存现句的认知研究
|
摘要
本研究主要基于真实语料,以认知语法为框架,建构了存现句的研究模型——基于参照点的行为链模式,探讨现代汉语存现句的认知动因、句法关系、论元结构、体貌意义、主观性和语篇功能等现象。
认识事物存现的处所是人类认识世界,生存于世的先决条件。否则,人类会无所适从,相互之间无法交流。或因为认识世界的需要,或因为熟悉,处所是人们注意力首要聚焦的对象,而位于其上的存现物是人们注意力次要聚焦的中心。因此,处所成分是凸显的射体、参照点,语法上表现为主语。而处所上的存现物是界标、参照点所激活的目标,句法上表征为宾语。存现句体现的是人们先认识处所再认识存现物的认知顺序。
任何事物的存在和隐现都是施事发出能量,通过工具传递给客体而形成的。施事、工具和客体之间的能量互动所构成的行为链是存现句的基体,存现句凸显处所和行为链上的链尾——客体之间的关系。因此,存现句只有处所和客体两个论元。存现句的构式意义是表示某处存现着某物。当存现句的参与者同时体现施事和客体时,存现句隐去或压制施事而突出客体,从而维持存现句的构式意义。
存现句主要凸显事物的存现状态——事物隐现的整体状态(经历完成态的“过”字存现句)、事物隐现和隐现后的结果状态(结果完成态的“了”字存现句)、事物隐现过程或隐现后的结果持续状态(持续体的“着”字存现句)。“过”字存现句是有界、完结性的,能容纳各类动词。“了”字存现句是无界但完结性的,主要容纳成就、实现、和活动类动词,偶尔也接受状态动词,但都是凸显事物出现或消失的终止阶段和结果状态。“着”字存现句是无界、非完结性的,主要接受活动和实现类动词,偶尔也接纳状态动词,但不容纳成就动词。
存现句具有丰富的主观性,即不但表征说话人基于视觉、听觉、其它直接证据,或转述、推测等间接证据对某处存现某物的否定、疑问、判断、假设等认识意义,而且表达说话人对某处存现某物的评估、惊讶、强调、愿望等评价意义。
存现句的语篇功能是向语篇引入一个能激活后续语篇的新实体。存现句的语篇承前性是指存现句的处所成分或处所成分的一部分由前面语篇或语境中的某个参照点激活,参照点与目标的关系将存现句与前面的语篇或语境连接起来。在存现句处所成分的7种形式中,方位词和代词是由前面语篇或语境中的某个参照点激活的。名词、名词+方位词、介词+名词+方位词、动词+名词和复合形式的处所成分都含有名词,而该名词便是前面语篇或语境中的某个参照点所激活的目标;若名词前面有多个名词或代词修饰语,第一个名词或代词修饰语便是前面语篇或语境中某个参照点所激活的目标。存现句的启后性是指存现主体能作为参照点激活后续语篇的重要话题、局部话题、语篇参与者、处所、原因等信息。无论是无定名词短语还是有定名词短语,只要提供了值得听话人关注的信息,都能表达存现主体,激活后续语篇的信息,不存在所谓的有定性效应。
通过分析存现句的语篇承前性和启后性,本研究发现参照点与其目标之间主要有同一、整体与部分、部分与整体、部分与部分、领属者与被领属者、集合与成员、处所与处所上的存现物和声音与声音发出者等关系。此外,本文还发现两条认知凸显原则:(i)听得见的实体比听不见的实体凸显;(ii)集合比其成员凸显。
Adopting Cognitive Grammar as the framework and working mainly on the basis of an authentic corpus, this dissertation builds a Reference Point-based Action Chain Model to explore the cognitive motivation, grammatical relations, argument structure, aspectual meanings, subjectivity and discursive functions of the existential-presentational construction(hereafter, the E-P construction) in Modern Standard Chinese.
Getting to know the location where things exist or (dis)appear is the prerequisite for knowing the world and human survival. Otherwise, people will get lost and can not communicate with each other. Whether motivated by the epstemic and pragmatic need to comprehend the world or by familarity with it, location is the initial or primary focal point that people direct their attention to, and the things that exist or (dis)appear in that location is the secondary focus of human attention. Therefore, location is the trajector, or reference point and is syntactically expressed as the subject and the things are the landmark or the target activated by their location and syntactically represented as the object. The E-P construction iconically embodies the cognitive order to construe location before the things that exist or (dis)appear in their location.
The existence or (dis)appearance of any entity is brought about by the transmission of energy which is initiated by the agent and absorbed by the theme via the instrument. The base of the E-P construction is the action chain constituted by the energetic interaction among the agent, the instrument and the theme, and the construction itself profiles the relationship between the locative and the theme which lies at the tail of the action chain.Therefore, the E-P construction has two arguments: the locative and the theme. The E-P constructional meaning is that there exists or (dis)appears something on the location. When the participant of the E-P construction subsumes the semantic roles of both the agent and the theme which can be either the patient, the mover ,the passive experiencer or the zero, the E-P construction profiles the theme and deprofiles or suppresses the agent to maintain its constructional meaning.
The E-P construction mainly profiles the state of existence or (dis)appearance of things: the holistic state of the experiential perfect viewed in its entirety and introduced by the aspect marker guo; the final stage and the resultant state of an event marked by le, that is, the perfect of result or the durative state of the imperfective marked by zhe, denoting either the medial stage of an event or the resultant state of an event. The guo-marked E-P sentences are bounded, telic and can accommodate all kinds of verbs. The le-marked E-P sentences are unbounded but telic, and mainly accommodate the achievement, accomplishment and activity verbs and seldom accept state verbs. No matter what kinds of verbs appear in the le-marked E-P sentences, le profiles the final stage and resultant state of an event. The zhe-marked E-P sentences are unbounded and atelic.They mainly accept activity and accomplishment verbs and occasionally accept state verbs, but never accommodate achievement verbs.
The E-P construction possesses rich subjectivity. It not only represents the epistemic meaning of the speaker’s negation, interrogation, judgement and assumption of the existence or (dis)appearance of something in a location based on his or her visual, auditory, other direct evidences or reported, inferring evidences, and but also expresses the evaluative meaning of the speaker’s assessment, surprise, emphasis and wish of what exists or (dis)appears in a certain location.
The discursive function of the E-P construction is to introduce into the discourse a new entity that can evoke the subsequent discourse. The E-P construction is linked to its previous discourse or context by its locative which or part of which is evoked by a reference point in the prior discourse or context. Among the seven forms of the E-P constructional locative,the free locational morpheme and pronoun are invoked by a certain reference point in the previous discourse or context. The other forms of locative——noun, noun+locational morpheme, preposition+noun+locational morpheme, verb+noun and the complex form, all contain a noun. And it is the noun that is evoked by a reference point in the previous discourse or context. If the noun is preceded by several noun or pronoun modifiers, the first noun or pronoun modifier is the target that is evoked by a reference point in the prior discourse or context. On the other hand, the theme of the E-P construction serves as a reference point that can invoke the global topic, local topic, discourse participant, setting, cause and so on in the subsequent discourse. Both indefinite nominals and definite nominals can appear in the post-verbal position and evoke the subsequent discourse as long as they contain the hearer-noteworthy information. There does not exist the so-called definiteness effect.
By applying the reference point to the analysis of the discursive retrospectiveness and prospectiveness of the E-P construction, this study finds that there are such reference point relationships as the identity, whole and part, part and whole, part and part, possessor and the possessed, set and members, location and things on the location, sound and its producers. The study also finds two more principles of cognitive salience: the audible is more salient than the inaudible and the set is more salient than its members.
认识事物存现的处所是人类认识世界,生存于世的先决条件。否则,人类会无所适从,相互之间无法交流。或因为认识世界的需要,或因为熟悉,处所是人们注意力首要聚焦的对象,而位于其上的存现物是人们注意力次要聚焦的中心。因此,处所成分是凸显的射体、参照点,语法上表现为主语。而处所上的存现物是界标、参照点所激活的目标,句法上表征为宾语。存现句体现的是人们先认识处所再认识存现物的认知顺序。
任何事物的存在和隐现都是施事发出能量,通过工具传递给客体而形成的。施事、工具和客体之间的能量互动所构成的行为链是存现句的基体,存现句凸显处所和行为链上的链尾——客体之间的关系。因此,存现句只有处所和客体两个论元。存现句的构式意义是表示某处存现着某物。当存现句的参与者同时体现施事和客体时,存现句隐去或压制施事而突出客体,从而维持存现句的构式意义。
存现句主要凸显事物的存现状态——事物隐现的整体状态(经历完成态的“过”字存现句)、事物隐现和隐现后的结果状态(结果完成态的“了”字存现句)、事物隐现过程或隐现后的结果持续状态(持续体的“着”字存现句)。“过”字存现句是有界、完结性的,能容纳各类动词。“了”字存现句是无界但完结性的,主要容纳成就、实现、和活动类动词,偶尔也接受状态动词,但都是凸显事物出现或消失的终止阶段和结果状态。“着”字存现句是无界、非完结性的,主要接受活动和实现类动词,偶尔也接纳状态动词,但不容纳成就动词。
存现句具有丰富的主观性,即不但表征说话人基于视觉、听觉、其它直接证据,或转述、推测等间接证据对某处存现某物的否定、疑问、判断、假设等认识意义,而且表达说话人对某处存现某物的评估、惊讶、强调、愿望等评价意义。
存现句的语篇功能是向语篇引入一个能激活后续语篇的新实体。存现句的语篇承前性是指存现句的处所成分或处所成分的一部分由前面语篇或语境中的某个参照点激活,参照点与目标的关系将存现句与前面的语篇或语境连接起来。在存现句处所成分的7种形式中,方位词和代词是由前面语篇或语境中的某个参照点激活的。名词、名词+方位词、介词+名词+方位词、动词+名词和复合形式的处所成分都含有名词,而该名词便是前面语篇或语境中的某个参照点所激活的目标;若名词前面有多个名词或代词修饰语,第一个名词或代词修饰语便是前面语篇或语境中某个参照点所激活的目标。存现句的启后性是指存现主体能作为参照点激活后续语篇的重要话题、局部话题、语篇参与者、处所、原因等信息。无论是无定名词短语还是有定名词短语,只要提供了值得听话人关注的信息,都能表达存现主体,激活后续语篇的信息,不存在所谓的有定性效应。
通过分析存现句的语篇承前性和启后性,本研究发现参照点与其目标之间主要有同一、整体与部分、部分与整体、部分与部分、领属者与被领属者、集合与成员、处所与处所上的存现物和声音与声音发出者等关系。此外,本文还发现两条认知凸显原则:(i)听得见的实体比听不见的实体凸显;(ii)集合比其成员凸显。
Adopting Cognitive Grammar as the framework and working mainly on the basis of an authentic corpus, this dissertation builds a Reference Point-based Action Chain Model to explore the cognitive motivation, grammatical relations, argument structure, aspectual meanings, subjectivity and discursive functions of the existential-presentational construction(hereafter, the E-P construction) in Modern Standard Chinese.
Getting to know the location where things exist or (dis)appear is the prerequisite for knowing the world and human survival. Otherwise, people will get lost and can not communicate with each other. Whether motivated by the epstemic and pragmatic need to comprehend the world or by familarity with it, location is the initial or primary focal point that people direct their attention to, and the things that exist or (dis)appear in that location is the secondary focus of human attention. Therefore, location is the trajector, or reference point and is syntactically expressed as the subject and the things are the landmark or the target activated by their location and syntactically represented as the object. The E-P construction iconically embodies the cognitive order to construe location before the things that exist or (dis)appear in their location.
The existence or (dis)appearance of any entity is brought about by the transmission of energy which is initiated by the agent and absorbed by the theme via the instrument. The base of the E-P construction is the action chain constituted by the energetic interaction among the agent, the instrument and the theme, and the construction itself profiles the relationship between the locative and the theme which lies at the tail of the action chain.Therefore, the E-P construction has two arguments: the locative and the theme. The E-P constructional meaning is that there exists or (dis)appears something on the location. When the participant of the E-P construction subsumes the semantic roles of both the agent and the theme which can be either the patient, the mover ,the passive experiencer or the zero, the E-P construction profiles the theme and deprofiles or suppresses the agent to maintain its constructional meaning.
The E-P construction mainly profiles the state of existence or (dis)appearance of things: the holistic state of the experiential perfect viewed in its entirety and introduced by the aspect marker guo; the final stage and the resultant state of an event marked by le, that is, the perfect of result or the durative state of the imperfective marked by zhe, denoting either the medial stage of an event or the resultant state of an event. The guo-marked E-P sentences are bounded, telic and can accommodate all kinds of verbs. The le-marked E-P sentences are unbounded but telic, and mainly accommodate the achievement, accomplishment and activity verbs and seldom accept state verbs. No matter what kinds of verbs appear in the le-marked E-P sentences, le profiles the final stage and resultant state of an event. The zhe-marked E-P sentences are unbounded and atelic.They mainly accept activity and accomplishment verbs and occasionally accept state verbs, but never accommodate achievement verbs.
The E-P construction possesses rich subjectivity. It not only represents the epistemic meaning of the speaker’s negation, interrogation, judgement and assumption of the existence or (dis)appearance of something in a location based on his or her visual, auditory, other direct evidences or reported, inferring evidences, and but also expresses the evaluative meaning of the speaker’s assessment, surprise, emphasis and wish of what exists or (dis)appears in a certain location.
The discursive function of the E-P construction is to introduce into the discourse a new entity that can evoke the subsequent discourse. The E-P construction is linked to its previous discourse or context by its locative which or part of which is evoked by a reference point in the prior discourse or context. Among the seven forms of the E-P constructional locative,the free locational morpheme and pronoun are invoked by a certain reference point in the previous discourse or context. The other forms of locative——noun, noun+locational morpheme, preposition+noun+locational morpheme, verb+noun and the complex form, all contain a noun. And it is the noun that is evoked by a reference point in the previous discourse or context. If the noun is preceded by several noun or pronoun modifiers, the first noun or pronoun modifier is the target that is evoked by a reference point in the prior discourse or context. On the other hand, the theme of the E-P construction serves as a reference point that can invoke the global topic, local topic, discourse participant, setting, cause and so on in the subsequent discourse. Both indefinite nominals and definite nominals can appear in the post-verbal position and evoke the subsequent discourse as long as they contain the hearer-noteworthy information. There does not exist the so-called definiteness effect.
By applying the reference point to the analysis of the discursive retrospectiveness and prospectiveness of the E-P construction, this study finds that there are such reference point relationships as the identity, whole and part, part and whole, part and part, possessor and the possessed, set and members, location and things on the location, sound and its producers. The study also finds two more principles of cognitive salience: the audible is more salient than the inaudible and the set is more salient than its members.
引文
Abbott, Barbara. 2004. Definiteness and Indefiniteness [A]. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward(eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Abbott, Barbara. 2006. Definite and Indefinite [A]. Keith Brown(ed.). The Encyclopedia of language and Linguistics(2nd edition),Vol.3[C]. Oxford: Elsevier.
Alexiado, Artemis, Alena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert(eds.). 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Semantics-Syntax Interface [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Babby, Leonard. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian [M]. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics [M]. Miami: University of Miami Press.
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Colour Terms: Their Universality and Evolution [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Birner, Betty. 1992. The Discourse Function of Inversion in English [D].Ph.D.Dissertation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Birner, Betty. 1994. Information Status and Word Order: An Analysis of English Inversion[J]. Language 70(2):233-259.
Birner, Betty. 1996. The Discourse Function of Inversion in English [M]. New York/London: Garland Publishing.
Birner, Betty. 2006.Inferential Relations and Noncanonical Word Order [A].Betty Birner & Gregory Ward(eds.).Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning:Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Birner, Bettey & Gregory Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bolinger, Dwright. 1977. Meaning and Form [M]. London: Longman.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar [J]. Language (70):72-131.
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar [J]. Linguistic Inquiry(20):1-50.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-binding Approach [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cienki, Alan. 1998. STRAIGHT:An Image Schema and its Metaphorical Extensions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics(9): 107-149.
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing [A]. Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols(eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chen, Rong. 2003. English Inversion : A Ground-before-Figure Construction [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Clark, Eve. 1978. Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions [A]. Joseph Greenberg et al(eds.). Universals of Human Language [C]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Comrie, Bernald. 1976. Aspect [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coopmans, Peter. 1989. Where Stylistic and Syntactic Processes Meet: Locative Inversion in English [J]. Language(65):728-751.
Croft, William. To appear. Aspectual and Causal Structure in Event Representations [A]. Virginia Gathercole(ed.). Routes to Language Development: In Honor of Melissa Bowerman [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the Necessity of Distinguishing between (Un)boundedness and (A)telicity [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy(18):1-19.
Depraetere, Ilse. 2007. (A)telicity and Intentionality [J]. Linguistics(45):243-269.
Dorgeloh, Heidrum. 1997. Inversion in Modern English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The Case for Case [A]. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms(eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York: Holt.
Finegan, Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: An Introduction [A]. Dieter Stein & Susan Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other Locatives [J]. Language(68):553-595. Glucksberg. Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Constructional Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work:The Nature of Generalization in Language[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, Georgia. 1980. Some Whereabouts of English Inversions [J]. Language(56):582-601. `
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics [M]. Armsterdam: North-Holland.
Haiman, Johan. 1980. The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation [J]. Language(56):515-540.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation [J]. Language(59):781-819.
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Hartvigson, Hans & Leis Jakobsen. 1974. Inversion in Present-day English [M]. Odense: Odense University Press.
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference andGrammaticality Prediction [M]. London: Croom Helm.
Heim, Irene. 1988. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [M]. New York: Garland.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential Sentences In Chinese and (In)definiteness [A]. Eric Reuland and Alice Meulen(eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness [C]. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Katz, Jerrold. 1972. Semantic Theory [M]. New York: Harper and Row.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The Origins of Telicity [A]. Susan Rothstein(ed.). Events and Grammar [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kuno, Susumu & Ken-ichi Takami. 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh——The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis [A]. Charles Li(ed.) Mechanisms of Syntactic Change [C]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald . 1987b. Nouns and Verbs [J]. Language(63): 53-94.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point Constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics(4): 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald. 1998. Grounding, Coding and Discourse [J]. LAUD Linguistic Agency.
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. Why a Mind is Necessary: Conceptualization, Grammar and Linguistic Semantics [A]. Liliana Albertazzi(ed.). Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, Ronald. 2001a. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (2):143-188.
Langacker, Ronald. 2001b. Topic, Subject, and Possessor [A]. Simonsen & Endresen(eds.). A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphorlogical and Constructional Perspectives [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 2004. Possession, Location and Existence [A]. Augusto Soares da Silva, Amadeu Torres and Miguel Goncalves(eds.), Linguagem, Cultura e Cognicao:Estudos de Linguistica Cognitiva [C], Vol.1. Coimbra: Livraria Almedina.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures [M]. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar [M]. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics [M]. Vols.ⅠandⅡ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelis, Laura. 2003a. Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction [A]. Elaine Francis and Laura Michaelis(eds.). Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar [C]. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Michaelis, Laura, 2003b, Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Syntactic Meaning [A]. Hubert Cuyckens, Rene Dirven & John Taylor(eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Aproach to Aspectual Coercion [J]. Cognitive Linguistics(15): 1-67.
Michaelis, Laura, 2005. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax [A]. Jan-Ola Ostman & Mirjam Fried(eds.). Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an Explanantion of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English [J]. Linguistic Analysis(3):1-29.
Palmer,Frank. 2001. Mood and Modality(2nd edition)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pan, Haihua. 1996. Imperfective Aspect ZHE, Agent Deletion, and Locative Inversion in Chinese[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory(14):409-432.
Pan, Haihua & Lee Po-lun. 2004. The Role of Pragmatics in Interpreting Chinese Perfective Markers–guo and–le [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (36): 441-466.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornberg. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Inferencing in Conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics(6):755-769.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornberg. 2002. The Roles of Metaphor and Metonymy in English -er Nominals [A]. Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings(eds.). Metaphor andMetonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Penhullrick, John. 1984. Full-verb Inversion in English [J]. Australian Journal of Linguistics (4):33-56.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information [A]. Peter. Cole(ed.).Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press.
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status [A]. W. Mann and S. Thompson(eds.). Discourse Description: Diverse Analysis of a Fund Raising Text [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
Radden, Gunter & Kovecses, Zoltan. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. Klaus-Uwe Panther & Gunter Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rando,Emily & Donna Napoli. 1978. Definites in There-sentences [J]. Language(54):300-313.
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive Reference Points [J]. Cognitive Psychology(7): 532-547.
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguitic Semantics [M].Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press.
Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structure [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, Carlota. 1983. A Theory of Aspectual Choice [J]. Language(59):479-501.
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The Parameters of Aspect(2nd edition) [M]. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process inConcept Structuring [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Sandra. 2002.“Object Complements”and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account [J]. Studies in Language(1):125-164.
Ungerer, Friedrich, & Hans-J?rg Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. London & New York: Longman.
Van Valin, Robert. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity [J]. Language(66):221-260.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ward, Gregory & Betty Birner. 1995. Definitenes and the English Existential [J]. Language (71):722-742.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J]. Studies in Language(1):51-97.
Xiao, Zhanghua & Anthony McEnery. 2004. A Corpus-based Two-level Model of Situation Aspect [J]. Journal of Linguistics(40):325-363.
Yang, Suying and Pan,Haihua. 2001. A Constructional Analysis of the Existential Structure [A]. Pan, Haihua(ed.).Studies in Chinese linguisticsⅡ. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A Word of Caution on Coercion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics(39): 990-1028.
陈建民, 1986,现代汉语句型论[M]。北京:语文出版社。
陈庭珍,1957,汉语中处所词做主语的存在句[J]。中国语文(8月号):15-19。
陈小红,2007,“了1”、“了2”语法意义辨疑[J]。语言袄学与研究(5):54-60。
储泽祥,1996,“在”的涵盖义与句首处所前“在”的隐现[J]。汉语学习(4):33-36。
储泽祥等1997,汉语存在句的历时性考察[J]。古汉语研究(4):13-20。
储泽祥,2006,汉语处所词的词类地位及其类型学意义[J]。中国语文(3):216-224。
戴浩一,1990,以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上)[J]。叶蜚声译。国外语言学(4):21-28。
戴浩一,1991,以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下)[J]。叶蜚声译。国外语言学(1):25-33。
丁声树等,2004,现代汉语语法讲话[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
董成如,2003,所有构造的认知解释[J]。外语与外语教学(4):60-63。
董成如,2004a,转喻的认知解释[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(2):6-9。
董成如,2004b,含意的认知阐释[J]。外语学刊(5):58-62。
董成如,2007,词汇语用学的认知视角——话语中词义缩小和扩大的图式范畴化阐释[J]。现代外语(3):231-238。
范方莲,1963,存在句[J]。中国语文(5):386-395。
范晓,1998,汉语的句子类型[M]。太原:书海出版社。
房红梅,2006,言据性研究述评[J]。现代外语(2):191-196。
高名凯,1986,汉语语法论[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
顾阳,1997,关于存现结构的理论探讨[J]。现代外语(3):14-25。
黄伯荣、廖序东,1997,现代汉语[M]。北京:高等教育出版社。
胡文泽,1995,存现句的时段语义[J]。语言研究(2):100-111。
胡文泽,2004,汉语存现句及相关并列紧缩结构的认知功能语法分析[J]。语言教学与研究(4):1-12。
竟成,1985,谈谈“了”和“过”[J]。汉语学习(4):6-7。
竟成,1993,关于动态助词“了”的语法意义问题[J]。语文研究(1):52-57。
雷涛, 1993,存在句的范围、构成和分类[M]。中国语文(4):244-251。
黎锦熙,1992,新著国语文法[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
李临定,1986,现代汉语句型[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
李秀林、王于、李淮春,1982,辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义原理[M]。北京:中国人民大学出版社。
刘丹青,2002,汉语中的框式介词[J]。当代语言学(4):241-253。
刘宁生,1985,动词的语义范畴:“动作”与“状态”[J]。汉语学习(1):16-19。
刘宁生,1994,汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系[J]。中国语文(3):169-179。
刘宁生,1995,汉语偏正结构的认知基础及其在语序类型学上的意义[J]。中国语文(2):81-89。
刘顺、潘文,2007,现代汉语“有着”句的考察与分析[J]。语言教学与研究(3):80-88。
刘晓林,2007,也谈“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式[J]。中国语文(5):440-443。
刘勋宁,1999,关于语法分析的几个原则问题[A]。陆俭明(主编),面临新世纪挑战的现代汉语语法研究:’98现代汉语语法国际学术会议论文集[C]。济南:山东教育出版社。
陆俭明,2002,再谈“吃了他三个苹果”一类结构的性质[J]。中国语文(4):317-325。
陆俭明,2003,现代汉语语法研究教程[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
吕叔湘,1987,句型和动词学术讨论会开幕词[A]。中国社会科学院语言研究所现代汉语研究室编,句型和动词[C]。北京:语文出版社。
吕叔湘,2002,汉语语法论文集[C]。北京:商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,2005,现代汉语八百词(增订本)[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
马建忠,1983,马氏文通[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
聂文龙,1989,存在和存在句的分类[J]。中国语文(2):95-104。
牛宝义,2005,国外实据性理论研究[J]。国外语言学(1):53-62。
牛宝义,2008,自主/依存联结——认知语法的一种分析模型[J]。外语与外语教学(1):1-5。
潘海华、韩景泉,2005,显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究[J]。语言研究(3):1-12。
潘文,2003,现代汉语存现句研究[D]。上海:复旦大学博士学位论文。
潘文、荣俊,2006,存在句A段介词使用情况考察[J]。南京师范大学学报(1):168-171。
屈承熹,2006,汉语语篇语法[M]。潘文国等译。北京:北京语言大学出版社。
任鹰,2000a,静态存在句中“V了”等于“V着”现象解析[J]。世界汉语教学(1):28-34。
任鹰,2000b,现代汉语非受事宾语句研究[M]。北京:社会科学出版社。
沈家煊,1995,“有界”与“无界”[J]。中国语文(5):367-380。
沈家煊,2001,语言的主观性与主观化[J]。外语教学与研究(4):268-275。
宋玉柱,1982a,定心谓语存在句[J]。语言教学与研究(3:27-34。
宋玉柱,1982b,动态存在句[J]。汉语学习(6):9-15。
宋玉柱,1986,现代汉语语法十讲[M]。天津:南开大学出版社。
宋玉柱,1988a,存在句中动词后面的“着”和“了”[J]。语言研究论丛(5):57-66。
宋玉柱,1988b,略谈“假存在句”[J]。天津师范大学学报(6):86-89。
宋玉柱,1989,完成体动态存在句[J]。汉语学习(6):1-4。
宋玉柱,1991,经历体存在句[J]。汉语学习(5):1-6。
石毓智,2002,论汉语的结构意义和词汇标记之关系——有定和无定范畴对汉语句法结构的影响[J]。当代语言学(4):25-37。
石毓智,2007,语言学假设中的证据问题[J]。语言科学(4):39-51。
唐玉柱,2005,存现动词的非宾格假设[J]。重庆大学学报(4):84-87。
王葆华,2005,存在构式“着”、“了”互换现象的认知解释[J]。外语研究(2):1-5。
王力,1985,中国现代语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
王建军,2003,汉语存在句的历时研究[M]。天津:天津古籍出版社。
王寅,1999,论语言符号象似性——对索绪尔任意说的挑战与补充[M]。北京:新华出版社。
王寅,2005a事件域认知模型及其解释力[J]。现代外语(1):17-26。
王寅,2005b,认知语言探索[M]。重庆:重庆出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
维特根斯坦,2002,哲学研究[M]。李步楼译。北京:商务印书馆。
魏在江,2007,隐喻的主观性与主观化[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(2):6-11。
文旭、刘先清,2004,英语到装句的图形—背景论分析[J].。外语教学与研究(6):438-443。
吴卸耀,2006,现代汉语存现句[M]。上海:学林出版社。
许余龙,2007,话题引入与语篇回指——一项基于民间故事语料英汉对比研究[J]。外语教学(6):1-5。
杨安红、周鸣,2001,现代汉语存现句与方位词[J]。徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(2):56-58。
杨成凯,1997,“主主谓”句法范畴和话题概念的逻辑分析——汉语主宾语研究之一[J]。中国语文(4):251-259。
杨素英,1999,从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J]。当代语言学(1):30-43。
杨素英等,2007,汉语作为第二语言存现句习得研究[J]。汉语学习(1):59-70。
袁毓林,2004,论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件——表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响[J]。语言研究(4):1-10。
张健,2002,英汉存现句的句法象似性探讨[J]。四川外语学院学报(2):129-131。
章振邦,1986,新编英语语法教程[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
赵元任,1979,汉语口语语法[M]。吕叔湘译。北京:商务印书馆。
赵元任,2004,A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]。赵元任全集(第3卷)。北京:商务印书馆。
朱德熙,1981,“在黑板上写字”及相关句式[J]。语言教学与研究(1):4-18。
朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
Abbott, Barbara. 2006. Definite and Indefinite [A]. Keith Brown(ed.). The Encyclopedia of language and Linguistics(2nd edition),Vol.3[C]. Oxford: Elsevier.
Alexiado, Artemis, Alena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert(eds.). 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Semantics-Syntax Interface [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Babby, Leonard. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian [M]. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics [M]. Miami: University of Miami Press.
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Colour Terms: Their Universality and Evolution [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Birner, Betty. 1992. The Discourse Function of Inversion in English [D].Ph.D.Dissertation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Birner, Betty. 1994. Information Status and Word Order: An Analysis of English Inversion[J]. Language 70(2):233-259.
Birner, Betty. 1996. The Discourse Function of Inversion in English [M]. New York/London: Garland Publishing.
Birner, Betty. 2006.Inferential Relations and Noncanonical Word Order [A].Betty Birner & Gregory Ward(eds.).Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning:Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Birner, Bettey & Gregory Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bolinger, Dwright. 1977. Meaning and Form [M]. London: Longman.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar [J]. Language (70):72-131.
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar [J]. Linguistic Inquiry(20):1-50.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-binding Approach [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cienki, Alan. 1998. STRAIGHT:An Image Schema and its Metaphorical Extensions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics(9): 107-149.
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing [A]. Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols(eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chen, Rong. 2003. English Inversion : A Ground-before-Figure Construction [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Clark, Eve. 1978. Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions [A]. Joseph Greenberg et al(eds.). Universals of Human Language [C]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Comrie, Bernald. 1976. Aspect [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coopmans, Peter. 1989. Where Stylistic and Syntactic Processes Meet: Locative Inversion in English [J]. Language(65):728-751.
Croft, William. To appear. Aspectual and Causal Structure in Event Representations [A]. Virginia Gathercole(ed.). Routes to Language Development: In Honor of Melissa Bowerman [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the Necessity of Distinguishing between (Un)boundedness and (A)telicity [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy(18):1-19.
Depraetere, Ilse. 2007. (A)telicity and Intentionality [J]. Linguistics(45):243-269.
Dorgeloh, Heidrum. 1997. Inversion in Modern English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar [M]. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The Case for Case [A]. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms(eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York: Holt.
Finegan, Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: An Introduction [A]. Dieter Stein & Susan Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other Locatives [J]. Language(68):553-595. Glucksberg. Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Constructional Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work:The Nature of Generalization in Language[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, Georgia. 1980. Some Whereabouts of English Inversions [J]. Language(56):582-601. `
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics [M]. Armsterdam: North-Holland.
Haiman, Johan. 1980. The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation [J]. Language(56):515-540.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation [J]. Language(59):781-819.
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Hartvigson, Hans & Leis Jakobsen. 1974. Inversion in Present-day English [M]. Odense: Odense University Press.
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference andGrammaticality Prediction [M]. London: Croom Helm.
Heim, Irene. 1988. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [M]. New York: Garland.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential Sentences In Chinese and (In)definiteness [A]. Eric Reuland and Alice Meulen(eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness [C]. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Katz, Jerrold. 1972. Semantic Theory [M]. New York: Harper and Row.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The Origins of Telicity [A]. Susan Rothstein(ed.). Events and Grammar [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kuno, Susumu & Ken-ichi Takami. 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh——The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis [A]. Charles Li(ed.) Mechanisms of Syntactic Change [C]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald . 1987b. Nouns and Verbs [J]. Language(63): 53-94.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point Constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics(4): 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald. 1998. Grounding, Coding and Discourse [J]. LAUD Linguistic Agency.
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. Why a Mind is Necessary: Conceptualization, Grammar and Linguistic Semantics [A]. Liliana Albertazzi(ed.). Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, Ronald. 2001a. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics (2):143-188.
Langacker, Ronald. 2001b. Topic, Subject, and Possessor [A]. Simonsen & Endresen(eds.). A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphorlogical and Constructional Perspectives [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 2004. Possession, Location and Existence [A]. Augusto Soares da Silva, Amadeu Torres and Miguel Goncalves(eds.), Linguagem, Cultura e Cognicao:Estudos de Linguistica Cognitiva [C], Vol.1. Coimbra: Livraria Almedina.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures [M]. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar [M]. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics [M]. Vols.ⅠandⅡ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelis, Laura. 2003a. Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction [A]. Elaine Francis and Laura Michaelis(eds.). Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar [C]. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Michaelis, Laura, 2003b, Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Syntactic Meaning [A]. Hubert Cuyckens, Rene Dirven & John Taylor(eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Aproach to Aspectual Coercion [J]. Cognitive Linguistics(15): 1-67.
Michaelis, Laura, 2005. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax [A]. Jan-Ola Ostman & Mirjam Fried(eds.). Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an Explanantion of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English [J]. Linguistic Analysis(3):1-29.
Palmer,Frank. 2001. Mood and Modality(2nd edition)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pan, Haihua. 1996. Imperfective Aspect ZHE, Agent Deletion, and Locative Inversion in Chinese[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory(14):409-432.
Pan, Haihua & Lee Po-lun. 2004. The Role of Pragmatics in Interpreting Chinese Perfective Markers–guo and–le [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (36): 441-466.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornberg. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Inferencing in Conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics(6):755-769.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornberg. 2002. The Roles of Metaphor and Metonymy in English -er Nominals [A]. Rene Dirven & Ralf Porings(eds.). Metaphor andMetonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Penhullrick, John. 1984. Full-verb Inversion in English [J]. Australian Journal of Linguistics (4):33-56.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information [A]. Peter. Cole(ed.).Radical Pragmatics [C]. New York: Academic Press.
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status [A]. W. Mann and S. Thompson(eds.). Discourse Description: Diverse Analysis of a Fund Raising Text [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
Radden, Gunter & Kovecses, Zoltan. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. Klaus-Uwe Panther & Gunter Radden(eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rando,Emily & Donna Napoli. 1978. Definites in There-sentences [J]. Language(54):300-313.
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive Reference Points [J]. Cognitive Psychology(7): 532-547.
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguitic Semantics [M].Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press.
Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structure [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, Carlota. 1983. A Theory of Aspectual Choice [J]. Language(59):479-501.
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The Parameters of Aspect(2nd edition) [M]. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process inConcept Structuring [M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Sandra. 2002.“Object Complements”and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account [J]. Studies in Language(1):125-164.
Ungerer, Friedrich, & Hans-J?rg Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. London & New York: Longman.
Van Valin, Robert. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity [J]. Language(66):221-260.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ward, Gregory & Betty Birner. 1995. Definitenes and the English Existential [J]. Language (71):722-742.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J]. Studies in Language(1):51-97.
Xiao, Zhanghua & Anthony McEnery. 2004. A Corpus-based Two-level Model of Situation Aspect [J]. Journal of Linguistics(40):325-363.
Yang, Suying and Pan,Haihua. 2001. A Constructional Analysis of the Existential Structure [A]. Pan, Haihua(ed.).Studies in Chinese linguisticsⅡ. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A Word of Caution on Coercion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics(39): 990-1028.
陈建民, 1986,现代汉语句型论[M]。北京:语文出版社。
陈庭珍,1957,汉语中处所词做主语的存在句[J]。中国语文(8月号):15-19。
陈小红,2007,“了1”、“了2”语法意义辨疑[J]。语言袄学与研究(5):54-60。
储泽祥,1996,“在”的涵盖义与句首处所前“在”的隐现[J]。汉语学习(4):33-36。
储泽祥等1997,汉语存在句的历时性考察[J]。古汉语研究(4):13-20。
储泽祥,2006,汉语处所词的词类地位及其类型学意义[J]。中国语文(3):216-224。
戴浩一,1990,以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上)[J]。叶蜚声译。国外语言学(4):21-28。
戴浩一,1991,以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下)[J]。叶蜚声译。国外语言学(1):25-33。
丁声树等,2004,现代汉语语法讲话[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
董成如,2003,所有构造的认知解释[J]。外语与外语教学(4):60-63。
董成如,2004a,转喻的认知解释[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(2):6-9。
董成如,2004b,含意的认知阐释[J]。外语学刊(5):58-62。
董成如,2007,词汇语用学的认知视角——话语中词义缩小和扩大的图式范畴化阐释[J]。现代外语(3):231-238。
范方莲,1963,存在句[J]。中国语文(5):386-395。
范晓,1998,汉语的句子类型[M]。太原:书海出版社。
房红梅,2006,言据性研究述评[J]。现代外语(2):191-196。
高名凯,1986,汉语语法论[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
顾阳,1997,关于存现结构的理论探讨[J]。现代外语(3):14-25。
黄伯荣、廖序东,1997,现代汉语[M]。北京:高等教育出版社。
胡文泽,1995,存现句的时段语义[J]。语言研究(2):100-111。
胡文泽,2004,汉语存现句及相关并列紧缩结构的认知功能语法分析[J]。语言教学与研究(4):1-12。
竟成,1985,谈谈“了”和“过”[J]。汉语学习(4):6-7。
竟成,1993,关于动态助词“了”的语法意义问题[J]。语文研究(1):52-57。
雷涛, 1993,存在句的范围、构成和分类[M]。中国语文(4):244-251。
黎锦熙,1992,新著国语文法[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
李临定,1986,现代汉语句型[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
李秀林、王于、李淮春,1982,辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义原理[M]。北京:中国人民大学出版社。
刘丹青,2002,汉语中的框式介词[J]。当代语言学(4):241-253。
刘宁生,1985,动词的语义范畴:“动作”与“状态”[J]。汉语学习(1):16-19。
刘宁生,1994,汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系[J]。中国语文(3):169-179。
刘宁生,1995,汉语偏正结构的认知基础及其在语序类型学上的意义[J]。中国语文(2):81-89。
刘顺、潘文,2007,现代汉语“有着”句的考察与分析[J]。语言教学与研究(3):80-88。
刘晓林,2007,也谈“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式[J]。中国语文(5):440-443。
刘勋宁,1999,关于语法分析的几个原则问题[A]。陆俭明(主编),面临新世纪挑战的现代汉语语法研究:’98现代汉语语法国际学术会议论文集[C]。济南:山东教育出版社。
陆俭明,2002,再谈“吃了他三个苹果”一类结构的性质[J]。中国语文(4):317-325。
陆俭明,2003,现代汉语语法研究教程[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
吕叔湘,1987,句型和动词学术讨论会开幕词[A]。中国社会科学院语言研究所现代汉语研究室编,句型和动词[C]。北京:语文出版社。
吕叔湘,2002,汉语语法论文集[C]。北京:商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,2005,现代汉语八百词(增订本)[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
马建忠,1983,马氏文通[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
聂文龙,1989,存在和存在句的分类[J]。中国语文(2):95-104。
牛宝义,2005,国外实据性理论研究[J]。国外语言学(1):53-62。
牛宝义,2008,自主/依存联结——认知语法的一种分析模型[J]。外语与外语教学(1):1-5。
潘海华、韩景泉,2005,显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究[J]。语言研究(3):1-12。
潘文,2003,现代汉语存现句研究[D]。上海:复旦大学博士学位论文。
潘文、荣俊,2006,存在句A段介词使用情况考察[J]。南京师范大学学报(1):168-171。
屈承熹,2006,汉语语篇语法[M]。潘文国等译。北京:北京语言大学出版社。
任鹰,2000a,静态存在句中“V了”等于“V着”现象解析[J]。世界汉语教学(1):28-34。
任鹰,2000b,现代汉语非受事宾语句研究[M]。北京:社会科学出版社。
沈家煊,1995,“有界”与“无界”[J]。中国语文(5):367-380。
沈家煊,2001,语言的主观性与主观化[J]。外语教学与研究(4):268-275。
宋玉柱,1982a,定心谓语存在句[J]。语言教学与研究(3:27-34。
宋玉柱,1982b,动态存在句[J]。汉语学习(6):9-15。
宋玉柱,1986,现代汉语语法十讲[M]。天津:南开大学出版社。
宋玉柱,1988a,存在句中动词后面的“着”和“了”[J]。语言研究论丛(5):57-66。
宋玉柱,1988b,略谈“假存在句”[J]。天津师范大学学报(6):86-89。
宋玉柱,1989,完成体动态存在句[J]。汉语学习(6):1-4。
宋玉柱,1991,经历体存在句[J]。汉语学习(5):1-6。
石毓智,2002,论汉语的结构意义和词汇标记之关系——有定和无定范畴对汉语句法结构的影响[J]。当代语言学(4):25-37。
石毓智,2007,语言学假设中的证据问题[J]。语言科学(4):39-51。
唐玉柱,2005,存现动词的非宾格假设[J]。重庆大学学报(4):84-87。
王葆华,2005,存在构式“着”、“了”互换现象的认知解释[J]。外语研究(2):1-5。
王力,1985,中国现代语法[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
王建军,2003,汉语存在句的历时研究[M]。天津:天津古籍出版社。
王寅,1999,论语言符号象似性——对索绪尔任意说的挑战与补充[M]。北京:新华出版社。
王寅,2005a事件域认知模型及其解释力[J]。现代外语(1):17-26。
王寅,2005b,认知语言探索[M]。重庆:重庆出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
维特根斯坦,2002,哲学研究[M]。李步楼译。北京:商务印书馆。
魏在江,2007,隐喻的主观性与主观化[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(2):6-11。
文旭、刘先清,2004,英语到装句的图形—背景论分析[J].。外语教学与研究(6):438-443。
吴卸耀,2006,现代汉语存现句[M]。上海:学林出版社。
许余龙,2007,话题引入与语篇回指——一项基于民间故事语料英汉对比研究[J]。外语教学(6):1-5。
杨安红、周鸣,2001,现代汉语存现句与方位词[J]。徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(2):56-58。
杨成凯,1997,“主主谓”句法范畴和话题概念的逻辑分析——汉语主宾语研究之一[J]。中国语文(4):251-259。
杨素英,1999,从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J]。当代语言学(1):30-43。
杨素英等,2007,汉语作为第二语言存现句习得研究[J]。汉语学习(1):59-70。
袁毓林,2004,论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件——表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响[J]。语言研究(4):1-10。
张健,2002,英汉存现句的句法象似性探讨[J]。四川外语学院学报(2):129-131。
章振邦,1986,新编英语语法教程[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
赵元任,1979,汉语口语语法[M]。吕叔湘译。北京:商务印书馆。
赵元任,2004,A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]。赵元任全集(第3卷)。北京:商务印书馆。
朱德熙,1981,“在黑板上写字”及相关句式[J]。语言教学与研究(1):4-18。
朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京:商务印书馆。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |