现代汉语疑问范畴和否定范畴的相通性及构式整合
|
摘要
文章从两大方面系统地考察了疑问范畴同否定范畴的相关性。一是考察疑问范畴和否定范畴的语义相通性,对特指问、是非问、选择问等疑问句表否定的情况进行全面、系统地考察,并针对目前研究相对不足的疑问表否定的动因和机制以及疑问表否定和一般否定句的区别加以分析;二是考察疑问范畴和否定范畴的构式整合,从疑问代词和否定词的共现特征入手,对含有疑问代词和否定词的否定疑问句和否定陈述句作了疑问与否定的构式整合分析,从宏观角度和微观角度探讨了现代汉语疑问和否定的构式整合问题。
目前,对疑问和否定两大范畴而言,针对每一范畴的研究不少,而关注二者相通性的研究却并不多,关于两个范畴构式整合的研究更是几乎看不到。因此,对于否定疑问句和否定陈述句是疑问和否定构式整合的研究与分析是本文的创新之处。
The relativity of the categories of negation and question is systematically studied from two aspects in this paper, which consists of ten chapters. Firstly, it examines the semantic relativity between these two categories through a thorough and systemic study of the interrogative sentences, such as WH-questions, yes-no questions and alternative questions etc., which indicate negation; Secondly, it investigates their constructional integration. Through a study of the characteristics of co-occurrence of interrogative pronouns and negatives, it analyses the negative questions and negative declarative sentences containing interrogative pronouns and negatives and explores their constructional integration in the contemporary Chinese from both macro and micro point of view.
ChapterⅠmainly summarizes and comments on the researches which have already been done, and raises the study issues and the theories adopted.
In the first part of this paper, which is from ChapterⅡto ChapterⅥ, it examines the semantic relativity between the categories of negation and question.
The negative uses of WH-questions such as "shenme", "shui","nar" were discussed in detail and the close relationship between WH-questions and negation under some conditions was also analyzed in ChapterⅡ.
The position of "shenme" is quite flexible in the negative WH-questions, which is required to keep the balance of the whole sentence. Of course, different positions of "shenme" indicates different negative meanings. In the negative WH-questions containing "shui", the use of "shuizhi..." plays the role of connection and it connects the current situation or the ideally expected opposite situation mentioned in the sentences previously stated. While the use of "shuijiao..." usually appear as a follow-up sentence, which is aimed at the reaction in line with the information of the speakers. Therefore, it is a non-independent sentence at the answering position. In the negative WH-questions with "na", the combination of "na + verb" has become the discourse tag after lexicalization, and this format curling phenomenon of a change from indicating questions to indicating negative semanteme stems from the frequent negative usage of "na + verb". This explains the cause of lexicalization's format curling and reflects the consistency between the negative function to proposition true value of questions and negative sentences. It is this consistency that establishes the inner link between questions and negations.
The negative uses of marked and unmarked yes-no questions were investigated. Furthermore, semantic association of yes-no questions and negation was systematically examined in ChapterⅢ. Yes-no questions often indicate negation by using some special words, intonation and tone. We name the former marked yes-no questions and the latter unmarked yes-no questions. Questions with "ma" at the end are mostly marked one as represented by negations. The reason why it often indicates negations is mainly because that the question with "ma" is an advanced grammaticalization structure, which easily brings about incidental meanings such as negations.
In ChapterⅣ, the negative uses of alternative questions were surveyed. It has three kinds: to negate the former part of the sentence, to negate the latter part of the sentence and to negate the whole sentence. The disjunction in last kind has a kind of common nature and the speaker negates the disjunction in order to negate this nature. The disjunctions provided by other two kinds are often closed disjunctions with two values, which are logically discrepant.
ChapterⅤinvestigates the relative mechanisms of questions (WH-questions. yes-no questions and selective questions) and negations. It also explores the production process of questions indicating negations in terms of their overall character.
The negative use of WH-questions is a result of the combination of interrogative pronoun and the format of WH-questions. Its semantic mechanism is the semantic character of interrogative pronoun; Syntactic mechanism stems mainly from the rhetorical questions; Pragmatic mechanism is the subjectivity to leave a self mark in the sentences. The productive mechanism of the negative use of yes-no questions stems from the non-negation of the proposition. Because the truthfulness between negative yes-no questions and true questions are different, basically it tends to both literally indicate questions and belief in the opposite proposition. As for the alternative questions, the rhetorical tone plus disjunction syntactic structure become the mechanism of negative sentences.
Questions changed from questions to negations belonging to a gradually changing process: first it changes from genuine question to subjective non-neutral question, and then from suspicion to negation. In the first process, the speaker's level of belief, which is caused by the speakers' subjective express requirement, plays a leading role. If the question degree decreases and the doubt factor increases, the questions will change from neutral questions to subjective non-neutral questions. In the second process, the rhetorical questions play a leading role. In a rhetorical question, the reference frame in the pragmatic appropriateness of the question part does not come into existence, therefore the pragmatic appropriateness of the question part in the interrogative syntagma greatly decreases, which provide possibility for the questions' functions to change from questioning to negation.
On the basis of relativity between the question and negation, the variability between the negation with interrogative orientation and generalized negative sentence is investigated from the following aspects in Chapter VI, such as pragmatic value, the degree of dependence on the context, negative scope and the position of focus, the negative object and the function of syntax. The negative scope in the generalized negative sentence is quite convergent, while the negative position of interrogative pronoun is more flexible. According to the variability of the syntactic function, we illustrate that the function of the negation with interrogative orientation which is used as estimation, evaluation and expressing subjective emotion is mainly on the utterance-level and becomes subdued even disappeared when it comes into the syntactic level. It is useful for us to recognize the relativity between the question and negation if we know about this kind of variability.
It is the second part of the dissertation from ChapterⅦto ChapterⅨ. Through the research towards the constructional integration of the question and negation, we take an in-depth investigation about the relativity between the question and negation. This is another important reflection of relativity except the semantic relativity between the question and negation.
The function of ChapterⅦis theoretically prepared for the ChapterⅧand ChapterⅨin which we will explore the integration of question and negation. According to the definition of the constructional integration, the conditions of integration were reduced to four principles including the iconicity or criteria of relevance, the principle of emergent meaning, the principle of psychological mechanism and the principle of economy. Surrounding the four principles, we analyze the question and negation that possess the pragmatic motivation and mechanism of integration. Orientation of question and semantic uncertainty of negation provide the basis of integration for question and negation.
In ChapterⅧ, the constructional integration of interrogative sentence in the form of negation named as negative question is analyzed. Comparing with the interrogative sentence in the form of affirmation, negative question possesses asymmetry when it is used. According to the important phenomenon that the rhetorical question is always used in the negative sentence, we treat the negative question as the constructional integration of question and negation. The emergent meaning of negative question is the illocutionary meaning which expressed by the rhetorical question including reminding, inducement, suggestion, emphasizing and so on. This kind of integration shows the salience of image of addresser's subjective psychology and conveys addresser's subjective evaluation towards the event.
On the basis of the investigation which is the regulation of linear co-occurrence about the interrogative pronoun and negative word in the declarative sentence and the semantic change of interrogative pronoun in the negative sentence. It is considered that the structures of negative declarative sentences that contain interrogativepronouns such as (i)"......ye/dou bu/mei VP " and (ii)" bu/mei......shenme NP " areconstructional integration of question and negation in ChapterⅨ. The interrogative pronoun in the structure (i) possesses explicit effect, indicating the arbitrary. According to the psychological mechanism of integration, the addresser actually negates the complex proposition which gives an example from the positive and negative aspects hypothetically and shows the salience of addresser's determined attitude towards the event. The interrogative pronoun in the structure (ii) is non-specific and still possesses a little semantic meaning about degree or quantity. Therefore, its function is alleviated and negative. It means the addresser ease to express something comparatively in order to keep the room for convolution.
ChapterⅩsummarizes the whole dissertation.
In brief, this dissertation adopts theory of semantic-functional grammar, and also draws some research methodologies from cognitive grammar and systematic-functional grammar, and follows some principles related to the combination of synchronic and descriptive, form and meaning, induction and deduction, static and dynamic state, description and explanation in order to do thorough researches on the relativity and constructional integration between the categories of negation and question of the contemporary Chinese. The dissertation also does the summary of regularity based on the extensive investigation of language materials and careful description, and tries to offer a better explanation from the perspectives of semantics, pragmatics and cognition.
目前,对疑问和否定两大范畴而言,针对每一范畴的研究不少,而关注二者相通性的研究却并不多,关于两个范畴构式整合的研究更是几乎看不到。因此,对于否定疑问句和否定陈述句是疑问和否定构式整合的研究与分析是本文的创新之处。
The relativity of the categories of negation and question is systematically studied from two aspects in this paper, which consists of ten chapters. Firstly, it examines the semantic relativity between these two categories through a thorough and systemic study of the interrogative sentences, such as WH-questions, yes-no questions and alternative questions etc., which indicate negation; Secondly, it investigates their constructional integration. Through a study of the characteristics of co-occurrence of interrogative pronouns and negatives, it analyses the negative questions and negative declarative sentences containing interrogative pronouns and negatives and explores their constructional integration in the contemporary Chinese from both macro and micro point of view.
ChapterⅠmainly summarizes and comments on the researches which have already been done, and raises the study issues and the theories adopted.
In the first part of this paper, which is from ChapterⅡto ChapterⅥ, it examines the semantic relativity between the categories of negation and question.
The negative uses of WH-questions such as "shenme", "shui","nar" were discussed in detail and the close relationship between WH-questions and negation under some conditions was also analyzed in ChapterⅡ.
The position of "shenme" is quite flexible in the negative WH-questions, which is required to keep the balance of the whole sentence. Of course, different positions of "shenme" indicates different negative meanings. In the negative WH-questions containing "shui", the use of "shuizhi..." plays the role of connection and it connects the current situation or the ideally expected opposite situation mentioned in the sentences previously stated. While the use of "shuijiao..." usually appear as a follow-up sentence, which is aimed at the reaction in line with the information of the speakers. Therefore, it is a non-independent sentence at the answering position. In the negative WH-questions with "na", the combination of "na + verb" has become the discourse tag after lexicalization, and this format curling phenomenon of a change from indicating questions to indicating negative semanteme stems from the frequent negative usage of "na + verb". This explains the cause of lexicalization's format curling and reflects the consistency between the negative function to proposition true value of questions and negative sentences. It is this consistency that establishes the inner link between questions and negations.
The negative uses of marked and unmarked yes-no questions were investigated. Furthermore, semantic association of yes-no questions and negation was systematically examined in ChapterⅢ. Yes-no questions often indicate negation by using some special words, intonation and tone. We name the former marked yes-no questions and the latter unmarked yes-no questions. Questions with "ma" at the end are mostly marked one as represented by negations. The reason why it often indicates negations is mainly because that the question with "ma" is an advanced grammaticalization structure, which easily brings about incidental meanings such as negations.
In ChapterⅣ, the negative uses of alternative questions were surveyed. It has three kinds: to negate the former part of the sentence, to negate the latter part of the sentence and to negate the whole sentence. The disjunction in last kind has a kind of common nature and the speaker negates the disjunction in order to negate this nature. The disjunctions provided by other two kinds are often closed disjunctions with two values, which are logically discrepant.
ChapterⅤinvestigates the relative mechanisms of questions (WH-questions. yes-no questions and selective questions) and negations. It also explores the production process of questions indicating negations in terms of their overall character.
The negative use of WH-questions is a result of the combination of interrogative pronoun and the format of WH-questions. Its semantic mechanism is the semantic character of interrogative pronoun; Syntactic mechanism stems mainly from the rhetorical questions; Pragmatic mechanism is the subjectivity to leave a self mark in the sentences. The productive mechanism of the negative use of yes-no questions stems from the non-negation of the proposition. Because the truthfulness between negative yes-no questions and true questions are different, basically it tends to both literally indicate questions and belief in the opposite proposition. As for the alternative questions, the rhetorical tone plus disjunction syntactic structure become the mechanism of negative sentences.
Questions changed from questions to negations belonging to a gradually changing process: first it changes from genuine question to subjective non-neutral question, and then from suspicion to negation. In the first process, the speaker's level of belief, which is caused by the speakers' subjective express requirement, plays a leading role. If the question degree decreases and the doubt factor increases, the questions will change from neutral questions to subjective non-neutral questions. In the second process, the rhetorical questions play a leading role. In a rhetorical question, the reference frame in the pragmatic appropriateness of the question part does not come into existence, therefore the pragmatic appropriateness of the question part in the interrogative syntagma greatly decreases, which provide possibility for the questions' functions to change from questioning to negation.
On the basis of relativity between the question and negation, the variability between the negation with interrogative orientation and generalized negative sentence is investigated from the following aspects in Chapter VI, such as pragmatic value, the degree of dependence on the context, negative scope and the position of focus, the negative object and the function of syntax. The negative scope in the generalized negative sentence is quite convergent, while the negative position of interrogative pronoun is more flexible. According to the variability of the syntactic function, we illustrate that the function of the negation with interrogative orientation which is used as estimation, evaluation and expressing subjective emotion is mainly on the utterance-level and becomes subdued even disappeared when it comes into the syntactic level. It is useful for us to recognize the relativity between the question and negation if we know about this kind of variability.
It is the second part of the dissertation from ChapterⅦto ChapterⅨ. Through the research towards the constructional integration of the question and negation, we take an in-depth investigation about the relativity between the question and negation. This is another important reflection of relativity except the semantic relativity between the question and negation.
The function of ChapterⅦis theoretically prepared for the ChapterⅧand ChapterⅨin which we will explore the integration of question and negation. According to the definition of the constructional integration, the conditions of integration were reduced to four principles including the iconicity or criteria of relevance, the principle of emergent meaning, the principle of psychological mechanism and the principle of economy. Surrounding the four principles, we analyze the question and negation that possess the pragmatic motivation and mechanism of integration. Orientation of question and semantic uncertainty of negation provide the basis of integration for question and negation.
In ChapterⅧ, the constructional integration of interrogative sentence in the form of negation named as negative question is analyzed. Comparing with the interrogative sentence in the form of affirmation, negative question possesses asymmetry when it is used. According to the important phenomenon that the rhetorical question is always used in the negative sentence, we treat the negative question as the constructional integration of question and negation. The emergent meaning of negative question is the illocutionary meaning which expressed by the rhetorical question including reminding, inducement, suggestion, emphasizing and so on. This kind of integration shows the salience of image of addresser's subjective psychology and conveys addresser's subjective evaluation towards the event.
On the basis of the investigation which is the regulation of linear co-occurrence about the interrogative pronoun and negative word in the declarative sentence and the semantic change of interrogative pronoun in the negative sentence. It is considered that the structures of negative declarative sentences that contain interrogativepronouns such as (i)"......ye/dou bu/mei VP " and (ii)" bu/mei......shenme NP " areconstructional integration of question and negation in ChapterⅨ. The interrogative pronoun in the structure (i) possesses explicit effect, indicating the arbitrary. According to the psychological mechanism of integration, the addresser actually negates the complex proposition which gives an example from the positive and negative aspects hypothetically and shows the salience of addresser's determined attitude towards the event. The interrogative pronoun in the structure (ii) is non-specific and still possesses a little semantic meaning about degree or quantity. Therefore, its function is alleviated and negative. It means the addresser ease to express something comparatively in order to keep the room for convolution.
ChapterⅩsummarizes the whole dissertation.
In brief, this dissertation adopts theory of semantic-functional grammar, and also draws some research methodologies from cognitive grammar and systematic-functional grammar, and follows some principles related to the combination of synchronic and descriptive, form and meaning, induction and deduction, static and dynamic state, description and explanation in order to do thorough researches on the relativity and constructional integration between the categories of negation and question of the contemporary Chinese. The dissertation also does the summary of regularity based on the extensive investigation of language materials and careful description, and tries to offer a better explanation from the perspectives of semantics, pragmatics and cognition.
引文
蔡维天.重温“为什么问怎么样,怎么样问为什么”——谈汉语疑问句和反身句中的内、外状语[J].中国语文,2007(3).
陈昌来.从“有疑而问”到“无疑而问”[J].烟台师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),1993(1).
陈红丽.疑问代词“哪里”的否定用法[J].现代语文,2007(4).
陈满华.关于构式的范围和类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008(6).
陈平.现代语言学研究——理论·方法与事实[M].重庆出版社,1991.
陈天序.基于集合概念的汉语疑问代词非疑问用法研究[D].北京:北京语言大学硕士学位论文,2007.
陈一.试论专职的动词前加词[J].中国语文,1989(1).
陈一.句类与词语同现关系刍议[J].中国语文,2005(2).
陈一.现代汉语非自足句法组合研究[D].天津:南开大学博士学位论文,2007.
陈一.偏依性对举结构与语法单位的对称不对称[J].世界汉语教学,2008(3).
储泽祥.“一个人”的固化及其固化过程[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2003(5).
戴耀晶.现代汉语时体系统研究[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,1997.
戴耀晶.试论现代汉语的否定范畴[J].语言教学与研究,2000(3).
戴耀晶.汉语疑问句的预设及其语义分析[J].广播电视大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001(2).
戴耀晶.汉语否定句的语义确定性[J].世界汉语教学,2004(3).
邓晓华.疑问句的功能偏离——转喻功能及其实现[D].北京:中国社会科学院硕士学位论文,2001.
邓云华,石毓智.论构式语法理论的进步与局限[J].外语教学与研究,2007(5).
丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆,1961.
董宪臣.现代汉语是非问句的疑问程度研究[D].北京:北京大学硕士学位论文,2007.
董秀芳.词汇化与话语标记的形成[J].世界汉语教学,2007(1).
范晓.汉语的句子类型[M].上海:书海出版社,1998.
范晓,张豫峰.语法理论纲要[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2003.
范继淹.是非问句的句法形式[J].中国语文,1982(6).
冯春田.近代汉语语法研究[M].济南:山东教育出版社,2000.
冯春田.秦墓竹简选择问句分析[J].语文研究,1987,(1).
冯春田.疑问代词“作勿”、“是勿”的形成[J].中国语文,2006(2).
冯江鸿.反问句新探[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2004.
葛佳才.对疑问副词“亦”东汉消亡说的一点补充[J].中国语文,2006(1).
管锡华.从《史记》看同义词“孰”“谁”在上古的发展演变[J].古汉语研究,200l (2).
郭继懋.反问句的语义语用特点[J].中国语文,1997(2).
郭继懋.谈表提醒的“不是”[J].中国语文,1987(2).
郭婷婷.现代汉语疑问句的信息结构与功能类型[D].武汉:武汉大学博士学位论文,2005.
郭志良.反问句的构成及其语用功能[J].思维与智慧,1992(4).
何金松.肯定式“好不”产生的时代[J].中国语文,1990(5).
何文彬.“呢吗”是非问句[J].汉语学习,2007(7).
侯文玲.谈“否定是非问句”[J].汉语学习,2002(4).
侯一麟.关于第三者的疑问句的否定式答语语义确定性初探[J].中国语文,1995(1).
胡继明.《史记》《汉书》疑问代词“孰”与“谁”比较[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2005(11).
胡建华.否定、焦点与辖域[J].中国语文,2007(2).
胡孝斌.反问句的话语制约因素[J].世界汉语教学,1999(1).
黄伯荣.陈述句、疑问句、祈使句、感叹句[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1983.
黄国营.“吗”字句用法初探[J].语言研究,1986(2).
黄正德.汉语正反问句的模组语法[J].中国语文,1988(4).
江蓝生.同谓双小句的省缩与句法创新[J].中国语文,2007(6).
江蓝生.概念叠加与构式整合——肯定否定不对称的解释[J].中国语文,2008(6).
蒋严.语用推理与“都”的句法/语义特征[J].现代外语,1998.
靳焱,倪兰.疑问代词研究综述[J].中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2003(8).
柯彼德.新加坡潮州方言中的三种正反问句[J].语言研究,1996(2).
来德强.“哪儿”的非疑问用法[D].开封:河南大学硕士学位论文,2001.
黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992.
李敏.“谁”的非疑问用法[D].开封:河南大学硕士学位论文,2001.
李崇兴.选择问记号“还是”的来历[J].语言研究,1990(2).
李书同.由“什么”一词的否定作用引发的思考[J].郴州师范高等专科学校学报,2002(3).
李泰洙.“也/都”强调紧缩句研究[J].语言研究,2004(2).
李兴亚.“怀疑”的意义和宾语类型[J].中国语文,1987(2).
李一平.“什么”表否定和贬斥的用法[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1996(3).
李宇凤.汉语语用偏向问研究[D].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文,2008.
李宇明.反问句的构成及其理解[J].殷都学刊,1990(3).
李宇明,唐志东.儿童反复问句和“吗”“吧”问句发展的相互影响[J].中国语文,1991(6).
李宇明.疑问标记的复用及标记功能的衰变[J].中国语文,1997(2).
李运熹.也谈“怀疑”的意义[J].中国语文,1988(2).
林裕文.谈疑问句[J].中国语文,1985(2).
刘富华,吕文杰.内化的“体操”——论言语输出的作用及其应用[J].北方论丛,2005(4).
刘富华.轻声的“调位”及相关问题[J].汉语学习,2000(5).
刘富华,祝东平.一价动词与其行动元语义关系再论[J].语言教学与研究,2007(5).
刘丽艳.话语标记“你知道”[J].中国语文,2006(5).
刘丽艳.作为话语标记语的“不是”[J].语言教学与研究,2005(6).
刘睿研.“什么”的否定用法及其使用条件[D].长春:吉林大学硕士学位论文,2006.
刘月华,潘文娱,故韦华.实用现代汉语语法[M](修订版).北京:商务印书馆,2001.
柳英绿.韩汉语正反问句对比[J].汉语学习,2003(10).
柳英绿.韩汉语选择问句对比[J].汉语学习,2004(6).
陆俭明.由“非疑问形式+呢”造成的疑问句[J].中国语文,1982(6).
陆俭明.关于现代汉语的疑问语气词[J].中国语文,1984(5).
陆俭明.“句式语法”理论与汉语研究[J].中国语文,2004(5).
陆俭明.构式语法理论的价值与局限[J].南京师范大学文学院学报,2008(1).
鹿钦佞.疑问代词“什么”非疑问用法的历时考察[D].延边:延边大学硕士学位论文,2005.
路广.焦点标记次“为”和选择问[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007(6).
吕明臣.汉语答句的意义,语法求索,华中师范大学出版社,1989.
吕明臣.汉语“应对句”说略[J].汉语学习,1992(6).
吕明臣.也论“关于第三者的疑问句的否定式答语语义”——兼和侯一麟先生商榷[J].汉语学习,1996(2).
吕明臣.现代汉语应对句的功能[J].汉语学习,2000(6).
吕叔湘.1942中国文法要略[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集语法论文集(增订本)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
吕叔湘.近代汉语指代词[M].上海:学林出版社,1985a.
吕叔湘.肯定·否定·疑问[J].中国语文,1985b(4).
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集第一卷[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集第三卷[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992.
吕叔湘,王海菜.马氏文通读本[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.
马建忠.1898马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆,1983.
马清华.现代汉语的委婉否定格式[J].中国语文,1986(6).
马庆株.现代汉语的双宾语构造[A].语言学论丛(十)[C].北京:商务印书馆,1983.
马庆株.数词量词的语义成分和数量结构的语法功能[J].中国语文,1990(3).
马庆株.汉语语义语法范畴问题[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1998.
马庆株.结构、语义、表达研究琐议——从相对义、绝对义谈起[J].中国语文,1998(3).
马庆株.语法研究入门[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
马庆株.结合语义表达的语法研究[J].汉语学习,2000(2).
马庆株.著名中年语言学家自选集·马庆株卷[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2002。
马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
马真.说“也”[J].中国语文,1982(4).
梅祖麟.现代汉语选择问句法的来源[A].梅祖麟语言学论文集[C].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
倪兰.现代汉语疑问代词的基本语义分析[J].北方论丛,2005(4).
彭小川.关于是非问句的几点思考[J].语言教学与研究,2006(6).
钱敏汝.否定载体“不”的语义——语法考察[J].中国语文,1990(1).
邱莉芹 邓根芹 顾元华.浅谈“哪里”的否定用法[J].常熟高专学报,2002(5).
裘锡圭.关于殷墟卜辞的命辞是否问句的考察[J].中国语文,1988,(2).
饶长溶.“不”偏指前项的现象[A].语法研究和探索(四)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1988.
杉村博文.现代汉语“疑问代词+也/都……”结构的语义分析[J].世界汉语教学1992(3).
杉村博文.论现代汉语特指疑问判断句[J].中国语文,2002,(1).
邵敬敏,赵秀风.“什么”非疑问用法研究[J].语言教学与研究,1989(1).
邵敬敏.现代汉语选择问研究[J].语言教学与研究,1994(2).
邵敬敏.现代汉语疑问句研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1996.
邵敬敏.关于疑问句的研究[A].马庆株.语法研究入门[C].商务印书馆,1999.
沈家煊.“差不多”和“差点儿”[J].中国语文,1987(6).
沈家煊.“判断语词”的语义强度[J].中国语文,1989(1).
沈家煊.口误类例[J].中国语文,1992(4).
沈家煊.“语用否定”考察[J].中国语文,1993(5).
沈家煊.R.W.Langacker的“认知语法”[J].国外语言学,1994a(1).
沈家煊.“好不”不对称用法的语义和语用解释[J].中国语文,1994b(4).
沈家煊.“有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,1995(5).
沈家煊.我国的语用学研究[J].外语教学与研究,1996(1).
沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,1999.
沈家煊.转指和转喻[J].当代语言学,1999a(1).
沈家煊.认知语法的概括性[J].外语教学与研究,2000(1).
沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究,2001(4).
沈家煊.动结式“追累”的语法和语义[J].语言科学,2004b(6).
沈家煊.“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句[J].中国语文,2006a(4).
沈家煊.“糅合”和“截搭”[J].世界汉语教学,2006b(4).
沈家煊.概念整合与浮现意义[J].修辞学习,2006c(5).
沈家煊.语言中的整合现象[J].现代语文,2008(4).
沈开木.“不”字的否定范围和否定中心探索[J].中国语文,1984(5).
石定栩.疑问句研究[A].徐烈炯.共性与个性——汉语语言学中的争议[C].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1998.
石毓智.肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M].北京:北京语言大学,2001.
史金生.表反问的“不是”[J].中国语文,1997(1).
寿永明.疑问代词的否定用法[J].上海师范大学学报(社会科学版),2002(2).
宋玉柱.汉语里有“没去了几次”这种结构吗[J].中国语文,1980(6).
孙国华.整合性模糊性形象性——状态词语义特点分析[J].语文知识,1997(31).
太田辰夫(1958).中国语历史文法[M].蒋绍愚,徐华昌译.北京:北京大学出版, 2003.
汤延迟.国语疑问句研究[J].台湾师范大学(师大学报),1981(26).
唐志东.汉族儿童问句系统习得探微[J].华中师范大学出版社,1991.
陶炼.“是不是”问句说略[J].中国语文,1998(2).
陶伏平.“谁”非疑问用法浅析[J].常德师范学院学报(社会科学版),2002(3).
王力.1943中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
王力.1944-1945中国语法理论(上下)[M].山东:山东教育出版社,1984.
王力.1958汉语史稿[M].北京:科学出版社;北京:中华书局,1980.
王力.汉语语法史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1989.
王森,王毅,姜丽.“有没有/有/没有+VP”句[J].中国语文,2006(1).
王 志.回声问[J].中国语文,1990(2).
王光全,柳英绿.汉语处所化的机制及其在教学中的应用[J].世界汉语教学,2008(1).
王光全.语调与语调标记的合理位置[J].汉语学习,2002(5).
王海菜.先秦疑问代词“谁”与“孰”的比较[J].中国语文,1982(1).
王海峰.“A什么B”结构式初探[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003(3).
王晓澎.“谁”“”哪个“什么人”辨[J].汉语学习,1994(2).
魏丽君.疑问代词的非疑问用法[J].佳木斯师专学报,1995(1).
文炼.语言单位的对立和不对称现象[J].语言教学与研究,1990(4).
吴羽.关于否定的否定[J].中国语文,1986(1).
吴福祥.敦煌变文的疑问代词“那”(“那个”、“那里”)[J].古汉语研究,1995(2).
吴福祥.敦煌变文语法研究[M].长沙:岳麓书社,1996.
伍雅清.汉语特殊疑问词的非疑问用法研究[J].语言教与研究,2002(2).
武振玉.两周金文中的无指代词[J].长江学术,2006(1).
武振玉.两周金文中否定副词“毋”的特殊用法[J].长春师范学院学报,2006(1).
萧国政.毛泽东著作中是非性反问句的反意类型[J].华中师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1993a(5).
萧国政.毛泽东著作中是非性反问句的反意形式[J].中国语文,1993b(6).
肖任飞,张芳.“V什么X”的类固化性及其心理机制[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2006a(2).
肖任飞.非疑问用法的“什么”及其相关格式[D].武汉:华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2006b.
邢福义.现代汉语的特指性是非问[J].语言教学与研究,1987(4).
熊仲孺.否定焦点及其句法蕴含[J].中国语文,2005(4).
徐杰,张林林。疑问程度和疑问句式[J].江西师大学报,1985(2).
徐杰,李英哲.焦点和两个非线性语法范畴:“否定”、“疑问”[J].中国语文,1993(2).
徐杰.疑问范畴与疑问句式[J].语言研究,1999(2).
徐烈炯.语义学[M].北京:语文出版社,1995.
徐烈炯.生成语法理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996.
徐仁甫.垫腰的形容词和副词有哪些形式[J].中国语文,1953(3).
徐盛桓.论篇章的变异[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),1991(2).
徐盛桓.疑问句的的语用学嬗变[J].外语教学与研究,1998(4).
徐盛桓.疑问句探询功能的迁移[J].中国语文,1999(1).
徐正考.唐五代选择疑问句系统初探[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,1988(2).
徐正考.清代汉语选择疑问句系统[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,1996(5).
徐正考,史维国.语言的经济原则在汉语语法历时发展中的表现[J].语文研究,2008(1).
杨凯荣.疑问代词十也/都+P”的肯定与否定[A].徐烈炯,邵敬敏.汉语语法研究的新拓展(一)——21世纪首届现代汉语语法国际研讨会论文集[C].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2002.
杨之舟.否定词的反义词[J].中国语文,1981(2).
叶桂郴.“谁”在中古汉译佛经中的发展演变[J].桂林航天工业高等专科学校学报,2002(2).
殷树林.现代汉语反问句研究[D].福州:福建师范大学博士学位论文,2006.
尹世超.说否定性答句[J].中国语文,2004(1).
于天昱.现代汉语反问句研究[D].北京:中央民族大学博士学位论文,2007.
袁毓林.正反问及相关的类型学参项[J].中国语文,1993(2).
袁毓林.论否定句的焦点、预设和辖域歧义[J].中国语文,2000(2).
袁毓林.否定式偏正结构的跨维度考察[A].中国语文杂志社编《语法研究和探索》(十)[C].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
袁毓林.“都、也”在“Wh+都/也+VP”中的语义贡献[J].语言科学,2004(5).
袁毓林.论“都”的隐性否定和极项允准功能[J].中国语文,2007(4).
张标.“子”在否定句中的前置例[J].中国语文,1990(1).
张伯江.否定的强化[J].汉语学习,1996(1).
张伯江.疑问句功能琐议[J].中国语文,1997(2).
张林林.疑问程度和疑问句式[J].江西师范大学学报,1986(2).
张尹琼.疑问代词非疑问用法[D].上海:复旦大学博士学位论文,2005.
赵静贞.“谁”的用法浅析[J].语言教学与研究,198l(4).
赵雷.谈反问句教学[J].语言教学与研究,2000(3).
赵元任.1968汉语口语语法[M].吕叔湘译,北京:商务印书馆,1979.
志村良治.中国中世语法史研究[M].北京:中华书局,1995.
周蓉.疑问代词“什么”各用法之间的关系新探[J].语文学刊,2007(7).
周大琳,高乐.古汉语选择问句研究概述[J].现代语文,2008(7).
周生亚.说“否”[J].中国语文,2004(2).
朱姝.反问句的句法结构及语义、语用分析[D].成都:四川大学硕士学位论文,2004.
朱德熙.“V-neg-VO”与“VO-neg-V”两种反复问句在汉语方言里的分布[J].中国语文,199l(5).
朱德熙.1952语法修辞讲话[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2002年版.
朱德熙.汉语方言里的两种反复问句[J].中国语文,1985(1).
朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
朱俊雄.反问句的否定指向[J].内江师范学院学报,2004(5).
朱运申.关于疑问句尾的“为”[J].中国语文,1979(6).
祝敏彻.汉语选择问、正反问的历史发展[J].语言研究,1995(2).
布龙菲尔德.1933语言论[M].袁家骅,赵世开,甘世福译,北京:商务印书馆,1980.
Cheng,Lisa(程立珊).On the Typology of WH-questions[D].Ph.D.dissertation,MIT,1991.
Givon,T.Syntax-Afunctional-typologicalintroduction[M].Vol.I&II,Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1990.
Goldberg,Adele.E.Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Chicago:The ChicagoUniversity Press,1995.
Fauconnier,Gilles.Mental Spaces:Aspests of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M].Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1985.
Huang,James C.T.(黄正德).Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar[D].Ph.D dissertation,MIT,1982.
Li,Yen-hui Audrey(李艳惠).Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese[J].Journal of East Asian Linguisticsl,1992.
陈昌来.从“有疑而问”到“无疑而问”[J].烟台师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),1993(1).
陈红丽.疑问代词“哪里”的否定用法[J].现代语文,2007(4).
陈满华.关于构式的范围和类型[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008(6).
陈平.现代语言学研究——理论·方法与事实[M].重庆出版社,1991.
陈天序.基于集合概念的汉语疑问代词非疑问用法研究[D].北京:北京语言大学硕士学位论文,2007.
陈一.试论专职的动词前加词[J].中国语文,1989(1).
陈一.句类与词语同现关系刍议[J].中国语文,2005(2).
陈一.现代汉语非自足句法组合研究[D].天津:南开大学博士学位论文,2007.
陈一.偏依性对举结构与语法单位的对称不对称[J].世界汉语教学,2008(3).
储泽祥.“一个人”的固化及其固化过程[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2003(5).
戴耀晶.现代汉语时体系统研究[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,1997.
戴耀晶.试论现代汉语的否定范畴[J].语言教学与研究,2000(3).
戴耀晶.汉语疑问句的预设及其语义分析[J].广播电视大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001(2).
戴耀晶.汉语否定句的语义确定性[J].世界汉语教学,2004(3).
邓晓华.疑问句的功能偏离——转喻功能及其实现[D].北京:中国社会科学院硕士学位论文,2001.
邓云华,石毓智.论构式语法理论的进步与局限[J].外语教学与研究,2007(5).
丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆,1961.
董宪臣.现代汉语是非问句的疑问程度研究[D].北京:北京大学硕士学位论文,2007.
董秀芳.词汇化与话语标记的形成[J].世界汉语教学,2007(1).
范晓.汉语的句子类型[M].上海:书海出版社,1998.
范晓,张豫峰.语法理论纲要[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2003.
范继淹.是非问句的句法形式[J].中国语文,1982(6).
冯春田.近代汉语语法研究[M].济南:山东教育出版社,2000.
冯春田.秦墓竹简选择问句分析[J].语文研究,1987,(1).
冯春田.疑问代词“作勿”、“是勿”的形成[J].中国语文,2006(2).
冯江鸿.反问句新探[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2004.
葛佳才.对疑问副词“亦”东汉消亡说的一点补充[J].中国语文,2006(1).
管锡华.从《史记》看同义词“孰”“谁”在上古的发展演变[J].古汉语研究,200l (2).
郭继懋.反问句的语义语用特点[J].中国语文,1997(2).
郭继懋.谈表提醒的“不是”[J].中国语文,1987(2).
郭婷婷.现代汉语疑问句的信息结构与功能类型[D].武汉:武汉大学博士学位论文,2005.
郭志良.反问句的构成及其语用功能[J].思维与智慧,1992(4).
何金松.肯定式“好不”产生的时代[J].中国语文,1990(5).
何文彬.“呢吗”是非问句[J].汉语学习,2007(7).
侯文玲.谈“否定是非问句”[J].汉语学习,2002(4).
侯一麟.关于第三者的疑问句的否定式答语语义确定性初探[J].中国语文,1995(1).
胡继明.《史记》《汉书》疑问代词“孰”与“谁”比较[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2005(11).
胡建华.否定、焦点与辖域[J].中国语文,2007(2).
胡孝斌.反问句的话语制约因素[J].世界汉语教学,1999(1).
黄伯荣.陈述句、疑问句、祈使句、感叹句[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1983.
黄国营.“吗”字句用法初探[J].语言研究,1986(2).
黄正德.汉语正反问句的模组语法[J].中国语文,1988(4).
江蓝生.同谓双小句的省缩与句法创新[J].中国语文,2007(6).
江蓝生.概念叠加与构式整合——肯定否定不对称的解释[J].中国语文,2008(6).
蒋严.语用推理与“都”的句法/语义特征[J].现代外语,1998.
靳焱,倪兰.疑问代词研究综述[J].中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2003(8).
柯彼德.新加坡潮州方言中的三种正反问句[J].语言研究,1996(2).
来德强.“哪儿”的非疑问用法[D].开封:河南大学硕士学位论文,2001.
黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992.
李敏.“谁”的非疑问用法[D].开封:河南大学硕士学位论文,2001.
李崇兴.选择问记号“还是”的来历[J].语言研究,1990(2).
李书同.由“什么”一词的否定作用引发的思考[J].郴州师范高等专科学校学报,2002(3).
李泰洙.“也/都”强调紧缩句研究[J].语言研究,2004(2).
李兴亚.“怀疑”的意义和宾语类型[J].中国语文,1987(2).
李一平.“什么”表否定和贬斥的用法[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1996(3).
李宇凤.汉语语用偏向问研究[D].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文,2008.
李宇明.反问句的构成及其理解[J].殷都学刊,1990(3).
李宇明,唐志东.儿童反复问句和“吗”“吧”问句发展的相互影响[J].中国语文,1991(6).
李宇明.疑问标记的复用及标记功能的衰变[J].中国语文,1997(2).
李运熹.也谈“怀疑”的意义[J].中国语文,1988(2).
林裕文.谈疑问句[J].中国语文,1985(2).
刘富华,吕文杰.内化的“体操”——论言语输出的作用及其应用[J].北方论丛,2005(4).
刘富华.轻声的“调位”及相关问题[J].汉语学习,2000(5).
刘富华,祝东平.一价动词与其行动元语义关系再论[J].语言教学与研究,2007(5).
刘丽艳.话语标记“你知道”[J].中国语文,2006(5).
刘丽艳.作为话语标记语的“不是”[J].语言教学与研究,2005(6).
刘睿研.“什么”的否定用法及其使用条件[D].长春:吉林大学硕士学位论文,2006.
刘月华,潘文娱,故韦华.实用现代汉语语法[M](修订版).北京:商务印书馆,2001.
柳英绿.韩汉语正反问句对比[J].汉语学习,2003(10).
柳英绿.韩汉语选择问句对比[J].汉语学习,2004(6).
陆俭明.由“非疑问形式+呢”造成的疑问句[J].中国语文,1982(6).
陆俭明.关于现代汉语的疑问语气词[J].中国语文,1984(5).
陆俭明.“句式语法”理论与汉语研究[J].中国语文,2004(5).
陆俭明.构式语法理论的价值与局限[J].南京师范大学文学院学报,2008(1).
鹿钦佞.疑问代词“什么”非疑问用法的历时考察[D].延边:延边大学硕士学位论文,2005.
路广.焦点标记次“为”和选择问[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007(6).
吕明臣.汉语答句的意义,语法求索,华中师范大学出版社,1989.
吕明臣.汉语“应对句”说略[J].汉语学习,1992(6).
吕明臣.也论“关于第三者的疑问句的否定式答语语义”——兼和侯一麟先生商榷[J].汉语学习,1996(2).
吕明臣.现代汉语应对句的功能[J].汉语学习,2000(6).
吕叔湘.1942中国文法要略[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
吕叔湘主编.现代汉语八百词[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集语法论文集(增订本)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
吕叔湘.近代汉语指代词[M].上海:学林出版社,1985a.
吕叔湘.肯定·否定·疑问[J].中国语文,1985b(4).
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集第一卷[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集第三卷[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992.
吕叔湘,王海菜.马氏文通读本[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.
马建忠.1898马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆,1983.
马清华.现代汉语的委婉否定格式[J].中国语文,1986(6).
马庆株.现代汉语的双宾语构造[A].语言学论丛(十)[C].北京:商务印书馆,1983.
马庆株.数词量词的语义成分和数量结构的语法功能[J].中国语文,1990(3).
马庆株.汉语语义语法范畴问题[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1998.
马庆株.结构、语义、表达研究琐议——从相对义、绝对义谈起[J].中国语文,1998(3).
马庆株.语法研究入门[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
马庆株.结合语义表达的语法研究[J].汉语学习,2000(2).
马庆株.著名中年语言学家自选集·马庆株卷[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2002。
马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
马真.说“也”[J].中国语文,1982(4).
梅祖麟.现代汉语选择问句法的来源[A].梅祖麟语言学论文集[C].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
倪兰.现代汉语疑问代词的基本语义分析[J].北方论丛,2005(4).
彭小川.关于是非问句的几点思考[J].语言教学与研究,2006(6).
钱敏汝.否定载体“不”的语义——语法考察[J].中国语文,1990(1).
邱莉芹 邓根芹 顾元华.浅谈“哪里”的否定用法[J].常熟高专学报,2002(5).
裘锡圭.关于殷墟卜辞的命辞是否问句的考察[J].中国语文,1988,(2).
饶长溶.“不”偏指前项的现象[A].语法研究和探索(四)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1988.
杉村博文.现代汉语“疑问代词+也/都……”结构的语义分析[J].世界汉语教学1992(3).
杉村博文.论现代汉语特指疑问判断句[J].中国语文,2002,(1).
邵敬敏,赵秀风.“什么”非疑问用法研究[J].语言教学与研究,1989(1).
邵敬敏.现代汉语选择问研究[J].语言教学与研究,1994(2).
邵敬敏.现代汉语疑问句研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1996.
邵敬敏.关于疑问句的研究[A].马庆株.语法研究入门[C].商务印书馆,1999.
沈家煊.“差不多”和“差点儿”[J].中国语文,1987(6).
沈家煊.“判断语词”的语义强度[J].中国语文,1989(1).
沈家煊.口误类例[J].中国语文,1992(4).
沈家煊.“语用否定”考察[J].中国语文,1993(5).
沈家煊.R.W.Langacker的“认知语法”[J].国外语言学,1994a(1).
沈家煊.“好不”不对称用法的语义和语用解释[J].中国语文,1994b(4).
沈家煊.“有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,1995(5).
沈家煊.我国的语用学研究[J].外语教学与研究,1996(1).
沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,1999.
沈家煊.转指和转喻[J].当代语言学,1999a(1).
沈家煊.认知语法的概括性[J].外语教学与研究,2000(1).
沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究,2001(4).
沈家煊.动结式“追累”的语法和语义[J].语言科学,2004b(6).
沈家煊.“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句[J].中国语文,2006a(4).
沈家煊.“糅合”和“截搭”[J].世界汉语教学,2006b(4).
沈家煊.概念整合与浮现意义[J].修辞学习,2006c(5).
沈家煊.语言中的整合现象[J].现代语文,2008(4).
沈开木.“不”字的否定范围和否定中心探索[J].中国语文,1984(5).
石定栩.疑问句研究[A].徐烈炯.共性与个性——汉语语言学中的争议[C].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1998.
石毓智.肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M].北京:北京语言大学,2001.
史金生.表反问的“不是”[J].中国语文,1997(1).
寿永明.疑问代词的否定用法[J].上海师范大学学报(社会科学版),2002(2).
宋玉柱.汉语里有“没去了几次”这种结构吗[J].中国语文,1980(6).
孙国华.整合性模糊性形象性——状态词语义特点分析[J].语文知识,1997(31).
太田辰夫(1958).中国语历史文法[M].蒋绍愚,徐华昌译.北京:北京大学出版, 2003.
汤延迟.国语疑问句研究[J].台湾师范大学(师大学报),1981(26).
唐志东.汉族儿童问句系统习得探微[J].华中师范大学出版社,1991.
陶炼.“是不是”问句说略[J].中国语文,1998(2).
陶伏平.“谁”非疑问用法浅析[J].常德师范学院学报(社会科学版),2002(3).
王力.1943中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
王力.1944-1945中国语法理论(上下)[M].山东:山东教育出版社,1984.
王力.1958汉语史稿[M].北京:科学出版社;北京:中华书局,1980.
王力.汉语语法史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1989.
王森,王毅,姜丽.“有没有/有/没有+VP”句[J].中国语文,2006(1).
王 志.回声问[J].中国语文,1990(2).
王光全,柳英绿.汉语处所化的机制及其在教学中的应用[J].世界汉语教学,2008(1).
王光全.语调与语调标记的合理位置[J].汉语学习,2002(5).
王海菜.先秦疑问代词“谁”与“孰”的比较[J].中国语文,1982(1).
王海峰.“A什么B”结构式初探[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003(3).
王晓澎.“谁”“”哪个“什么人”辨[J].汉语学习,1994(2).
魏丽君.疑问代词的非疑问用法[J].佳木斯师专学报,1995(1).
文炼.语言单位的对立和不对称现象[J].语言教学与研究,1990(4).
吴羽.关于否定的否定[J].中国语文,1986(1).
吴福祥.敦煌变文的疑问代词“那”(“那个”、“那里”)[J].古汉语研究,1995(2).
吴福祥.敦煌变文语法研究[M].长沙:岳麓书社,1996.
伍雅清.汉语特殊疑问词的非疑问用法研究[J].语言教与研究,2002(2).
武振玉.两周金文中的无指代词[J].长江学术,2006(1).
武振玉.两周金文中否定副词“毋”的特殊用法[J].长春师范学院学报,2006(1).
萧国政.毛泽东著作中是非性反问句的反意类型[J].华中师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1993a(5).
萧国政.毛泽东著作中是非性反问句的反意形式[J].中国语文,1993b(6).
肖任飞,张芳.“V什么X”的类固化性及其心理机制[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2006a(2).
肖任飞.非疑问用法的“什么”及其相关格式[D].武汉:华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2006b.
邢福义.现代汉语的特指性是非问[J].语言教学与研究,1987(4).
熊仲孺.否定焦点及其句法蕴含[J].中国语文,2005(4).
徐杰,张林林。疑问程度和疑问句式[J].江西师大学报,1985(2).
徐杰,李英哲.焦点和两个非线性语法范畴:“否定”、“疑问”[J].中国语文,1993(2).
徐杰.疑问范畴与疑问句式[J].语言研究,1999(2).
徐烈炯.语义学[M].北京:语文出版社,1995.
徐烈炯.生成语法理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996.
徐仁甫.垫腰的形容词和副词有哪些形式[J].中国语文,1953(3).
徐盛桓.论篇章的变异[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),1991(2).
徐盛桓.疑问句的的语用学嬗变[J].外语教学与研究,1998(4).
徐盛桓.疑问句探询功能的迁移[J].中国语文,1999(1).
徐正考.唐五代选择疑问句系统初探[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,1988(2).
徐正考.清代汉语选择疑问句系统[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,1996(5).
徐正考,史维国.语言的经济原则在汉语语法历时发展中的表现[J].语文研究,2008(1).
杨凯荣.疑问代词十也/都+P”的肯定与否定[A].徐烈炯,邵敬敏.汉语语法研究的新拓展(一)——21世纪首届现代汉语语法国际研讨会论文集[C].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2002.
杨之舟.否定词的反义词[J].中国语文,1981(2).
叶桂郴.“谁”在中古汉译佛经中的发展演变[J].桂林航天工业高等专科学校学报,2002(2).
殷树林.现代汉语反问句研究[D].福州:福建师范大学博士学位论文,2006.
尹世超.说否定性答句[J].中国语文,2004(1).
于天昱.现代汉语反问句研究[D].北京:中央民族大学博士学位论文,2007.
袁毓林.正反问及相关的类型学参项[J].中国语文,1993(2).
袁毓林.论否定句的焦点、预设和辖域歧义[J].中国语文,2000(2).
袁毓林.否定式偏正结构的跨维度考察[A].中国语文杂志社编《语法研究和探索》(十)[C].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
袁毓林.“都、也”在“Wh+都/也+VP”中的语义贡献[J].语言科学,2004(5).
袁毓林.论“都”的隐性否定和极项允准功能[J].中国语文,2007(4).
张标.“子”在否定句中的前置例[J].中国语文,1990(1).
张伯江.否定的强化[J].汉语学习,1996(1).
张伯江.疑问句功能琐议[J].中国语文,1997(2).
张林林.疑问程度和疑问句式[J].江西师范大学学报,1986(2).
张尹琼.疑问代词非疑问用法[D].上海:复旦大学博士学位论文,2005.
赵静贞.“谁”的用法浅析[J].语言教学与研究,198l(4).
赵雷.谈反问句教学[J].语言教学与研究,2000(3).
赵元任.1968汉语口语语法[M].吕叔湘译,北京:商务印书馆,1979.
志村良治.中国中世语法史研究[M].北京:中华书局,1995.
周蓉.疑问代词“什么”各用法之间的关系新探[J].语文学刊,2007(7).
周大琳,高乐.古汉语选择问句研究概述[J].现代语文,2008(7).
周生亚.说“否”[J].中国语文,2004(2).
朱姝.反问句的句法结构及语义、语用分析[D].成都:四川大学硕士学位论文,2004.
朱德熙.“V-neg-VO”与“VO-neg-V”两种反复问句在汉语方言里的分布[J].中国语文,199l(5).
朱德熙.1952语法修辞讲话[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2002年版.
朱德熙.汉语方言里的两种反复问句[J].中国语文,1985(1).
朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
朱俊雄.反问句的否定指向[J].内江师范学院学报,2004(5).
朱运申.关于疑问句尾的“为”[J].中国语文,1979(6).
祝敏彻.汉语选择问、正反问的历史发展[J].语言研究,1995(2).
布龙菲尔德.1933语言论[M].袁家骅,赵世开,甘世福译,北京:商务印书馆,1980.
Cheng,Lisa(程立珊).On the Typology of WH-questions[D].Ph.D.dissertation,MIT,1991.
Givon,T.Syntax-Afunctional-typologicalintroduction[M].Vol.I&II,Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1990.
Goldberg,Adele.E.Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Chicago:The ChicagoUniversity Press,1995.
Fauconnier,Gilles.Mental Spaces:Aspests of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M].Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1985.
Huang,James C.T.(黄正德).Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar[D].Ph.D dissertation,MIT,1982.
Li,Yen-hui Audrey(李艳惠).Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese[J].Journal of East Asian Linguisticsl,1992.