E. Principles of Categorization[C]. In: Rosch R, Louyd B, eds. Cognition and Categorization.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.1978.
[186] Rossi-Landi F. Ideologies of Linguistic Relativity[M]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton andCompany, Approaches to Semiotics Series,4.1973.
[187] Sapir E. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir[C]. In: Mandelbaum D, ed. Berkeley: UniversityCalifornia Press.1949.
[188] Schachter J. An Error in Error Analysis[J]. Language Learning,1974,24:2.
[189] Schachter J. A New Account of Language Transfer[C]. In: Gass S, Selinker L, eds.1983.
[190] Schank R, Abelson R. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an inquiry into human knowledgestructures[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1977.
[191] Schlesinger I. The Wax and Wane of Whorfian Views[M]. New York: Mounton de Gruyter.1991.
[192] Selinker L. Interlanguage[J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL)1972,10(2).
[193] Selinker L. Rediscovering Interlanguage[M]. New York: Longman.1992.
[194] Sera M, Berge C, Castillo J Del. Grammatical and Conceptual Forces in the Attribution of Gender byEnglish and Spanish Speakers[J]. Cognitive Development,1994,9(3).
[195] Slobin D. Thinking for Speaking[C]. Proceedings of the13thBerkeley Linguistic Society,1987.
[196] Slobin D. Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study[C]. In: Perdue C, ed. AdultLanguage Acquisition:Cross-linguistic perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[197] Slobin D. From ‘Thought and Language’ to ‘Thinking for Speaking’[C]. In: Gumperz J, Levinson S,eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1996.
[198] Slobin D. Verbalised Events[C]. In: Niemeier S, Dirven R, eds. Evidence for Linguistic Relativity.Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2000.
[199] Sutomo J. Error Analysis on Learners’ Passive Sentences[J]. Dinamika Bahasa dan Ilmu Budaya,2010,4(2).
[200] Syrett K, Musolino J, Gelman R. How Can Syntax Support Number Word Acquisition?[J].Language Learning and Development,2012,8(2).
[201] Tai J. Cognitive Relativism: resultative construction in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics,2003,4(2).
[202] Talmy L. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms[C]. In: Shopen T, ed. LanguageTypology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1985.
[203] Unlu E A, Hatipoglu. The acquisition of the copula be in present simple tense in English by nativespeakers of Russian[J]. System,2012,40(2).
[204] Van Reybroeck M, Hupet M. Acquisition of number agreement: effects of processing demands[J].Journal of Writing Research,2009,1(2).
[205] VanPatten B, Williams J, eds. Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction[C]. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum.2007.
[206] Vendler Z. Verbs and times[J]. Philosophical Review,1957.
[207] Vigliocco G, Butterworth B, Garrett M F. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English:Differences in the role of conceptual constraints[J]. Cognition，1996,61(3).
[208] Westergaard M. Unlearning V2: Transfer, markedness and the importance of input cues in theacquisition of word order in English by Norwegian children[J]. EUROSLA Yearbook,2003,3.
[209] Whorf B L. Language, Thought and Reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[C]. Carroll JB. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.1956.
[210] Zdorenko T, Paradis J. Articles in child L2English: When L1and L2acquisition meet at theinterface[J]. First Language,2012,32(1-2).
[211] Zobl H. A Direction for Contrastive Analysis: the comparative study of developmental sequences[J].TESOL Quarterly,1982,16(2).
[212]蔡金亭，吴一安.中国大学生英语冠词使用研究[J].外语教学与研究，2006,38（4）.
[213]陈国华，周榕．基于语料库的使役性心理谓词的习得比较研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2006（4）.
[214]陈佳．新沃尔夫主义概述[J].外语教学与研究，2011（4）.
[215]陈立平，濮建忠．基于语料库的大学生英语口语自我修正研究[J].外语教学，2007（2）.
[216]陈运香．萨丕尔-沃尔夫语言相对论对语言文化对比研究的启示[J].西安外国语大学学报，2007（1）.
[217]陈新仁，中国学生二语产出中的光秃可数名词短语——概念认知与语言表征[J].外语研究，2010（1）.
[218]程春梅，何安平．高级英语学习者口语音段错误分析——一项基于语料库的研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2008（1）.
[219]戴炜栋，韦理.中国学习者英语冠词语义特征习得研究[J].外语教学与研究，2008,40（2）.
[220]邓耀臣，肖德法．中国大学生英语虚化动词搭配型式研究[J].外语教学与研究，2005（2）.
[221]丁任．谈谈英汉主语的差别[J].四川外语学院学报，1993（3）.
[222]丁容容，何福．中国学习者英语口语中强势语的用法研究[J].外语教学，2006（5）.
[223]丁声树．现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京：商务印书馆，1961.
[224]冯之林．思维语[J].现代外语，1997（2）.
[225]高名凯．汉语语法论[M].北京：商务印书馆，1986.
[226]高一虹．沃尔夫假说的“言外行为”与“言后行为”[J].外语教学与研究，2000（3）.
[227]（美）本杰明·李·沃尔夫著，高一虹等译．论语言、思维和现实[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社，2001a.
[228]高一虹，沃尔夫的普遍主义思想[J].外语研究，2001b（2）.
[229]高育松．二语接口现象习得中母语迁移模块说的实证检验[J].外语教学理论与实践，2009（2）.
[230]顾姗姗．基于语料库的中国学习者动词语态习得研究——以concern为例[J].徐州师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2005（1）.
[231]桂诗春，杨惠中．中国学习者英语语料库[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003.
[232]郭爱萍，郑冰梅．沃尔夫“语言相对论”内涵之辨析[J].山东外语教学，2007（1）.
[233]郭富强．意合形合的汉英对比研究[D]：［博士学位论文］．上海：华东师范大学，2006.
[234]郭建红．论科技英语名词化隐喻：语篇功能和认知效果[J].外国语文，2010，26（2）.
[235]何安平．基于语料库的英语教师话语分析[J].现代外语，2003（2）.
[236]何安平．语料库语言学与英语教学[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2006.
[237]何安平，徐曼菲．中国大学生英语口语Small Words的研究[J].外语教学与研究，2003（6）.
[238]胡裕树．现代汉语（增订本）[M].上海：上海教育出版社，1981.
[239]黄伯荣，廖序东.现代汉语[M].北京：高等教育出版社，1991.
[240]黄昌宁，李涓子．语料库语言学[M].北京：商务印书馆，2002.
[241]黄国文，丁建新．沃尔夫论隐性范畴[J].外语教学与研究，2001（4）.
[242]姜望琪．汉语的“句子”与英语的sentence[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2005（1）.
[243]郎天万．英汉语法异同及文化根源[J].四川外语学院学报，1994（4）.
[244]李佳，蔡金亭．认知语言学角度的英语空间介词习得研究[J].现代外语，2008.31（2）.
[245]李景泉，蔡金亭.中国学生英语写作中的冠词误用现象[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001,24（6）.
[246]李瑞芳，孟令新．第二语言学习中语法隐喻对语言输入的影响[J].外语教学，2004，25（3）.
[247]李文中．基于英语学习者语料库的主题词研究[J].现代外语，2003（3）.
[248]李锡江，刘永兵.从对比分析到概念迁移——语言迁移研究理论的嬗变[J].东北师范大学学报，2013（1）.
[249]梁茂成，李文中，许家金．语料库应用教程[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
[250]刘爱军，张会平．英语存在句误用及时态使用特征对比研究[J].学术界，2011（2）.
[251]刘爱军，张会平．基于语料库的输出假设研究——英语存在句缩略式的使用特征分析[J].四川外语学院学报，2008a（6）.
[252]刘爱军，张会平．中国英语专业学生英语存在句肯定式的使用特征——一项基于语料库的研究[J].北京邮电大学学报（社会科学版），2008b（5）.
[253]刘国华．英语主谓一致规律浅析[J].河南师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版），1989（4）.
[254]刘红英．英语定语习惯与汉语谓语习惯现象及成因[J].外国语文，2010（3）.
[255]刘宓庆．汉英对比与翻译（修订本）[M].南昌：江西教育出版社，1992.
[256]刘绍龙.英语中介语错误及其动态范式——儿童及大学生BE动词习得错误的个案调查[J].现代外语，2000（1）.
[257]刘永兵．西方二语习得理论研究的两种认识论取向——对我国外语研究的启示[J].东北师大学报》（哲学社会科学版）2010（4）.
[258]刘永兵，林正军，王冰．基础英语课堂话语语料库的建构与研究功能[J].当代外语研究，2010（8）.
[259]刘永兵，张会平.基于语料库的中学英语课堂的规约话语研究[J].外语与外语教学,2010（4）.
[260]刘永兵，张会平.社会认知主义视域下的外语教学与传统外语教学的关系思考与定位[J].中国外语，2011a（4）.
[261]刘永兵，张会平．英语教师课堂话语语法复杂度——一项基于课堂话语语料库的对比研究[J].外语电化教学，2011b（2）.
[262]刘月华，潘文娱，故韡．实用现代汉语语法[M].北京：商务印书馆，2004.
[263]刘泽权．〈红楼梦〉中英文语料库的创建及应用研究[M].北京：光明日报出版社，2010.
[264]卢植．语言相对论对当代认知语言学的影响[J].外语学刊，2006（3）.
[265]陆俭明．汉语句子的特点[J].汉语学习，1993（1）.
[266]陆锦林．英语谓语动词的省略[J].国外外语教学，1988（3）.
[267]罗竹凤．汉语大词典[Z].上海：汉语大词典出版社，1989.
[268]吕叔湘．现代汉语八百词（增订本）[M].北京：商务印书馆，1999.
[269]马建忠．马氏文通[M].北京：商务印书馆，1983.
[270]马寿祥．英语句子成分刍议[J].外语教学与研究，1981（3）.
[271]牛保义．英语的be-sentence和汉语的“是”字句异同比较[J].解放军外国语学院学报，1993（6）.
[272]潘文国．汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1997.
[273]彭芳．英汉语表示“将来”意义的语法化———基于语料库的语法化对比研究[J].西安外国语大学学报，2008（3）.
[274]彭宣维．及物性结构式及概念语义隐喻[C]．见：第四届全国认知语言学研讨会论文摘要汇编.2006.
[275]濮建忠．学习者动词行为：类联接、搭配及词块[M].开封：河南大学出版社，2003.
[276]取德本．语法学家们面临的一个新问题——关于英语主谓一致[J].外国语，1995（6）.
[277]任庆梅，杨连瑞．中介语词汇概念迁移的认知范畴化阐释[J].中国海洋大学学报（社会科学版），2010（2）.
[278]申小龙．中国理论语言学的文化重建[M].沈阳：沈阳出版社，2006.
[279]沈家煊．英汉方所概念的表达[C]．见：赵世开主编.汉英对比语法论集.上海：外语教育出版社.1999.
[280]施光，辛斌．语言、思维、认知——再论沃尔夫假说[J].四川外语学院学报，2007（1）.
[281]孙承荣，宋德生．概念语法隐喻与学习者英语语篇建构水平关系的实证研究[J].外语学刊，2008（5）.
[282]孙海燕．基于语料库的学习者英语形容词搭配语义特征探究[J].现代外语，2004（4）.
[283]汪兴富，Davies，M，刘国辉．美国当代英语语料库（COCA）——英语教学与研究的良好平台[J].外语电化教学，2008（5）.
[284]王华，甄凤超．透过主题词和关键主题词管窥中国学习者英语口语交际能力中的词语知识[J].外语界，2007（1）.
[285]王化鹏．汉英省略句比较研究[J].福建外语，1994（1）.
[286]王菊泉．从英语译文看汉语主语的省略现象[J].语言研究，1991（2）.
[287]王力．中国现代语法[M].北京：商务印书馆，1985.
[288]王力．汉语史稿[M].北京：中华书局，2004.
[289]王力．中国语法理论[M].济南：山东教育出版社，1984.
[290]王立非．英语写作教学与研究的中国视角[C]．见：第四届中国英语写作教学与研究国际研讨会论文集.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2008.
[291]王立非，孙晓坤．汉语写作能力对英语写作质量的影响[J].外语与外语教学，2005（4）.
[292]王立非，张岩．大学生英语议论文中疑问句式使用的特征——一项基于中外学习者语料库的对比研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2006（1）.
[293]王立非，张岩．大学生英语议论文中高频动词使用的语料库研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（2）.
[294]王颖冲．语言与思维关系再认识——沃尔夫《论语言、思维和现实》解读[J].外语教学与研究，2011（4）.
[295]王振亚，汉语名词复数概念表达法对中国学生英语学习的直接与非直接干扰[J].外语与外语教学，1990（3）.
[296]韦理，戴炜栋.大学生英语定冠词句法语用接口习得研究[J].中国外语，2010,7（2）.
[297]卫乃兴．基于语料库和语料库驱动的词语搭配研究[J].当代语言学，2002（2）.
[298]卫乃兴．中国学习者英语口语的短语学特征研究——COLSEC语料库的词块证据分析[J].现代外语，2007（3）.
[299]文秋芳，丁言人，王文宇．中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向研究[J].外语教学与研究，2003（4）.
[300]文秋芳，梁茂成，晏小琴．中国学习者英语口笔语语料库2.0[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2008.
[301]文秋芳，王立非，梁茂成．中国学习者英语口笔语语料库1.0[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2005.
[302]吴思乐，典型信息结构与英语冠词教学[J].外语教学，2006,27（6）.
[303]吴松江，郑新民．英语论文写作研究：以“易得”论文写作软件专家系统为案例[J].外语电化教学，2006（5）.
[304]向明友．基于语料库的英语语法化研究[J].北京航空航天大学学报（社会科学版），2010（1）.
[305]肖忠华，戴光荣．英语中的否定：基于语料库的研究[J].外国语言文学，2009（4）.
[306]谢元花．基于语料库的词汇研究与外语教学[J].广东外语外贸大学学报，2002（2）.
[307]邢殿普．英语句子的主谓一致[J].基础英语教育，2009（3）.
[308]熊学亮，刘东虹．英语学习中语法隐喻的迁移[J].外语教学与研究，2005，37（2）.
[309]许家金，许宗瑞．中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（6）.
[310]许梦卿，程晓堂．非英语专业大学生英语作文中介词IN的语义使用情况——一项基于语料库的研究[J].外语与外语教学，2011（5）.
[311]闫丽莉.中国学生英语冠词习得初探[J].外语教学与研究，2003,35（3）.
[312]严世清．论韩礼德的语言哲学思想[J].外语研究，2002（2）.
[313]杨朝春．语言相对论近期实证研究综述[J].外语教学与研究，2005（6）.
[314]杨惠中，卫乃兴．《中国学习者英语口语语料库建设与研究》.上海：上海外语教育出版社.2005.
[315]杨梅．中国学习者英语冠词的二语产出——关于音韵迁移假说的实证检验[J].外语教学与研究，2012，44（1）.
[316]杨燕锋．时间状语对英语过渡语中一般过去时使用的影响——基于口语语料的研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（6）.
[317]杨永林，罗立胜，张文霞．体验英语写作研究：来自清华大学英语夏令营“体验英语写作团队”的报告[J].中国外语，2005（6）.
[318]杨永林，门顺德．语言相对论与外语教学的跨文化比较研究[J].现代外语，2004（3）.
[319]杨忠．语言相对论与语义研究视角摭议[J].外国问题研究，2010（1）.
[320]姚小平．人类语言学家沃尔夫的遗产——读〈论语言、思维和现实〉[J].外语教学与研究》2002（1）.
[321]袁咏．英语专业学习者朗读中话语标记语的韵律模式——一项基于语料库的纵深研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2008（1）.
[322]张道真.英语语法大全[M].首都师范大学出版社，2008.
[323]张德禄，赵静．论语法概念隐喻中一致式与隐喻式的形似性原则[J].外国语，2008，31（6）.
[324]张会平，刘永兵．基于语料库的中学英语教师课堂话语标记语研究[J].外语教学与研究，2010（5）.
[325]张会平，刘永兵．人际隐喻认知视域下的英汉否定转移现象研究[J].外语教学，2011（5）.
[326]张会平，刘永兵.语言相对论视域下的英语介词学习与概念迁移[J].外语教学，2013a（4）.
[327]张会平，刘永兵．添加关系话语标记语的句法特征及习得规律——基于两岸三地初学者笔语语料库的实证研究[J].当代外语研究，2013b（1）.
[328]张会平，刘永兵．英语词汇学习与概念迁移——以常用动词搭配与类联接为例[J].外语与外语教学，2013c（待刊）.
[329]张会平，刘永兵.新及物性模式下中国学生语法隐喻的习得历程[J].外国语，2013d（4）.
[330]张继东，刘萍．中国大学生英语写作中的使役结构及相应的词化现象调查与分析[J].外语研究，2005（3）.
[331]张少林，曾鹏．数吸引对英语主谓一致影响的实验研究[J].外语教学理论与实践，2011（3）.
[332]张淑静．中国英语专业学习者make的使用特点调查报告[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2002（4）.
[333]张雪梅，杨滢滢.英语专业学习者的时态习得现状——一项基于中国英语专业写作语料库的研究[J].外国语文，2009（3）.
[334]张豫峰，范晓．“有”字句的后续成分[J].语言教学与研究，1996（4）.
[335]张志公．现代汉语（试用本）[M].北京：人民教育出版社，1982.
[336]章振邦．关于主语和谓语一致关系的若干探讨[J].外语界，1986（4）.
[337]章振邦．新编英语语法教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
[338]赵元任．中国话的文法（丁邦新译）[M].香港：中文大学出版社，1980.
[339]赵振才．英语常见问题解答大词典[Z]．西安：世界图书出版西安公司，2009.
[340]甄凤超．中国学习者英语口语词汇量及常用词汇研究——基于英语口语语料库的词目研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2005（5）.
[341]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室．现代汉语词典[Z]．北京：商务印书馆，2005.
[342]朱春丽，魏纪东．论沃尔夫语言观的理论基础[J].解放军外国语学院学报，1999（6）.
[343]朱叶秋，大学生英语冠词掌握情况调查[J].外语教学与研究，2003,35（3）.
[344]左岩．汉英部分语篇衔接手段的差异[J].外语教学与研究，1995（3）.
[2] Alloway T, Corley M. Speak Before You Think: The role of language in verb concepts[J]. Journal ofCognition and Culture,2004,4.
[3] Alshayban A S. Copula omission by EFL Arab learners[D].(Doctoral dissertation, Colorado StateUniversity).2012.
[4] Ard J, Homburg T. Verification of Language Transfer[C]. In: Gass S, Selinker L, eds.1983.
[5] Ayoun D, Salaberry M R. Acquisition of English tense-aspect morphology by advanced Frenchinstructed learners[J]. Language Learning,2008.58.
[6] Bardovi-Harlig K. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use[M].Oxford: Blackwell.2000.
[7] Barron A. Learning to Say ‘you’ in German: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a studyabroad context[C]. In: DuFon M A, Churchill E,eds. Language learners in study abroad contexts.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,2006.
[8] Berlin B, Kay P. Basic Color Terms: their universality and evolution[M]. Berkeley: UniversityCalifornia Press.1969.
[9] Bloom A. The Linguistic Shaping of Though: a study in the impact of language on thinking in Chinaand the West[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.1981.
[10] Boas F. Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages[M]. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.1911.
[11] Boroditsky L, Ramscar M. The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought[J]. PsychologicalScience,2002.13(2).
[12] Boroditsky L. Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors[J]. Cognition,2000,75(1).
[13] Boroditsky L. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time[J].Cognitive Psychology,2001,43(1).
[14] Boroditsky L. Linguistic Relativity[C]. In: Nadel L, ed. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London:MacMillan Press.2003.
[15] Boroditsky L. Comparison and the development of knowledge[J]. Cognition,2007,102(1).
[16] Boroditsky L. Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently about time?[C] In: Love B C,McRae K, Sloutsky V M, eds. Proceedings of the30thAnnual Conference of the Cognitive ScienceSociety. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society,2008.
[17] Boroditsky L. How does our language shape the way we think?[C] In: Brockman ed. What's Next?Dispatches on the Future of Science. Vintage Press.2009.
[18] Boroditsky L. How Languages Construct Time[C]. In: Dehaene, Brannon, eds. Space, Time andNumber in the Brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought. Elsevier.2011.
[19] Boroditsky L, Fuhrman O, McCormick K. Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently abouttime?[J] Cognition.2010.
[20] Bowerman M. The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: cognitive versus linguisticdeterminants[C]. In: Gumperz J, Levinson S, eds, Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.1996.
[21] Brock C A. The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1986,(20).
[22] Brown A, Gullberg M. Convergence in Established and Emerging Language Systems: evidence fromspeech and gesture in L1Japanese[C]. Paper presented at the2ndInternational Conference on FirstLanguage Attrition (ICFLA), August17–20, Amsterdam, Netherlands.2005.
[23] Brown R. Linguistic Determinism and Parts of Speech[J]. The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology,1957,55(1).
[24] Butterworth B. Commentary on “How Can Syntax Support Number Word Acquisition?” by KristenSyrett, Julien Musolino, and Rochel Gelman[J]. Language Learning and Development,2012,8(2).
[25] Carruthers P. Language in cognition[C]. In: Margolis E, Samuels R, Stich S, eds, The Oxfordhandbook of philosophy of cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2008.
[26] Celce-Murcia M, Larsen-Freeman D. The grammar book: an ESL/EFL teacher’s course[M]. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.1983.
[27] Chan H L, Finberg J, Costello W, et al. L2Acquisition of Tense-aspect Morphology Lexical Aspect,Morphological Regularity, and Transfer[C]. In: Filipovic L, Jaszczolt, K M, eds, Space and Time inLanguages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.2012.
[28] Chao Y R. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese[M]. Los Angeles: University of California.1968.
[29] Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Dordrecht: Foris.1981.
[30] Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M]. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.1965.
[31] Chomsky N. Language and Mind[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.1968.
[32] Chomsky N. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar[M]. The Hague: Mouton.1972.
[33] Chomsky, N, Language and the Study of Mind[M]. Tokyo: Sanshusha.1982.
[34] Chomsky N. Modular Approaches to the Study of Mind[M]. San Diego: San Diego State UniversityPress.1984.
[35] Chomsky N. Language and Thought[M]. Wakefield, R I: Moyer Bell.1993.
[36] Churchill E, DuFon M A. Evolving Threads in Study Abroad Research[C]. In: DuFon M A, ChurchillE, eds. Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,2006.
[37] Comrie B. Tense[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1985.
[38] Cook V.(Ed), Portraits of the L2User[M]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.2002.
[39] Corbett G. Number[M]. Cambridge University Press.2000.
[40] Corder S P. A Role for the Mother Tongue[C]. In: Gass S, Selinker L, eds,1983.
[41] Crompton P.“Where”,“In Which”, and “In That”: A Corpus-Based Approach to Error Analysis[J].Regional Language Center Journal,2005,36(2).
[42] Dechert H, Raupach M, eds. Transfer in Language Production[C]. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.1989.
[43] Devyani S. Typological diversity in New Englishes[J]. English World-Wide,2009,30(2).
[44] Dewaele J M, Veronique D. Gender Assignment and Gender Agreement in Advanced FrenchInterlanguage: Across-sectional study[J]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2001,4.
[45] Dietrich R, Klein W, Noyau C. The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language[M],Amsterdam: John Benjamins.1995.
[46] Doukas T, Marinis T. The Acquisition of Person and Number Morphology Within the Verbal Domainin Early Greek[J]. Language Studies Working Papers，2012,4.
[47] Dryer M. Word order patterns in Sino-Tibetan[C]. In: Thurgood G, LaPolla R, eds. The Sino-Tibetanlanguages. London: Routledge.2003.
[48] Dulay H, Burt M. Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition[J]. LanguageLearning,1974,24(1).
[49] Dulay H, Burt M. Goofing: An Indicator of Children’s Second Language Learning Strategies[C].Gass S, Selinker L, eds.1983.
[50] Eberhard K M. The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreementin English[J]. Journal of Memory and Language.1999,41(4).
[51] Ferguson C A. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity. Pidginization and creolization oflanguages[C]. In: Hymes D, ed. Pidginazation and Creolization of Langages. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1971.
[52] Fillmore C. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning[C]. Proceedings of the First AnnualMeeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Amsterdam: North Holland,1975.
[53] Fillmore C. Scenes-and-frames Semantics[C]. In: Zampolli A, ed. Linguistic Structures Processing.Amsterdam: North Holland,1977.
[54] Fillmore C. Frame Semantics[C]. In: Linguistic Society of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the MorningCalm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing,1982.
[55] Fillmore C. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding[J]. Quaderni di Semantica,1985,6.
[56] Fishman J A. Whorfianism of the Third Kind: ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societalasset[C]. In: The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: perspectives on language and ethnicity, ed.Amsterdam: Mouton.1985.
[57] Fodor J. The Modularity of Mind: an essay on faculty psychology[M]. Cambridge: MITPress/Bradford.1984.
[58] Frankel R. Ancient Technologies: Complete vs. Conceptual Transfer[J]. Tel Aviv: Journal of theInstitute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University,2012.39(1).
[59] Gass, S. and Selinker, L. Second Language Acquisition: an introductory course[M]. Mahwah, NJ.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2001.
[60] Gass S, Selinker L, eds. Language Transfer in Language Learning: series on issues in secondlanguage research. Rowley[C]. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.1983.
[61] Gass S M. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory: the role of language transfer[C]. In:Ritchie W C, Bhatia T K, eds. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: AcademicPress,1996.
[62] Gentner D, Boroditsky L. Individuation, Relativity, and Early Word Learning[C]. In: BowermanandM, Levinson S, eds. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.2001.
[63] Gentner D, Imai M. Across-linguistic Study of Early Word Meaning: universal ontology and linguisticinfluence[J]. Cognition,1997,62(2).
[64] Gibbs R. The Poetics of the Mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1994.
[65] Gipper H. Is There a Linguistic Relativity Principle?[C] In: Pinxten R, ed. Universalism versusrelativism in language and thought: proceedings of a colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf hypotheses,Paris: Mouton.1976.
[66] Gorokhova E. Acquisition of English articles by native speakers of Spanish[C]. In: Morava E C,Goldberg B S, ed. Meaning as Explanation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,1995.
[67] Granger S, ed. Learner English on Computer[C]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.1998.
[68] Gumperz J, Levinson S, eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.1996.
[69] Halliday M A K. An introduction to functional grammar[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press.2007.
[70] Halliday M A K, Hasan R. Cohesion in English[M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2007.
[71] Heider E. Universals in Color Naming and Memory[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology,1972,93.
[72] Higgins D, Burstein J, Marcu, D, et al, Evaluating multiple aspects of coherence in student essays[C].In: Proceedings of the NAACL,2004.
[73] Hiki M. A Study of Learners’ Judgments of Noun Countability[D]. doctoral dissertation, IndianaUniversity.1991.
[74] Hinkel E. L2Tense and Time Reference[J]. TESOL Quarterly,1992,26.
[75] Holmes V, B. Dejean de la Batie, Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers and foreignlearners of French[J]. Applied Psycholinguistics,1999,20.
[76] Hornby A S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary[M]. Beijing: The CommercialPress.1997.
[77] Humboldt W. über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Spranchbaues und ihren Einfluss auf diegeistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: k niglichen Akademie der wissenschaften.Transl.1988as On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on theMental Development of Mankind[M], transl. P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1836.
[78] Hunt E, Agnoli F. The Whorfian Hypothesis: a cognitive psychology perspective[J]. PsychologicalReview,1991,98.
[79] Imai M, Mazuka R. Reevaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role ofuniversal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation[C]. In: Gentner D,Goldin-Meadow S, eds, Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2003.
[80] Ionin T, Wexler K. Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by childsecond language learners of English[J]. Second Language Research.2002,18(2).
[81] Jarvis S. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlanguage Lexicon[M]. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityLinguistics Club.1998.
[82] Jarvis S. Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal[J]. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition,2011,14(1).
[83] Jarvis S, Pavlenko A. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition[M]. New York: Routledge.2008.
[84] Jarvis S. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlingual Lexicon[M]. Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.1998.
[85] Jarvis S. Probing the Effects of the L2on the L1: A case study[C]. In: Cook V, ed, Effects of thesecond language on the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.2003.
[86] Jiang Y J. Chinglish and China English[J]. English Today,1995,11:51-56.
[87] Kagan D M. Run-on and Fragment Sentences: an error analysis[J]. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish,1980,14(2).
[88] Kaplan R B. Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education[J]. Language Learning,1996.1.
[89] Kay P, Kempton W. What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?[J] American Anthropologist,1984.86.
[90] Kecskes I, Papp T. Foreign Language and Mother Tongue[M]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.2000.
[91] Kellerman E, Smith M S, eds. Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition[C]. Oxford:Pergamon Press.1986.
[92] Kellerman E. An Eye for an Eye: Constraints of the L2Lexicon[C]. In: Kellerman E, Smith M S, eds,1986.
[93] Kellerman E. Transfer to Nowhere[J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,1995,15.
[94] Kinginger C. Farrell K. Assessing Development of Meta-pragmatic Awareness in Study Abroad[J].Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,2004,10.
[95] Ko H, Ionin T, Wexler K. The role of presuppositionality in the Second Language acquisition ofEnglish articles[J]. Linguistic Inquiry,2010.41(2).
[96] Koerner E. On the Sources of the ‘Sapir Whorf Hypothesis’[C]. In: Koerner E F K, ed,2007. EdwardSapir: critical assessments of leading linguists. London: Routledge.2002.
[97] K pcke K M. The acquisition of plural marking in English and German revisited: schemata versusrules[J]. Journal of Child language,1998.25.
[98] Kwan-Terry A. The acquisition of word order in English and Cantonese Interrogative sentence: aSingapore Case study[J]. RELC Journal,1986.17.
[99] Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures[M]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.1957.
[100] Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1980.
[101] Lakoff G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1987.
[102] Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.1987.
[103] Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2: Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.1991.
[104] Lardiere D. Acquiring (or assembling) functional categories in second language acquisition[C]. In:Belikova A, Meroni L, Umeda M, eds. Proceedings of the2ndConference on Generative Approachesto Language Acquisition North America (GALANA). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla ProceedingsProject.2007.
[105] Lardiere D. Feature-assembly in second language acquisition[C]. In: Liceras J, Zobl H, GoodluckH, eds. The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.2008.
[106] Leech G. Preface[C]. In: Granger S, ed. Learners English on Computer. New York: Longman.1998.
[107] Lenneberg E. Cognition in ethnolinguistics[J]. Language,1953,29.
[108] Levinson S. Frames of Reference and Molyneux’s question:crosslinguistic evidence[C]. In: Bloom P,Peterson M, eds, Language and space. Cambridge: MIT Press.1996.
[109] Levinson S. Space in Language and Cognition: explorations in cognitive diversity[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.2003.
[110] Li X, Zong Ch Q. A Hierarchical Parsing Approach with Punctuation Processing for Long ComplexChinese Sentences[C]. In: Companion Volume to the Proceedings of Conference includingPosters/Demos and Tutorial Abstracts. Jeju Island, Korea,2005.
[111] Liceras J M, Fernández Fuertes R, Alba de la Fuente A. Overt subjects and copula omission in theSpanish and the English grammar of English-Spanish bilinguals: on the locus and directionality ofinterlinguistic influence[J]. First Language,2012,32(1-2).
[112] Littlemore J. Metaphoric Competence: A Language Learning Strength of Students With a HolisticCognitive Style[J]. Tesol Quarterly,2001,35(3).
[113] Liu Y B, Zhang H P. Use and Misuse of Cohesive Devices in the Writings of EFL Chinese Learners:A Corpus-based Study. Tono et al.(eds), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in LearnerCorpus Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.2012.
[114] Liu Y B, Zhang H P.(under review) English Word Learning and Conceptual Transfer:A corpus studyof most frequently used English verbs by Chinese beginning learners, International Journal ofCorpus linguistics.2013.
[115] Lucy J. A Methodological Critique of Berlin and Kay’s Basic Color Terms[C]. PsychologicalAnthropology Discussion Group of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, May.1974.
[116] Lucy J. Cross-cultural Differences in Müller-Lyer Illusion Susceptibility[C]. Invited discussant,Society for Cross-Cultural Research, Fourth Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL,21-23February.1975.
[117] Lucy J. An Empirical Approach to the Whorfian Hypothesis[C]. Psycholinguistics Colloquium,Northwestern University, Evanston, IL,18November.1981a.
[118] Lucy J. Cultural Factors in Memory for Color: the problem of usage[C]. Symposium on Semantics,Ethnolinguistics, and Cognition,80thAnnual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,1981b.
[119] Lucy J. Whorf's View of the Linguistic Mediation of Thought[C]. Symposium on Semiotic Mediationin Psychosocial Activity,81stAnnual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,Washington, DC,5December,1982.
[120] Lucy J. Direct Report of Speech in Yucatec Maya[C]. Symposium on Mayan Linguistics,82ndAnnualMeeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago, IL,20November,1983.
[121] Lucy J. Consideración Funcional de Clasificadores Numéricos del Maya Yucateco[C].[A functionalconsideration of numeral classifiers in Yucatec Maya.] Taller Maya [Maya Workshop] VII, Mérida,Yucatán, México,31July,1984.
[122] Lucy J. The Historical Relativity of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis[J]. The QuarterlyNewsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition,1985,7(4).
[123] Lucy J. Linguistic Diversity and Cognition[C]. Cross-Cultural Workshop, University of Chicago,Chicago, IL,4February.1986.
[124] Lucy J. The role of language in the development of representation: A comparison of the views ofPiaget and Vygotsky[J]. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative HumanCognition,1988,10(4).
[125] Lucy J. Linguistic relativity and discourse about nuclear war[C]. In: Urban G, Lee B, eds, Gender,Reason, and Nuclear Policy: Report of a Colloquium Held at the University of Chicago. Chicago:Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies,1989,(35).
[126] Lucy J. Benjamin Lee Whorf [C]. In: International Dictionary of Anthropologists. New York:Garland,1991.
[127] Lucy J. Language Diversity and Thought: a reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis[M].Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1992a.
[128] Lucy J. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativityhypothesis[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1992b.
[129] Lucy J. Reflexive language in the human disciplines[C]. In: Lucy J A, ed. Reflexive Language:Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press,1993a.
[130] Lucy J. Metapragmatic presentationals: Reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya[C]. In:Lucy J A, ed. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1993b.
[131] Lucy J. The role of semantic value in lexical comparison: Motion and position roots in YucatecMaya[J]. Linguistics,1994,32(4/5).
[132] Lucy J. The Scope of Linguistic Relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research[C]. In:Gumperz J, Levinson S, eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1996.
[133] Lucy J. The Linguistics of “Color”[C]. In: Hardin C L, Maffi L, eds. Color Categories in Thoughtand Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997.
[134] Lucy J. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[C]. In: Craig E, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London:Routledge,1998.8.
[135] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity[C]. In: Wilson R, Keil F, eds. The MIT Encyclopedia of the CognitiveSciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,1999.
[136] Lucy J. Systems of Nominal Classification: a concluding discussion[C]. In: Senft G, ed. Systems ofNominal Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000.
[137] Lucy J. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[C]. In: Smelser N, Baltes P, eds. International Encyclopedia of theSocial and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Science,2001.20.
[138] Lucy J. Language, Culture, and Mind[C]. In: Achard M, Kemmer S, eds. Language, Culture, andMind. Stanford, CA: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications
[distributed by the University of Chicago Press],2004.
[139] Lucy J. Through the Window of Language: assessing the influence of language diversity onthought[J]. Theoria.2005,(54).
[140] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity: an overview and Case Study[C]. Seminar, Department of Linguistics,School for Doctorates, CRATILO (Scuola di Dottorato CRATILO), Pisa, Italy,17September,2007a.
[141] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity and Language Categories[C]. Seminar, POLYCAT Working Group,Paris, France,20September,2007b.
[142] Lucy J. The Referential Semantics of Yucatec Maya Root Nouns: an exploration in method[C].Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Chicago, IL,3January.2008a.
[143] Lucy J. Linguistic Relativity[C]. Week-long workshop on Experimental Methods in CognitiveLinguistics. Odense, Denmark,7-12July.2008b.
[144] Lucy J, Wertsch J. Vygotsky and Whorf: A comparative analysis[C]. In: Hickmann M, ed, Social andFunctional Approaches to Language and Thought. New York: Academic Press,1987.
[145] Lucy J, Shweder R. Whorf and His Critics: linguistic and nonlinguistic influences on colormemory[J]. American Anthropologist,1979,81.
[146] Lucy J, Gaskins S. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: Acomparative approach[C]. In: Levinson S, Bowerman M, eds, Language Acquisition and ConceptualDevelopment. Cambridge University Press,2001.
[147] Lucy J, Gaskins S. Interaction of Language Type and Referent Type in the Development ofNonverbal Classification Preferences[C]. In: Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S, eds, Language in Mind:Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2003.
[148] Malt B. Concept Structure and Category Boundaries[C]. In: Nakamura G, Medin D, Taraban R, eds.Categorization by Humans and Machines. New York: Academic Press,1993.
[149] Malt B, Sloman S. Linguistic Diversity and Object Naming by Non-native Speakers of English[J].Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2003,6.
[150] Martin L. Eskimo words for snow: A case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropologicalexample[J]. American Anthropologist,1986,88(2).
[151] Matthews D, Lieven E, Theakston A, et al. The role of frequency in the acquisition of English wordorder[J]. Cognitive Development,2005,20(1).
[152] Maurits L, Perfors A F, Navarro D J. Joint acquisition of word order and word reference[C]. In:Taatgen N A, Rijn H V, eds. Proceedings of the31stAnnual Conference of the Cognitive ScienceSociety. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.2009.
[153] McCafferty S. Gesture and Creating Zones of Proximal Development for Second LanguageLearning[J]. The Modern Language Journal,2002,86.
[154] Miller R. The Linguistic Relativity Principle and Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics: A history andappraisal[M]. Paris: Mouton.1968.
[155] Mühlh usler P, Harré R. Pronouns and People: The linguistic construction of social and personalidentity[M]. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.1990.
[156] Munro M J, Derwing T M. Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech ofSecond Language Learners[J]. Language Learning,1995,45(1).
[157] Murphy G. The Big Book of Concepts[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.2002.
[158] Murphy G, Medin D. The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence[J]. Psychological Review,1985,92.
[159] Musolino J. The logical syntax of number words: Theory, acquisition and processing[J]. Cognition,2009,111.
[160] Neelernan A, Weerman F. L1and L2Word Order Acquisition[J]. Language Acquisition.1997,6(2).
[161] Negen J, Sarnecka B W. Number-Concept Acquisition and General Vocabulary Development[J].Child Development.2012,83(6).
[162] Negueruela E, Lantolf J, Rehn Jordan, S, et al. The “Private Function” of Gesture in SecondLanguage Speaking Activity: A study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish[J].International Journal of Applied Linguistics,2004,14.
[163] Odlin T. Crosslinguistic Influence[C]. In: Doughty C, Long M, eds. The Handbook of SecondLanguage Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell:2003.
[164] Odlin T. Crosslinguistic Influence and Conceptual Transfer: What are the concepts?[J] AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics,2005,25.
[165] Odlin T. Conceptual Transfer and Meaning Extensions[C]. In: Robinson P, Ellis N, eds. Handbook ofCognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Routledge:2008.
[166] Odlin T. Language Transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1989.
[167] Okasha S. Conceptual Transfer in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon[M]. Trafford on Demand Pub.2012.
[168] Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1979.
[169] Ortony A. Metaphor, language, and thought[C]. In: Ortony A, ed. Metaphor and thought.2ndedn.Cambridge: CUP.1993.
[170] Pavlenko A, Driagina V. Russian Emotion Vocabulary in American Learners’ Narratives[J]. ModernLanguage Journal,2007,91.
[171] Pavlenko A. Eyewitness Memory in Latebilinguals: evidence for discursive relativity[J]. TheInternational Journal of Bilingualism,2003,7.
[172] Penn J. Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas: the origins of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis inGerman Thought[M]. Paris: Mouton.1972.
[173] Peters A M. Strategies in the acquisition of syntax[C]. In: Fletcher P, MacWhinney B, eds. TheHandbook of Child Language. Oxford: Blackwell,1995.
[174] Piaget J. The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structure[M]. Trans. by ArnoldRosin. New York: Viking.1977.
[175] Pooley R C. Subject-Verb Agreement[J]. American Speech,1934,9(1).
[176] Pourcel S. Investigating Linguistic Relativity: a research methodology[J]. Durham Working Papersin Linguistics,2002,8.
[177] Prodeau M. Gender and Number in French L2: Can we find out more about the constraints onproduction in L2?[C] In: Dewaele J-M, ed. Focus on French as a foreign language:Multidisciplinary approaches. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,2005.
[178] Pullum G. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study ofLanguage[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.1991.
[179] Quirk R S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M].Cambridge University Press.1985.
[180] Ringbom H. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning[M]. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.1987.
[181] Rizzi L. On the grammatical basis of language development: a case study [C]. In: Cinque G, RichardS K, eds. The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press,2005.
[182] Rollins P. Benjamin Lee Whorf: lost generation theories of language, mind, and religion[M]. AnnArbor, MI: University Microfilms International.1980.
[183] Rollinson I T. An exploration into word order in learner corpora: The WOSLAC Project[C]. In:Davies M, Rayson P, Hunston S, et al. eds. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference.University of Birmingham, UK.2007.
[184] Rosch E. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,1975,(104).
[185] Rosch E. Principles of Categorization[C]. In: Rosch R, Louyd B, eds. Cognition and Categorization.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.1978.
[186] Rossi-Landi F. Ideologies of Linguistic Relativity[M]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton andCompany, Approaches to Semiotics Series,4.1973.
[187] Sapir E. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir[C]. In: Mandelbaum D, ed. Berkeley: UniversityCalifornia Press.1949.
[188] Schachter J. An Error in Error Analysis[J]. Language Learning,1974,24:2.
[189] Schachter J. A New Account of Language Transfer[C]. In: Gass S, Selinker L, eds.1983.
[190] Schank R, Abelson R. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an inquiry into human knowledgestructures[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1977.
[191] Schlesinger I. The Wax and Wane of Whorfian Views[M]. New York: Mounton de Gruyter.1991.
[192] Selinker L. Interlanguage[J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL)1972,10(2).
[193] Selinker L. Rediscovering Interlanguage[M]. New York: Longman.1992.
[194] Sera M, Berge C, Castillo J Del. Grammatical and Conceptual Forces in the Attribution of Gender byEnglish and Spanish Speakers[J]. Cognitive Development,1994,9(3).
[195] Slobin D. Thinking for Speaking[C]. Proceedings of the13thBerkeley Linguistic Society,1987.
[196] Slobin D. Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study[C]. In: Perdue C, ed. AdultLanguage Acquisition:Cross-linguistic perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[197] Slobin D. From ‘Thought and Language’ to ‘Thinking for Speaking’[C]. In: Gumperz J, Levinson S,eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1996.
[198] Slobin D. Verbalised Events[C]. In: Niemeier S, Dirven R, eds. Evidence for Linguistic Relativity.Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2000.
[199] Sutomo J. Error Analysis on Learners’ Passive Sentences[J]. Dinamika Bahasa dan Ilmu Budaya,2010,4(2).
[200] Syrett K, Musolino J, Gelman R. How Can Syntax Support Number Word Acquisition?[J].Language Learning and Development,2012,8(2).
[201] Tai J. Cognitive Relativism: resultative construction in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics,2003,4(2).
[202] Talmy L. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms[C]. In: Shopen T, ed. LanguageTypology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1985.
[203] Unlu E A, Hatipoglu. The acquisition of the copula be in present simple tense in English by nativespeakers of Russian[J]. System,2012,40(2).
[204] Van Reybroeck M, Hupet M. Acquisition of number agreement: effects of processing demands[J].Journal of Writing Research,2009,1(2).
[205] VanPatten B, Williams J, eds. Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction[C]. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum.2007.
[206] Vendler Z. Verbs and times[J]. Philosophical Review,1957.
[207] Vigliocco G, Butterworth B, Garrett M F. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English:Differences in the role of conceptual constraints[J]. Cognition，1996,61(3).
[208] Westergaard M. Unlearning V2: Transfer, markedness and the importance of input cues in theacquisition of word order in English by Norwegian children[J]. EUROSLA Yearbook,2003,3.
[209] Whorf B L. Language, Thought and Reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[C]. Carroll JB. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.1956.
[210] Zdorenko T, Paradis J. Articles in child L2English: When L1and L2acquisition meet at theinterface[J]. First Language,2012,32(1-2).
[211] Zobl H. A Direction for Contrastive Analysis: the comparative study of developmental sequences[J].TESOL Quarterly,1982,16(2).
[212]蔡金亭，吴一安.中国大学生英语冠词使用研究[J].外语教学与研究，2006,38（4）.
[213]陈国华，周榕．基于语料库的使役性心理谓词的习得比较研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2006（4）.
[214]陈佳．新沃尔夫主义概述[J].外语教学与研究，2011（4）.
[215]陈立平，濮建忠．基于语料库的大学生英语口语自我修正研究[J].外语教学，2007（2）.
[216]陈运香．萨丕尔-沃尔夫语言相对论对语言文化对比研究的启示[J].西安外国语大学学报，2007（1）.
[217]陈新仁，中国学生二语产出中的光秃可数名词短语——概念认知与语言表征[J].外语研究，2010（1）.
[218]程春梅，何安平．高级英语学习者口语音段错误分析——一项基于语料库的研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2008（1）.
[219]戴炜栋，韦理.中国学习者英语冠词语义特征习得研究[J].外语教学与研究，2008,40（2）.
[220]邓耀臣，肖德法．中国大学生英语虚化动词搭配型式研究[J].外语教学与研究，2005（2）.
[221]丁任．谈谈英汉主语的差别[J].四川外语学院学报，1993（3）.
[222]丁容容，何福．中国学习者英语口语中强势语的用法研究[J].外语教学，2006（5）.
[223]丁声树．现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京：商务印书馆，1961.
[224]冯之林．思维语[J].现代外语，1997（2）.
[225]高名凯．汉语语法论[M].北京：商务印书馆，1986.
[226]高一虹．沃尔夫假说的“言外行为”与“言后行为”[J].外语教学与研究，2000（3）.
[227]（美）本杰明·李·沃尔夫著，高一虹等译．论语言、思维和现实[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社，2001a.
[228]高一虹，沃尔夫的普遍主义思想[J].外语研究，2001b（2）.
[229]高育松．二语接口现象习得中母语迁移模块说的实证检验[J].外语教学理论与实践，2009（2）.
[230]顾姗姗．基于语料库的中国学习者动词语态习得研究——以concern为例[J].徐州师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2005（1）.
[231]桂诗春，杨惠中．中国学习者英语语料库[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003.
[232]郭爱萍，郑冰梅．沃尔夫“语言相对论”内涵之辨析[J].山东外语教学，2007（1）.
[233]郭富强．意合形合的汉英对比研究[D]：［博士学位论文］．上海：华东师范大学，2006.
[234]郭建红．论科技英语名词化隐喻：语篇功能和认知效果[J].外国语文，2010，26（2）.
[235]何安平．基于语料库的英语教师话语分析[J].现代外语，2003（2）.
[236]何安平．语料库语言学与英语教学[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2006.
[237]何安平，徐曼菲．中国大学生英语口语Small Words的研究[J].外语教学与研究，2003（6）.
[238]胡裕树．现代汉语（增订本）[M].上海：上海教育出版社，1981.
[239]黄伯荣，廖序东.现代汉语[M].北京：高等教育出版社，1991.
[240]黄昌宁，李涓子．语料库语言学[M].北京：商务印书馆，2002.
[241]黄国文，丁建新．沃尔夫论隐性范畴[J].外语教学与研究，2001（4）.
[242]姜望琪．汉语的“句子”与英语的sentence[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2005（1）.
[243]郎天万．英汉语法异同及文化根源[J].四川外语学院学报，1994（4）.
[244]李佳，蔡金亭．认知语言学角度的英语空间介词习得研究[J].现代外语，2008.31（2）.
[245]李景泉，蔡金亭.中国学生英语写作中的冠词误用现象[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001,24（6）.
[246]李瑞芳，孟令新．第二语言学习中语法隐喻对语言输入的影响[J].外语教学，2004，25（3）.
[247]李文中．基于英语学习者语料库的主题词研究[J].现代外语，2003（3）.
[248]李锡江，刘永兵.从对比分析到概念迁移——语言迁移研究理论的嬗变[J].东北师范大学学报，2013（1）.
[249]梁茂成，李文中，许家金．语料库应用教程[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
[250]刘爱军，张会平．英语存在句误用及时态使用特征对比研究[J].学术界，2011（2）.
[251]刘爱军，张会平．基于语料库的输出假设研究——英语存在句缩略式的使用特征分析[J].四川外语学院学报，2008a（6）.
[252]刘爱军，张会平．中国英语专业学生英语存在句肯定式的使用特征——一项基于语料库的研究[J].北京邮电大学学报（社会科学版），2008b（5）.
[253]刘国华．英语主谓一致规律浅析[J].河南师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版），1989（4）.
[254]刘红英．英语定语习惯与汉语谓语习惯现象及成因[J].外国语文，2010（3）.
[255]刘宓庆．汉英对比与翻译（修订本）[M].南昌：江西教育出版社，1992.
[256]刘绍龙.英语中介语错误及其动态范式——儿童及大学生BE动词习得错误的个案调查[J].现代外语，2000（1）.
[257]刘永兵．西方二语习得理论研究的两种认识论取向——对我国外语研究的启示[J].东北师大学报》（哲学社会科学版）2010（4）.
[258]刘永兵，林正军，王冰．基础英语课堂话语语料库的建构与研究功能[J].当代外语研究，2010（8）.
[259]刘永兵，张会平.基于语料库的中学英语课堂的规约话语研究[J].外语与外语教学,2010（4）.
[260]刘永兵，张会平.社会认知主义视域下的外语教学与传统外语教学的关系思考与定位[J].中国外语，2011a（4）.
[261]刘永兵，张会平．英语教师课堂话语语法复杂度——一项基于课堂话语语料库的对比研究[J].外语电化教学，2011b（2）.
[262]刘月华，潘文娱，故韡．实用现代汉语语法[M].北京：商务印书馆，2004.
[263]刘泽权．〈红楼梦〉中英文语料库的创建及应用研究[M].北京：光明日报出版社，2010.
[264]卢植．语言相对论对当代认知语言学的影响[J].外语学刊，2006（3）.
[265]陆俭明．汉语句子的特点[J].汉语学习，1993（1）.
[266]陆锦林．英语谓语动词的省略[J].国外外语教学，1988（3）.
[267]罗竹凤．汉语大词典[Z].上海：汉语大词典出版社，1989.
[268]吕叔湘．现代汉语八百词（增订本）[M].北京：商务印书馆，1999.
[269]马建忠．马氏文通[M].北京：商务印书馆，1983.
[270]马寿祥．英语句子成分刍议[J].外语教学与研究，1981（3）.
[271]牛保义．英语的be-sentence和汉语的“是”字句异同比较[J].解放军外国语学院学报，1993（6）.
[272]潘文国．汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1997.
[273]彭芳．英汉语表示“将来”意义的语法化———基于语料库的语法化对比研究[J].西安外国语大学学报，2008（3）.
[274]彭宣维．及物性结构式及概念语义隐喻[C]．见：第四届全国认知语言学研讨会论文摘要汇编.2006.
[275]濮建忠．学习者动词行为：类联接、搭配及词块[M].开封：河南大学出版社，2003.
[276]取德本．语法学家们面临的一个新问题——关于英语主谓一致[J].外国语，1995（6）.
[277]任庆梅，杨连瑞．中介语词汇概念迁移的认知范畴化阐释[J].中国海洋大学学报（社会科学版），2010（2）.
[278]申小龙．中国理论语言学的文化重建[M].沈阳：沈阳出版社，2006.
[279]沈家煊．英汉方所概念的表达[C]．见：赵世开主编.汉英对比语法论集.上海：外语教育出版社.1999.
[280]施光，辛斌．语言、思维、认知——再论沃尔夫假说[J].四川外语学院学报，2007（1）.
[281]孙承荣，宋德生．概念语法隐喻与学习者英语语篇建构水平关系的实证研究[J].外语学刊，2008（5）.
[282]孙海燕．基于语料库的学习者英语形容词搭配语义特征探究[J].现代外语，2004（4）.
[283]汪兴富，Davies，M，刘国辉．美国当代英语语料库（COCA）——英语教学与研究的良好平台[J].外语电化教学，2008（5）.
[284]王华，甄凤超．透过主题词和关键主题词管窥中国学习者英语口语交际能力中的词语知识[J].外语界，2007（1）.
[285]王化鹏．汉英省略句比较研究[J].福建外语，1994（1）.
[286]王菊泉．从英语译文看汉语主语的省略现象[J].语言研究，1991（2）.
[287]王力．中国现代语法[M].北京：商务印书馆，1985.
[288]王力．汉语史稿[M].北京：中华书局，2004.
[289]王力．中国语法理论[M].济南：山东教育出版社，1984.
[290]王立非．英语写作教学与研究的中国视角[C]．见：第四届中国英语写作教学与研究国际研讨会论文集.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2008.
[291]王立非，孙晓坤．汉语写作能力对英语写作质量的影响[J].外语与外语教学，2005（4）.
[292]王立非，张岩．大学生英语议论文中疑问句式使用的特征——一项基于中外学习者语料库的对比研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2006（1）.
[293]王立非，张岩．大学生英语议论文中高频动词使用的语料库研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（2）.
[294]王颖冲．语言与思维关系再认识——沃尔夫《论语言、思维和现实》解读[J].外语教学与研究，2011（4）.
[295]王振亚，汉语名词复数概念表达法对中国学生英语学习的直接与非直接干扰[J].外语与外语教学，1990（3）.
[296]韦理，戴炜栋.大学生英语定冠词句法语用接口习得研究[J].中国外语，2010,7（2）.
[297]卫乃兴．基于语料库和语料库驱动的词语搭配研究[J].当代语言学，2002（2）.
[298]卫乃兴．中国学习者英语口语的短语学特征研究——COLSEC语料库的词块证据分析[J].现代外语，2007（3）.
[299]文秋芳，丁言人，王文宇．中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向研究[J].外语教学与研究，2003（4）.
[300]文秋芳，梁茂成，晏小琴．中国学习者英语口笔语语料库2.0[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2008.
[301]文秋芳，王立非，梁茂成．中国学习者英语口笔语语料库1.0[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2005.
[302]吴思乐，典型信息结构与英语冠词教学[J].外语教学，2006,27（6）.
[303]吴松江，郑新民．英语论文写作研究：以“易得”论文写作软件专家系统为案例[J].外语电化教学，2006（5）.
[304]向明友．基于语料库的英语语法化研究[J].北京航空航天大学学报（社会科学版），2010（1）.
[305]肖忠华，戴光荣．英语中的否定：基于语料库的研究[J].外国语言文学，2009（4）.
[306]谢元花．基于语料库的词汇研究与外语教学[J].广东外语外贸大学学报，2002（2）.
[307]邢殿普．英语句子的主谓一致[J].基础英语教育，2009（3）.
[308]熊学亮，刘东虹．英语学习中语法隐喻的迁移[J].外语教学与研究，2005，37（2）.
[309]许家金，许宗瑞．中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（6）.
[310]许梦卿，程晓堂．非英语专业大学生英语作文中介词IN的语义使用情况——一项基于语料库的研究[J].外语与外语教学，2011（5）.
[311]闫丽莉.中国学生英语冠词习得初探[J].外语教学与研究，2003,35（3）.
[312]严世清．论韩礼德的语言哲学思想[J].外语研究，2002（2）.
[313]杨朝春．语言相对论近期实证研究综述[J].外语教学与研究，2005（6）.
[314]杨惠中，卫乃兴．《中国学习者英语口语语料库建设与研究》.上海：上海外语教育出版社.2005.
[315]杨梅．中国学习者英语冠词的二语产出——关于音韵迁移假说的实证检验[J].外语教学与研究，2012，44（1）.
[316]杨燕锋．时间状语对英语过渡语中一般过去时使用的影响——基于口语语料的研究[J].外语教学与研究，2007（6）.
[317]杨永林，罗立胜，张文霞．体验英语写作研究：来自清华大学英语夏令营“体验英语写作团队”的报告[J].中国外语，2005（6）.
[318]杨永林，门顺德．语言相对论与外语教学的跨文化比较研究[J].现代外语，2004（3）.
[319]杨忠．语言相对论与语义研究视角摭议[J].外国问题研究，2010（1）.
[320]姚小平．人类语言学家沃尔夫的遗产——读〈论语言、思维和现实〉[J].外语教学与研究》2002（1）.
[321]袁咏．英语专业学习者朗读中话语标记语的韵律模式——一项基于语料库的纵深研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2008（1）.
[322]张道真.英语语法大全[M].首都师范大学出版社，2008.
[323]张德禄，赵静．论语法概念隐喻中一致式与隐喻式的形似性原则[J].外国语，2008，31（6）.
[324]张会平，刘永兵．基于语料库的中学英语教师课堂话语标记语研究[J].外语教学与研究，2010（5）.
[325]张会平，刘永兵．人际隐喻认知视域下的英汉否定转移现象研究[J].外语教学，2011（5）.
[326]张会平，刘永兵.语言相对论视域下的英语介词学习与概念迁移[J].外语教学，2013a（4）.
[327]张会平，刘永兵．添加关系话语标记语的句法特征及习得规律——基于两岸三地初学者笔语语料库的实证研究[J].当代外语研究，2013b（1）.
[328]张会平，刘永兵．英语词汇学习与概念迁移——以常用动词搭配与类联接为例[J].外语与外语教学，2013c（待刊）.
[329]张会平，刘永兵.新及物性模式下中国学生语法隐喻的习得历程[J].外国语，2013d（4）.
[330]张继东，刘萍．中国大学生英语写作中的使役结构及相应的词化现象调查与分析[J].外语研究，2005（3）.
[331]张少林，曾鹏．数吸引对英语主谓一致影响的实验研究[J].外语教学理论与实践，2011（3）.
[332]张淑静．中国英语专业学习者make的使用特点调查报告[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2002（4）.
[333]张雪梅，杨滢滢.英语专业学习者的时态习得现状——一项基于中国英语专业写作语料库的研究[J].外国语文，2009（3）.
[334]张豫峰，范晓．“有”字句的后续成分[J].语言教学与研究，1996（4）.
[335]张志公．现代汉语（试用本）[M].北京：人民教育出版社，1982.
[336]章振邦．关于主语和谓语一致关系的若干探讨[J].外语界，1986（4）.
[337]章振邦．新编英语语法教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000.
[338]赵元任．中国话的文法（丁邦新译）[M].香港：中文大学出版社，1980.
[339]赵振才．英语常见问题解答大词典[Z]．西安：世界图书出版西安公司，2009.
[340]甄凤超．中国学习者英语口语词汇量及常用词汇研究——基于英语口语语料库的词目研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2005（5）.
[341]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室．现代汉语词典[Z]．北京：商务印书馆，2005.
[342]朱春丽，魏纪东．论沃尔夫语言观的理论基础[J].解放军外国语学院学报，1999（6）.
[343]朱叶秋，大学生英语冠词掌握情况调查[J].外语教学与研究，2003,35（3）.
[344]左岩．汉英部分语篇衔接手段的差异[J].外语教学与研究，1995（3）.