现代汉语反身代词“自己”的动态照应研究
摘要
本文是关于汉语反身代词“自己”动态照应的研究。相关理论普遍认为,作为一种长距离照应语,“自己”可以跨过自身所在语域寻找其先行词。目前对“自己”长距离照应现象所做的研究大多是从纯句法或语用的角度进行的,研究的焦点是当句中出现两个或两个以上名词短语可以作“自己”的候选先行词时,“自己”与其中一个或多个共标的约束条件。但迄今尚未有一种理论能够给出圆满的解释。究其原因,本文认为以往的研究都是单纯从句法或语用等单一角度进行的,而“自己”的长距离照应应是句法、语义、语用和认知等多种因素共同作用的结果。本文提出了动态照应的观点来解释“自己”的长距离照应现象。“自己”长距离照应的动态性体现在三个方面：1、语义的动态性；2、照应结构的动态性；3、认知过程的动态性。
本文从以上三个方面对“自己”的动态照应进行了研究。首先,通过提出动词语义指向的概念来研究影响“自己”动态照应的语义因素。研究表明,动词语义指向影响“自己”对其先行词的选择：汉语单句中,如果含有两个或两个以上能够充当“自己”先行词的名词短语,在句法因素不变的情况下,“自己”与其先行词的照应关系受动词语义指向的影响。当主句或小句动词具有明确语义指向,或在副词修饰下具有明确语义指向时,“自己”能够明确与其中一个名词短语的同标关系；否则,“自己”无法只与一个名词短语同标,意即与两个或两个以上名词短语同标。
其次,本文基于意义组合理论,以“NP的NP的NP”结构和表被动意义的“被”字句为例,研究了结构因素对“自己”与其先行词之间的照应关系的强弱的影响。研究发现,“自己”与多个候选先行词NP之间是一种动态照应关系,“自己”与候选先行词之间的照应强度受多个候选先行词之间的结构或语义关系、主动或被动句式等因素的影响。换言之,“自己”与其先行词之间的动态照应由各句子成分的意义以及联结句子成分的规则所决定。
最后,本文从认知的角度研究了“自己”动态照应,并提出了“自己”动态照应的心理语言学依据。研究表明,“自己”的动态属性及其认知过程的动态性使“自己”的照应表现出动态照应的特点。最后,本文在分析“自己”照应动态性的基础上,提出了“自己”照应的一种综合认知模型,以表明影响“自己”与其先行词照应关系的多种因素(如句法因素,语义因素,认知因素等)之间的相互关系。
This dissertation is a study on the dynamic anaphora of Chinese reflexive ziji. It has been generally accepted that ziji, as a long-distance anaphor, may refer to an antecedent outside the very local domain. The studies on the long-distance anaphora of ziji so far have been mostly conducted from the syntactic or pragmatic perspective and the focus of the studies is the syntactic or pragmatic constraints for the co-indexation of ziji with one or more noun phrases when there are two or more antecedent candidates in a sentence. But none of the syntactic or pragmatic theories or principles has presented a satisfactory account for it, because, as suggested in this dissertation, the long-distance anaphora of ziji should be regarded as a result of the comprehensive effect of various factors such as syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, cognitive factors.
A dynamic perspective is proposed to explain the long-distance anaphora of ziji. As discussed in this dissertation, the dynamics of the anaphora of ziji is reflected in three aspects:the first, the dynamics of the semantic meaning; the second, the dynamics of the anaphoric structure; the third, the dynamics of the cognitive process.
The study in this dissertation on the dynamic anaphora of ziji is conducted from the above-mentioned three aspects. Firstly, the semantic factors affecting the anaphora of ziji are explored in terms of the effect of the semantic orientation of the verb. It is shown that in a sentence, if there are two or more candidate antecedent NPs for ziji, if the syntactic factors remain unchanged, the referential relationship between ziji and its candidate antecedent NPs is determined by the semantic orientation of the verb:when the verb of the matrix clause or small clause has a clear semantic orientation or acquires a clear semantic orientation due to the effect of the adverbial modifier, ziji is co-indexed with only one of the NPs; otherwise, ziji is co-indexed with two or more NPs.
Secondly, based on the Principle of Compositionality, the structure of NP de NP de NP and the passive bei-construction are used as examples to investigate the structural constraints on the dynamic anaphora. It is suggested that there is a dynamic relationship between ziji and its candidate antecedent NPs and the anaphoric strength between ziji and its antecedent candidates is affected by the syntactic structure of active or passive voice and the semantic or structural relationship among the NPs. If the semantic factors remain unchanged, the anaphora of ziji is determined by the syntactic relations among the sentence constituents. In other words, the anaphoric relation between ziji and its candidate antecedents is affected by the meanings of the syntactic constituents and the rules linking the constituents.
Thirdly, psycholinguistic evidence for the dynamic anaphora of ziji is provided. It is shown that the dynamic nature of ziji and the cognitive process contribute to the dynamic anaphora of ziji. The processing mechanism of the dynamic anaphora of ziji is proposed in the form of a comprehensive model in which the syntactic, semantic and cognitive factors are incorporated to indicate the comprehensive effect of the factors on the anaphoric relation between ziji and its antecedent.
本文从以上三个方面对“自己”的动态照应进行了研究。首先,通过提出动词语义指向的概念来研究影响“自己”动态照应的语义因素。研究表明,动词语义指向影响“自己”对其先行词的选择：汉语单句中,如果含有两个或两个以上能够充当“自己”先行词的名词短语,在句法因素不变的情况下,“自己”与其先行词的照应关系受动词语义指向的影响。当主句或小句动词具有明确语义指向,或在副词修饰下具有明确语义指向时,“自己”能够明确与其中一个名词短语的同标关系；否则,“自己”无法只与一个名词短语同标,意即与两个或两个以上名词短语同标。
其次,本文基于意义组合理论,以“NP的NP的NP”结构和表被动意义的“被”字句为例,研究了结构因素对“自己”与其先行词之间的照应关系的强弱的影响。研究发现,“自己”与多个候选先行词NP之间是一种动态照应关系,“自己”与候选先行词之间的照应强度受多个候选先行词之间的结构或语义关系、主动或被动句式等因素的影响。换言之,“自己”与其先行词之间的动态照应由各句子成分的意义以及联结句子成分的规则所决定。
最后,本文从认知的角度研究了“自己”动态照应,并提出了“自己”动态照应的心理语言学依据。研究表明,“自己”的动态属性及其认知过程的动态性使“自己”的照应表现出动态照应的特点。最后,本文在分析“自己”照应动态性的基础上,提出了“自己”照应的一种综合认知模型,以表明影响“自己”与其先行词照应关系的多种因素(如句法因素,语义因素,认知因素等)之间的相互关系。
This dissertation is a study on the dynamic anaphora of Chinese reflexive ziji. It has been generally accepted that ziji, as a long-distance anaphor, may refer to an antecedent outside the very local domain. The studies on the long-distance anaphora of ziji so far have been mostly conducted from the syntactic or pragmatic perspective and the focus of the studies is the syntactic or pragmatic constraints for the co-indexation of ziji with one or more noun phrases when there are two or more antecedent candidates in a sentence. But none of the syntactic or pragmatic theories or principles has presented a satisfactory account for it, because, as suggested in this dissertation, the long-distance anaphora of ziji should be regarded as a result of the comprehensive effect of various factors such as syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, cognitive factors.
A dynamic perspective is proposed to explain the long-distance anaphora of ziji. As discussed in this dissertation, the dynamics of the anaphora of ziji is reflected in three aspects:the first, the dynamics of the semantic meaning; the second, the dynamics of the anaphoric structure; the third, the dynamics of the cognitive process.
The study in this dissertation on the dynamic anaphora of ziji is conducted from the above-mentioned three aspects. Firstly, the semantic factors affecting the anaphora of ziji are explored in terms of the effect of the semantic orientation of the verb. It is shown that in a sentence, if there are two or more candidate antecedent NPs for ziji, if the syntactic factors remain unchanged, the referential relationship between ziji and its candidate antecedent NPs is determined by the semantic orientation of the verb:when the verb of the matrix clause or small clause has a clear semantic orientation or acquires a clear semantic orientation due to the effect of the adverbial modifier, ziji is co-indexed with only one of the NPs; otherwise, ziji is co-indexed with two or more NPs.
Secondly, based on the Principle of Compositionality, the structure of NP de NP de NP and the passive bei-construction are used as examples to investigate the structural constraints on the dynamic anaphora. It is suggested that there is a dynamic relationship between ziji and its candidate antecedent NPs and the anaphoric strength between ziji and its antecedent candidates is affected by the syntactic structure of active or passive voice and the semantic or structural relationship among the NPs. If the semantic factors remain unchanged, the anaphora of ziji is determined by the syntactic relations among the sentence constituents. In other words, the anaphoric relation between ziji and its candidate antecedents is affected by the meanings of the syntactic constituents and the rules linking the constituents.
Thirdly, psycholinguistic evidence for the dynamic anaphora of ziji is provided. It is shown that the dynamic nature of ziji and the cognitive process contribute to the dynamic anaphora of ziji. The processing mechanism of the dynamic anaphora of ziji is proposed in the form of a comprehensive model in which the syntactic, semantic and cognitive factors are incorporated to indicate the comprehensive effect of the factors on the anaphoric relation between ziji and its antecedent.
引文
Anand, P.& Hsieh, F-F.2005. Long-distance Reflexives in Perspective. In J. Alderete et al. (Eds). Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.43-51). Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Ariel, M.1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions:A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics,30,3-42.
Bates, E.& MacWhinney, B.1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp.157-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaun.
Bates, E.& MacWhinney, B.1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Sentence Processing (pp.3-73). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Bergetonde, U.2004. The Independence of Binding and Intensification. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
Borreggine, K. L.& Kaschak, M. P.2006. The action-sentence compatibility effect:it's all in the timing. Cognitive Science,30,1097-1112.
Botley, S.& McEnery, T.2000. Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Chafe, W. L.1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L.1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L.1996. Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In Fretheim, T.& J.K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility (pp.37-46). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chen, P.1992. The reflexive ziji in Chinese:functional vs. formalist approaches, In Thomas H.-T. Lee (Ed.), Research on Chinese Linguistics in Hong Kong (pp.1-36). Linguistics Society of Hong Kong.
Chien, Y.-C.& Wexler, K.1987. A comparison between Chinese-speaking and English-speaking children's acquisition of reflexives and pronouns. Paper presented in 12th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development; ms., California State University, San Bernardino.
Chien, Y.-C., Wexler, K.& Chang, Hsing-wu.1993. Children's development of long-distance binding in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,2:229-59.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris
Chomsky, N.1999. Derivation by Phase, ms. MIT. Published as 'Derivation by Phase'. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.) Ken Hale:A Life in Language (pp.1-52). Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chuang, Li-L.1997. Long Distance Anaphor and Multiple Feature Checking:A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.
Cloitre, M.& Bever, T. G.1988. Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes,3,4:293-322.
Cole, P., Hermon, G.& Sung, L.-M.1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry,21:1-22.
Dahl, O.& Hellman, C.1995. What Happens When We Use an Anaphor? Stockholm University. Manuscript.
Evans, V.& Green, M.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction. Florence:Routledge.
Fauconnier, G.1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E.& Halne, A.1993. Event-related brain potential during natural speech processing:effects of semantic morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research,1:183-192.
Gamut, L. T. F.1991. Logic, language, and meaning, Volume 2:Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Groenendijk, J.1998. Programming with dynamic predicate logic. Information Systems (INF),11,1-40.
Halliday, M.A.K.1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Eward Arnold.
Hoosain, R.1991. Psycholinguistic Implications for Linguistic Relativity:A Case Study of Chinese. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Hu, Jianhua.2002. Prominence and Locality in Grammar:The Syntax and Semantics of Wh-Questions and Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.
Huang, C.-T. J.1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. J.& Tang, C -C. J.1991. The local nature of the long- distance reflexive in Chinese. In J. Koster & E. Reuland (Eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora (pp.263-282). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, C.-T. J.& Liu, C.-S. L.2001. Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface. Syntax And Semantics, Vol.33:141-196.
Huang, C-T. J.& Li, Y-H. A. (Ed.),1996. New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics. Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, J.& Tang, C-C. J.1989. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. NELS,19,191-206.
Huang, Y.1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics,27: 301-335.
Huang, Y.1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora:A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y.2000. Anaphora:A Cross-Linguistic Study. New York:Oxford University Press.
Huang, Y.-H.1984. Reflexives in Chinese. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 10,163-188.
Jackendoff, R.1985. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1989.What is a Concept that a Person May Grasp it? Mind & Language, 4(1-2):68-102.
Kao, R-R.1993. Grammatical Relations and Anaphoric Structures in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii.
McRae, K.& Kazunaga, M.2009. People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(6):1417-1429.
Langacker, R.1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics,1(1),5-38.
Langacker, R.1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. Ⅱ:Descriptive Application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics,4,1-38.
LaPolla, R. J.1995. Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese. In Pamela Downing & Michael Noonam (Eds.), Word Order in Discourse (pp.297-329). John Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lee, H.& Wexler, K.1987. The acquisition of reflexives and pronouns in Korean:from the cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented in the 12th annual Boston University conference on Language Development; ms., University of California, Irvine.
Levinson, S. C.1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions. Revision. Journal of Linguistics,27,107-162.
Li, N-C.1991. Perspective-taking in Mandarin Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Li, P.1994. Understanding the time course of sentence comprehension:a sentence gating study in Mandarin Chinese. In Chang H. W. et al. (Eds.). Advances in the Study of Chinese Language Processing (pp.303-23). Taiwan:National Taiwan University.
Liu, C-S.1999. Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Liu, C-S.2003. Pure reflexivity, pure identity, focus and Chinese ziji-benshen. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,12,19-58.
Lundquist, L.1995. Indefinite noun phrases in legal texts:use, function and construction of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics,23,7-29.
Mcdonald, J. L.& MacWhinney, B.1995. The time course of anaphor resolution:effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language,34,543-566.
McElree, B & Bever, T. G.1989. The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18 (1),21-35.
Mitkov, R.1997. Factors in anaphora resolution:they are not the only things that matter. A case study based on two different approaches. In Proceedings of the ACL'97/EACL'97 Workshop on Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution,14-21.
Mohanan, K. P.1982. Grammatical relations and anaphora in Malayalam. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,5,163-90.
Naho Ikuta, et al.2006. Brain activation during the course of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language,97,154-161.
Nicol, J.& Swinney, D.1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during Sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18(1),5-19.
Nicol, J. L.,& Swinney, D.2003. The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In Andrew Barss (Ed.), Anaphora:A Reference Guide (pp.72-104). Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Nicol, J. L., Fodor, J. D.& Swinney, D.1994. Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology,20 (5),1129-38.
Pan, Haihua.1995. Locality, Self-ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Pan, Haihua.1997. Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York and London:Garland Publishing, Inc.
Pan, Haihua.2001. Why the blocking effect? In Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & James Huang (Eds.), Long Distance Reflexives (pp.279-316). Syntax and Semantics Series, Academic Press.
Prince, E.F.1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.223-255). New York:Academic Press.
Reboul, A.1997. What (if anything) is accessibility? A relevance-oriented criticism of Ariel's Accessibility Theory of referring expressions. In Connolly, J.H. et al. (Eds.), Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar (pp.91-108). Berlin/NY:de Gruyter.
Rosch, E.1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology,7,532-547.
Sells, P.1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry,18,445-479.
Slobin, D & Bever, T.G.1982. Children use canonical sentence schemes:a cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition,12 (3),229-265.
Smith, K., Brighton, H.& Kirby, S.2003. Complex systems in language evolution:The cultural emergence of compositional structure. Advances in Complex Systems,4,537-558.
Sohng, H. K.2003. Topics in the Syntax of East Asian Languages:Long-Distance Anaphora and Adverbial Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Su, L. I-W.2000. Mapping in thought and language as evidenced in Chinese. Chinese Studies,18,395-424.
Sung, L. M.1990. Universals of Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois.
Tabossi, P.1996. Cross-modal semantic priming. Language and Cognitive Process,11, (6), 569-76.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science,12,49-100.
Tang, C.-C. J.1985. A Study of Reflexives in Chinese. M.A. thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Tang, C.-C. J.1989. Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,7,93-121.
Tang, C.-C. J.1994. A note on relativized SUBJECT for reflexives in Chinese. In B. Lust, M. Suner & J. Whitman (Eds.), Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Perspectives, vol.2, Binding, Dependencies and Learnability (pp.71-82), Hillsdale, N. J:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomasello, M.1999. Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Townsend, D. J.& Bever, T.G.2001. Sentence Comprehension. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Trueswell, J. C, Tanenhaus, M.K.& Kello, C.1993. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing:separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology,19 (3),528-53.
van Hoek, K.1995. Conceptual reference points:cognitive grammar of pronominal anaphor constraints. Language,71 (2),310-340.
de Villiers, J. G.& de Villiers, P. A.1973. Development of the use of word order in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,2 (4),331-41.
Walther, C.1994. Processing reflexives in coordinate NPs:a question of point-of-view. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,24 (1),39-78.
Williams, E.1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry,28,577-628.
Wu, H-M.1992. Aspects of Chinese Binding, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington.
Xu, L. J.1993. The long-distance binding of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,21,123-141.
Xu, L. J.1994. The antecedent of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,22,115-137.
Yu, X. F.1996. A Study of Chinese Reflexives, Ph.D. dissertation. University of London.
Zwaan, R. A.& Taylor, L.2006. Seeing, acting, understanding:Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology,135,1-11.
柏灵,2005,“自己”的结构语义限制及其认知解释,汉语学报,(4),80-87.
蔡维天,2002,自己_自性与自然_谈汉语中的反身状语,中国语文,(4),357-362.
陈烜之、熊蔚华,1995,中文阅读之句法分析历程初探,心理科学,(6),321-325.
陈永明、崔耀,1994,句子先提述的参与者在可提取性上的优势现象,心理学报,(2),113-120.
陈永明、崔耀,1995,先述参与者的优势及句子不同成分的可提取性,心理科学,(1),1-5.
程工,1994,从汉语“自己”一词的历时性演变看新格赖斯主义语用照应理论,解放军外国语学院学报,(6),10-15.
程工,1994,汉语“自己”一词的代词性,现代外语,(3),7-11.
程工,1994,生成语法对“自己”一词的研究,国外语言学,(1),34-40.
程工,1995,Variants and Invariant in Language,博士学位论文,复旦大学.
程工,1999,语言共性论,上海：上海外语教育出版社.
程工,1999,汉语“自己”一词的性质,当代语言学,(2),33-43.
范晓,1991,动词的“价”分类,语法研究和探索(五),北京：语文出版社.
范晓,1996,动词的配价与句子的生成,汉语学习,(1),3-7.
方经民,2000,汉语语法变换研究—理论、原则、方法,郑州：河南人民出版社.
方欣欣,2000,动词的语义特征决定“自己”的语义指向,首都师范大学学报(社会科学版)增刊,1-10.
傅雨贤,1986,被动句式与主动句式的变换问题,汉语学习,(2),1-7.
高立群、刘兆静、黄月圆,2005年,“自己”是谁?—对约束原则的实验研究,语言科学,(2),39-50.
高名凯,1948,汉语语法论,上海：开明书店.
高原,2003年,照应词的认知分析,北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
胡建华,1995,空指代的控制与“自己”的释义—论英、汉语之间的一些参数差异,现代外语,(4),1-6.
胡建华,1998,汉语长距离反身代词化的句法研究,当代语言学,(3),33-40.
胡建华,1998,约束、述谓与特征核查：最简方案框架内的反身代词化研究,外国语,(5)：58-64.
胡建华、潘海华,2001,OT方案与照应语的约束,外国语,(1),24-31.
胡建华、潘海华,2002,NP显著性的计算与汉语反身代词“自己”的照应,当代语言学,(1),46-60.
江新、荆其诚,1999,句法和语义在汉语简单句理解中的作用,心理学报,(10),361-368.
金立鑫,2004,“着”“了”“过”时体意义的对立及其句法条件,第七届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选,北京：北京大学出版社.
金钟镐,2003,略谈动词对“自己”长距离约束的制约作用,汉语学习,(4),9-12.
金钟镐,2003,现代汉语中“自己”位于主宾语位置上的照应关系研究,博士学位论文,北京大学.
冷英、莫雷,2002,隐含因果关系影响代词解决的研究进展,心理科学进展,(1),36-41页.
李宇明主编,2008,中国语言生活状况报告2007(上下编),北京：商务印书馆.
刘礼进,2007,汉语反身代词长距离照应研究中的几个问题,汉语学习,(1),25-31.
刘礼进,2008,现代汉语反身代词“自己”的照应功能,外国语,(1),36-44.
刘振前译,2004,句子理解,济南：齐鲁书社.
陆俭明,1993,陆俭明自选集(著名中年语言学家自选集),郑州：河南教育出版社.
陆俭明,1997,关于语义指向分析,中国语言学论丛总(第一辑),北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
吕叔湘,1979,汉语语法分析问题,北京：商务印书馆.
吕叔湘,1987,句型和动词学术讨论会开幕词,中国社会科学院语言研究所现代汉语教研室编,句型和动词,北京：语文出版社.
吕叔湘,1995,现代汉语八百词(增订本),北京：商务印书馆.
缪小春,1982,汉语语句的理解策略：词序和词义在汉语语句理解中的作用,心理科学通讯,(6),9-15.
缪小春、陈国鹏、应厚昌,1984,词序和词义在汉语语句理解中的作用再探,心理科学通讯,(6),1-7.
缪小春、宋正国,1995,动词语义和句子语法对代词加工的影响,心理科学,(4),197-200.
牛保义,2003,“被”字的语义数量特征和被动句,暨南大学华文学院学报,(2),35-45.
潘海华、胡建华,2002,汉语复合反身代词与英语反身代词比较研究,外语教学与研究,(4),241-247.
亓艳萍,1996,小学儿童运用被动句表达的调查研究,语言文字应用,(3),41-46.
屈承熹、纪宗仁,2005,汉语认知功能语法,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社.
邵敬敏,1991,80年代汉语语法研究的回顾与今后的任务,世界汉语教学,(3),153-160.
邵敬敏主编,1998,句法结构中的语义研究,北京：北京语言大学出版社.
申小龙,1995,当代中国语法学,广州：广东教育出版社.
沈开木,1996,论“语义指向”,华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)(1),67-74.
石定栩,1999,“把”字句和“被”字句研究,徐烈炯主编,共性与个性—汉语语言学中的争议,北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,111-138.
石定栩、胡建华,2005,“被”的句法地位,当代语言学,(3),213-224.
石东方、张厚粲、舒华,1999,动词信息在汉语句子加工早期的作用,心理学报,(1),28-35.
税昌锡,2003,反身代词“自己”语义指向的功能解释,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),(3),74-83.
税昌锡,2003,论语义指向的内涵,语言科学,(6),20-32.
孙燕、舒华、周晓林、郑先隽,2001,动词隐含因果性对代词加工的影响,心理科学,(1),39-41.
王灿龙,1995,试论双主目语句中“自己”的照应约束关系,池州师专学报,(4),48-54.
王灿龙,1999,现代汉语照应系统研究,博士学位论文,中国社会科学院.
王静,1996,从语义级差看现代汉语“被”字的使用,语言教学与研究,(2),96-111.
王鹏、戴新宇、陈家骏、王启祥,2003,基于规则的汉语句法分析方法研究,计算机工程与应用,(29),63-66.
王青、杨玉芳,2002,语义启动模型以及启动范围,心理科学进展,(2),154-161.
王文静,闫国利,白学军,2006,汉语阅读中先行词词频对代词加工的眼动研究,心理学探新,(3),30-34.
王永德,2000,汉语句子理解进程中句法整合与语义解释,安徽大学学报(社会科学版),(6),91-95.
王正元,2006,概念整合理论的发展与理论前沿,四川外语学院学报,(6),65-70.
吴庚堂,2000,汉语被动式与动词被动化,现代外语,(3),249-260.
熊仲儒,2003,汉语被动句句法分析,当代语言学,(3),206-221.
徐烈炯,1999,反身代词的所指对象,徐烈炯主编,共性与个性—汉语语言学中的争议,北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,30-50.
袁毓林,1999,照应的结构限制和认知解释,继承与创新—王维贤倪宝元教授教学科研50年纪念文集,杭州：浙江教育出版社.
张金桥、莫雷,2006,汉语主动句、被动句的命题表征项目顺序特点,心理学报,(3),317-323.
张兴利、白学军、阎国利,2006,动词隐含因果关系在代词解决中的作用及时间进程,心理科学,(5),1149-1152.
周国光,1996,现代汉语动词的配价研究,汉语学习,(1),41-44.
周国光、孔令达、李向农,1992,儿童语言中的被动句,语言文字应用,(1),38-48.
周有斌、邵敬敏,1993,汉语心理动词及其句型,语文研究,(8),32-36.
朱德熙,1985,语法答问,北京：北京商务印书馆.
Ariel, M.1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions:A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics,30,3-42.
Bates, E.& MacWhinney, B.1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp.157-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaun.
Bates, E.& MacWhinney, B.1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Sentence Processing (pp.3-73). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Bergetonde, U.2004. The Independence of Binding and Intensification. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
Borreggine, K. L.& Kaschak, M. P.2006. The action-sentence compatibility effect:it's all in the timing. Cognitive Science,30,1097-1112.
Botley, S.& McEnery, T.2000. Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Chafe, W. L.1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L.1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L.1996. Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In Fretheim, T.& J.K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility (pp.37-46). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chen, P.1992. The reflexive ziji in Chinese:functional vs. formalist approaches, In Thomas H.-T. Lee (Ed.), Research on Chinese Linguistics in Hong Kong (pp.1-36). Linguistics Society of Hong Kong.
Chien, Y.-C.& Wexler, K.1987. A comparison between Chinese-speaking and English-speaking children's acquisition of reflexives and pronouns. Paper presented in 12th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development; ms., California State University, San Bernardino.
Chien, Y.-C., Wexler, K.& Chang, Hsing-wu.1993. Children's development of long-distance binding in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,2:229-59.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris
Chomsky, N.1999. Derivation by Phase, ms. MIT. Published as 'Derivation by Phase'. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.) Ken Hale:A Life in Language (pp.1-52). Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chuang, Li-L.1997. Long Distance Anaphor and Multiple Feature Checking:A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.
Cloitre, M.& Bever, T. G.1988. Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes,3,4:293-322.
Cole, P., Hermon, G.& Sung, L.-M.1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry,21:1-22.
Dahl, O.& Hellman, C.1995. What Happens When We Use an Anaphor? Stockholm University. Manuscript.
Evans, V.& Green, M.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction. Florence:Routledge.
Fauconnier, G.1997. Mapping in Thought and Language. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E.& Halne, A.1993. Event-related brain potential during natural speech processing:effects of semantic morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research,1:183-192.
Gamut, L. T. F.1991. Logic, language, and meaning, Volume 2:Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Groenendijk, J.1998. Programming with dynamic predicate logic. Information Systems (INF),11,1-40.
Halliday, M.A.K.1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Eward Arnold.
Hoosain, R.1991. Psycholinguistic Implications for Linguistic Relativity:A Case Study of Chinese. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Hu, Jianhua.2002. Prominence and Locality in Grammar:The Syntax and Semantics of Wh-Questions and Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.
Huang, C.-T. J.1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. J.& Tang, C -C. J.1991. The local nature of the long- distance reflexive in Chinese. In J. Koster & E. Reuland (Eds.), Long-Distance Anaphora (pp.263-282). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, C.-T. J.& Liu, C.-S. L.2001. Logophoricity, attitudes and ziji at the interface. Syntax And Semantics, Vol.33:141-196.
Huang, C-T. J.& Li, Y-H. A. (Ed.),1996. New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics. Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, J.& Tang, C-C. J.1989. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. NELS,19,191-206.
Huang, Y.1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics,27: 301-335.
Huang, Y.1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora:A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y.2000. Anaphora:A Cross-Linguistic Study. New York:Oxford University Press.
Huang, Y.-H.1984. Reflexives in Chinese. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 10,163-188.
Jackendoff, R.1985. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1989.What is a Concept that a Person May Grasp it? Mind & Language, 4(1-2):68-102.
Kao, R-R.1993. Grammatical Relations and Anaphoric Structures in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii.
McRae, K.& Kazunaga, M.2009. People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(6):1417-1429.
Langacker, R.1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics,1(1),5-38.
Langacker, R.1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. Ⅱ:Descriptive Application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.1993. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics,4,1-38.
LaPolla, R. J.1995. Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese. In Pamela Downing & Michael Noonam (Eds.), Word Order in Discourse (pp.297-329). John Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lee, H.& Wexler, K.1987. The acquisition of reflexives and pronouns in Korean:from the cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented in the 12th annual Boston University conference on Language Development; ms., University of California, Irvine.
Levinson, S. C.1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions. Revision. Journal of Linguistics,27,107-162.
Li, N-C.1991. Perspective-taking in Mandarin Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Li, P.1994. Understanding the time course of sentence comprehension:a sentence gating study in Mandarin Chinese. In Chang H. W. et al. (Eds.). Advances in the Study of Chinese Language Processing (pp.303-23). Taiwan:National Taiwan University.
Liu, C-S.1999. Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Liu, C-S.2003. Pure reflexivity, pure identity, focus and Chinese ziji-benshen. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,12,19-58.
Lundquist, L.1995. Indefinite noun phrases in legal texts:use, function and construction of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics,23,7-29.
Mcdonald, J. L.& MacWhinney, B.1995. The time course of anaphor resolution:effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language,34,543-566.
McElree, B & Bever, T. G.1989. The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18 (1),21-35.
Mitkov, R.1997. Factors in anaphora resolution:they are not the only things that matter. A case study based on two different approaches. In Proceedings of the ACL'97/EACL'97 Workshop on Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution,14-21.
Mohanan, K. P.1982. Grammatical relations and anaphora in Malayalam. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,5,163-90.
Naho Ikuta, et al.2006. Brain activation during the course of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language,97,154-161.
Nicol, J.& Swinney, D.1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during Sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,18(1),5-19.
Nicol, J. L.,& Swinney, D.2003. The psycholinguistics of anaphora. In Andrew Barss (Ed.), Anaphora:A Reference Guide (pp.72-104). Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Nicol, J. L., Fodor, J. D.& Swinney, D.1994. Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology,20 (5),1129-38.
Pan, Haihua.1995. Locality, Self-ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Pan, Haihua.1997. Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York and London:Garland Publishing, Inc.
Pan, Haihua.2001. Why the blocking effect? In Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon & James Huang (Eds.), Long Distance Reflexives (pp.279-316). Syntax and Semantics Series, Academic Press.
Prince, E.F.1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.223-255). New York:Academic Press.
Reboul, A.1997. What (if anything) is accessibility? A relevance-oriented criticism of Ariel's Accessibility Theory of referring expressions. In Connolly, J.H. et al. (Eds.), Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar (pp.91-108). Berlin/NY:de Gruyter.
Rosch, E.1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology,7,532-547.
Sells, P.1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry,18,445-479.
Slobin, D & Bever, T.G.1982. Children use canonical sentence schemes:a cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition,12 (3),229-265.
Smith, K., Brighton, H.& Kirby, S.2003. Complex systems in language evolution:The cultural emergence of compositional structure. Advances in Complex Systems,4,537-558.
Sohng, H. K.2003. Topics in the Syntax of East Asian Languages:Long-Distance Anaphora and Adverbial Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Su, L. I-W.2000. Mapping in thought and language as evidenced in Chinese. Chinese Studies,18,395-424.
Sung, L. M.1990. Universals of Reflexives. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois.
Tabossi, P.1996. Cross-modal semantic priming. Language and Cognitive Process,11, (6), 569-76.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science,12,49-100.
Tang, C.-C. J.1985. A Study of Reflexives in Chinese. M.A. thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Tang, C.-C. J.1989. Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,7,93-121.
Tang, C.-C. J.1994. A note on relativized SUBJECT for reflexives in Chinese. In B. Lust, M. Suner & J. Whitman (Eds.), Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Perspectives, vol.2, Binding, Dependencies and Learnability (pp.71-82), Hillsdale, N. J:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomasello, M.1999. Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Townsend, D. J.& Bever, T.G.2001. Sentence Comprehension. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Trueswell, J. C, Tanenhaus, M.K.& Kello, C.1993. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing:separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology,19 (3),528-53.
van Hoek, K.1995. Conceptual reference points:cognitive grammar of pronominal anaphor constraints. Language,71 (2),310-340.
de Villiers, J. G.& de Villiers, P. A.1973. Development of the use of word order in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,2 (4),331-41.
Walther, C.1994. Processing reflexives in coordinate NPs:a question of point-of-view. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,24 (1),39-78.
Williams, E.1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry,28,577-628.
Wu, H-M.1992. Aspects of Chinese Binding, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington.
Xu, L. J.1993. The long-distance binding of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,21,123-141.
Xu, L. J.1994. The antecedent of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,22,115-137.
Yu, X. F.1996. A Study of Chinese Reflexives, Ph.D. dissertation. University of London.
Zwaan, R. A.& Taylor, L.2006. Seeing, acting, understanding:Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology,135,1-11.
柏灵,2005,“自己”的结构语义限制及其认知解释,汉语学报,(4),80-87.
蔡维天,2002,自己_自性与自然_谈汉语中的反身状语,中国语文,(4),357-362.
陈烜之、熊蔚华,1995,中文阅读之句法分析历程初探,心理科学,(6),321-325.
陈永明、崔耀,1994,句子先提述的参与者在可提取性上的优势现象,心理学报,(2),113-120.
陈永明、崔耀,1995,先述参与者的优势及句子不同成分的可提取性,心理科学,(1),1-5.
程工,1994,从汉语“自己”一词的历时性演变看新格赖斯主义语用照应理论,解放军外国语学院学报,(6),10-15.
程工,1994,汉语“自己”一词的代词性,现代外语,(3),7-11.
程工,1994,生成语法对“自己”一词的研究,国外语言学,(1),34-40.
程工,1995,Variants and Invariant in Language,博士学位论文,复旦大学.
程工,1999,语言共性论,上海：上海外语教育出版社.
程工,1999,汉语“自己”一词的性质,当代语言学,(2),33-43.
范晓,1991,动词的“价”分类,语法研究和探索(五),北京：语文出版社.
范晓,1996,动词的配价与句子的生成,汉语学习,(1),3-7.
方经民,2000,汉语语法变换研究—理论、原则、方法,郑州：河南人民出版社.
方欣欣,2000,动词的语义特征决定“自己”的语义指向,首都师范大学学报(社会科学版)增刊,1-10.
傅雨贤,1986,被动句式与主动句式的变换问题,汉语学习,(2),1-7.
高立群、刘兆静、黄月圆,2005年,“自己”是谁?—对约束原则的实验研究,语言科学,(2),39-50.
高名凯,1948,汉语语法论,上海：开明书店.
高原,2003年,照应词的认知分析,北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
胡建华,1995,空指代的控制与“自己”的释义—论英、汉语之间的一些参数差异,现代外语,(4),1-6.
胡建华,1998,汉语长距离反身代词化的句法研究,当代语言学,(3),33-40.
胡建华,1998,约束、述谓与特征核查：最简方案框架内的反身代词化研究,外国语,(5)：58-64.
胡建华、潘海华,2001,OT方案与照应语的约束,外国语,(1),24-31.
胡建华、潘海华,2002,NP显著性的计算与汉语反身代词“自己”的照应,当代语言学,(1),46-60.
江新、荆其诚,1999,句法和语义在汉语简单句理解中的作用,心理学报,(10),361-368.
金立鑫,2004,“着”“了”“过”时体意义的对立及其句法条件,第七届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选,北京：北京大学出版社.
金钟镐,2003,略谈动词对“自己”长距离约束的制约作用,汉语学习,(4),9-12.
金钟镐,2003,现代汉语中“自己”位于主宾语位置上的照应关系研究,博士学位论文,北京大学.
冷英、莫雷,2002,隐含因果关系影响代词解决的研究进展,心理科学进展,(1),36-41页.
李宇明主编,2008,中国语言生活状况报告2007(上下编),北京：商务印书馆.
刘礼进,2007,汉语反身代词长距离照应研究中的几个问题,汉语学习,(1),25-31.
刘礼进,2008,现代汉语反身代词“自己”的照应功能,外国语,(1),36-44.
刘振前译,2004,句子理解,济南：齐鲁书社.
陆俭明,1993,陆俭明自选集(著名中年语言学家自选集),郑州：河南教育出版社.
陆俭明,1997,关于语义指向分析,中国语言学论丛总(第一辑),北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
吕叔湘,1979,汉语语法分析问题,北京：商务印书馆.
吕叔湘,1987,句型和动词学术讨论会开幕词,中国社会科学院语言研究所现代汉语教研室编,句型和动词,北京：语文出版社.
吕叔湘,1995,现代汉语八百词(增订本),北京：商务印书馆.
缪小春,1982,汉语语句的理解策略：词序和词义在汉语语句理解中的作用,心理科学通讯,(6),9-15.
缪小春、陈国鹏、应厚昌,1984,词序和词义在汉语语句理解中的作用再探,心理科学通讯,(6),1-7.
缪小春、宋正国,1995,动词语义和句子语法对代词加工的影响,心理科学,(4),197-200.
牛保义,2003,“被”字的语义数量特征和被动句,暨南大学华文学院学报,(2),35-45.
潘海华、胡建华,2002,汉语复合反身代词与英语反身代词比较研究,外语教学与研究,(4),241-247.
亓艳萍,1996,小学儿童运用被动句表达的调查研究,语言文字应用,(3),41-46.
屈承熹、纪宗仁,2005,汉语认知功能语法,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社.
邵敬敏,1991,80年代汉语语法研究的回顾与今后的任务,世界汉语教学,(3),153-160.
邵敬敏主编,1998,句法结构中的语义研究,北京：北京语言大学出版社.
申小龙,1995,当代中国语法学,广州：广东教育出版社.
沈开木,1996,论“语义指向”,华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)(1),67-74.
石定栩,1999,“把”字句和“被”字句研究,徐烈炯主编,共性与个性—汉语语言学中的争议,北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,111-138.
石定栩、胡建华,2005,“被”的句法地位,当代语言学,(3),213-224.
石东方、张厚粲、舒华,1999,动词信息在汉语句子加工早期的作用,心理学报,(1),28-35.
税昌锡,2003,反身代词“自己”语义指向的功能解释,浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),(3),74-83.
税昌锡,2003,论语义指向的内涵,语言科学,(6),20-32.
孙燕、舒华、周晓林、郑先隽,2001,动词隐含因果性对代词加工的影响,心理科学,(1),39-41.
王灿龙,1995,试论双主目语句中“自己”的照应约束关系,池州师专学报,(4),48-54.
王灿龙,1999,现代汉语照应系统研究,博士学位论文,中国社会科学院.
王静,1996,从语义级差看现代汉语“被”字的使用,语言教学与研究,(2),96-111.
王鹏、戴新宇、陈家骏、王启祥,2003,基于规则的汉语句法分析方法研究,计算机工程与应用,(29),63-66.
王青、杨玉芳,2002,语义启动模型以及启动范围,心理科学进展,(2),154-161.
王文静,闫国利,白学军,2006,汉语阅读中先行词词频对代词加工的眼动研究,心理学探新,(3),30-34.
王永德,2000,汉语句子理解进程中句法整合与语义解释,安徽大学学报(社会科学版),(6),91-95.
王正元,2006,概念整合理论的发展与理论前沿,四川外语学院学报,(6),65-70.
吴庚堂,2000,汉语被动式与动词被动化,现代外语,(3),249-260.
熊仲儒,2003,汉语被动句句法分析,当代语言学,(3),206-221.
徐烈炯,1999,反身代词的所指对象,徐烈炯主编,共性与个性—汉语语言学中的争议,北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,30-50.
袁毓林,1999,照应的结构限制和认知解释,继承与创新—王维贤倪宝元教授教学科研50年纪念文集,杭州：浙江教育出版社.
张金桥、莫雷,2006,汉语主动句、被动句的命题表征项目顺序特点,心理学报,(3),317-323.
张兴利、白学军、阎国利,2006,动词隐含因果关系在代词解决中的作用及时间进程,心理科学,(5),1149-1152.
周国光,1996,现代汉语动词的配价研究,汉语学习,(1),41-44.
周国光、孔令达、李向农,1992,儿童语言中的被动句,语言文字应用,(1),38-48.
周有斌、邵敬敏,1993,汉语心理动词及其句型,语文研究,(8),32-36.
朱德熙,1985,语法答问,北京：北京商务印书馆.