英汉语图形—背景语序比较研究
|
摘要
前人研究认为,英汉语语序呈现倾向性差异：英语倾向于采用图形先于背景的语序,而汉语倾向于采用背景先于图形的语序。在此语序规律的基础上,相关研究进而推测英汉民族认知方式存在类似差异。但图形先于背景的认知方式明显与图形-背景的定义性特征不符。根据图形-背景的定义,背景应先于图形被感知。这是本文研究的最初缘起。
文献回顾发现,前人关于图形-背景语序的考察尚存在诸多可改进之处：(1)研究对象界定不清,象红色的花这种不能直观表达图形-背景概念的语言结构成为重点论述对象；(2)重要研究对象缺位,复句图形-背景语序一直没有得到细致考察；(3)研究方法运用不当,简单地对特定类型语篇中的存在句和处所句进行定量对比,而未进行充分的定性分析；(4)对比研究不够充分。因此,有必要对英汉语图形-背景语序进行进一步考察,系统、准确描述英汉语图形-背景语序规律特征,为认知方式假设奠定基础。
我们较为系统地考察了英汉语单句、复句和语篇的图形-背景语序特征。首先我们根据图形-背景属性界定研究对象,明确以单句中的存在句、处所句、领有句,复句中的时间关系复句、条件关系复句、因果关系复句,和语篇中的描写型语篇为研究对象。这些语言结构是表达图形-背景概念的典型结构。通过对这些语言结构的考察,我们的主要结论是,英汉语语序均在一定层面、一定程度上遵循背景先于图形的语序,差异中显示更多共性,而不是呈现倾向性差异。单句层面上,英汉语单句均采用背景先于图形和图形先于背景两种语序,完成不同的语用功能,展现不同的认知过程。定性分析表明,背景先于图形的语序更为基本。复句层面上,英汉语复句均以某种形式在一定程度上遵循背景先于图形的规律。如果认定从句为背景,主句为图形,则汉语呈现明显的背景先于图形的语序,而英语语序特征不明显。但如果从语义上分析,英语中表达背景概念的从句往往位于主句之前,表达图形概念的从句往往位于主句之后。例如,after引导的从句描述的事件发生在主句事件之前,语义上表达背景概念,而before引导的从句描述的事件发生在主句事件之后,语义上表达图形概念,因此after引导的时间状语从句比before引导的时间状语从句更易于位于主句之前。同理,条件状语从句比原因状语从句更易于位于主句之前,而原因状语从句比结果状语从句更易于位于主句之前。语篇层面上,英汉语语篇也同样遵循背景先于图形的语序规律。无论是平行语料,还是独立文本,英汉语描写型语篇均以背景链和中心链为组织语篇的主要手段。背景链模式中,背景引出图形,该图形进而演变为新的背景,引出下一个图形,层层推进；中心链模式中,背景为中心,引出背景周围的若干不同的背景。两种模式均是以背景为出发点,引出图形,体现了背景先于图形的语序特征。综上所述,英汉语语序呈现一定的共性：均在一定程度上体现了背景先于图形的语序特征。
Previous studies on figure-ground order in English and Chinese conclude that English tends to exhibit figure-before-ground order while Chinese tends to exhibit ground-before-figure order. This contrast in language orders is believed to have exerted great influence on language speakers' conceptualization. It is generally believed that English speakers tend to focus on figure first while Chinese speakers tend to focus on ground first. However, this inference is incompatible with figure-ground definition, according to which ground should be perceived first. The contradiction between language description, conceptualization inference and figure-ground definition leads to the beginning of this study.
Previous studies are flawed in several aspects. First, the research objects are not well defined. Phrases that cannot express figure-ground notion, such as red flowers, are widely used as basic evidences. Second, important language structures such as complex sentences are seldom studied. Third, quantitative studies are carried out between qualitatively different structures, such as between locative sentences and existential sentences. Forth, data drawn from different language structures are mixed to make up some rather ambiguous conclusions. Therefore, it is necessary to further investigate the figure-ground order in both English and Chinese.
We study systematically figure-ground order of simple sentences, complex sentences and discourses in both English and Chinese. First, language structures that express figure-ground notion naturally are selected as our research objects. In line with the definition and characteristics of figure-ground, our research objects are narrowed down to simple sentences expressing location and possession, complex sentences expressing time, condition and cause-result, and descriptive discourses. Our finding is that both English and Chinese tend to use ground-before-figure order in various ways, in contrast to the previous belief that English features figure-before-ground order while Chinese features ground-before-figure order. Both English and Chinese simple sentences use figure-before-ground order and ground-before-figure order to fulfill different pragmatic functions and exhibit different conceptual processes. Ground-before-figure order is more basic in both English and Chinese. Similarly, complex sentences expressing figure-ground notion naturally in both languages tend to use ground-before-figure order. If the subordinate clause is defined as ground and the main clause is defined as figure, Chinese exhibit predominantly ground-before-figure order and English is more balanced. However, semantic analyses show that English subordinate clauses expressing figure meaning are more likely to precede main clauses. For instance, the event described in an after-clause usually happens before the event in the main clause while the event described in a before-clause usually happens after the event in the main clause. From the figure-ground perspective, the after-clause describes a ground notion while the before-clause describes a figure notion. Data show after-clauses are more likely to appear before the main clause than before-clauses. This can also explain why the if-clause tends to precede the main clause and why the cause-clause is more likely to precede the main clause than the result-clause. English and Chinese descriptive discourses also exhibit a ground-before-figure order. Both English and Chinese discourses use ground-chaining and center-linking as key organization techniques. Ground-chaining refers to a pattern of ground anchoring in which the current ground is anchored with an entity in the immediately previous sentence. Center-linking pattern refers to a pattern of ground anchoring in which some entities are anchored with one common ground. In both patterns the ground comes before the figure, exhibiting ground-before-figure order. To summarize, there is more similarity than difference between English and Chinese figure-ground order, both languages exhibiting ground-before-figure in various ways.
文献回顾发现,前人关于图形-背景语序的考察尚存在诸多可改进之处：(1)研究对象界定不清,象红色的花这种不能直观表达图形-背景概念的语言结构成为重点论述对象；(2)重要研究对象缺位,复句图形-背景语序一直没有得到细致考察；(3)研究方法运用不当,简单地对特定类型语篇中的存在句和处所句进行定量对比,而未进行充分的定性分析；(4)对比研究不够充分。因此,有必要对英汉语图形-背景语序进行进一步考察,系统、准确描述英汉语图形-背景语序规律特征,为认知方式假设奠定基础。
我们较为系统地考察了英汉语单句、复句和语篇的图形-背景语序特征。首先我们根据图形-背景属性界定研究对象,明确以单句中的存在句、处所句、领有句,复句中的时间关系复句、条件关系复句、因果关系复句,和语篇中的描写型语篇为研究对象。这些语言结构是表达图形-背景概念的典型结构。通过对这些语言结构的考察,我们的主要结论是,英汉语语序均在一定层面、一定程度上遵循背景先于图形的语序,差异中显示更多共性,而不是呈现倾向性差异。单句层面上,英汉语单句均采用背景先于图形和图形先于背景两种语序,完成不同的语用功能,展现不同的认知过程。定性分析表明,背景先于图形的语序更为基本。复句层面上,英汉语复句均以某种形式在一定程度上遵循背景先于图形的规律。如果认定从句为背景,主句为图形,则汉语呈现明显的背景先于图形的语序,而英语语序特征不明显。但如果从语义上分析,英语中表达背景概念的从句往往位于主句之前,表达图形概念的从句往往位于主句之后。例如,after引导的从句描述的事件发生在主句事件之前,语义上表达背景概念,而before引导的从句描述的事件发生在主句事件之后,语义上表达图形概念,因此after引导的时间状语从句比before引导的时间状语从句更易于位于主句之前。同理,条件状语从句比原因状语从句更易于位于主句之前,而原因状语从句比结果状语从句更易于位于主句之前。语篇层面上,英汉语语篇也同样遵循背景先于图形的语序规律。无论是平行语料,还是独立文本,英汉语描写型语篇均以背景链和中心链为组织语篇的主要手段。背景链模式中,背景引出图形,该图形进而演变为新的背景,引出下一个图形,层层推进；中心链模式中,背景为中心,引出背景周围的若干不同的背景。两种模式均是以背景为出发点,引出图形,体现了背景先于图形的语序特征。综上所述,英汉语语序呈现一定的共性：均在一定程度上体现了背景先于图形的语序特征。
Previous studies on figure-ground order in English and Chinese conclude that English tends to exhibit figure-before-ground order while Chinese tends to exhibit ground-before-figure order. This contrast in language orders is believed to have exerted great influence on language speakers' conceptualization. It is generally believed that English speakers tend to focus on figure first while Chinese speakers tend to focus on ground first. However, this inference is incompatible with figure-ground definition, according to which ground should be perceived first. The contradiction between language description, conceptualization inference and figure-ground definition leads to the beginning of this study.
Previous studies are flawed in several aspects. First, the research objects are not well defined. Phrases that cannot express figure-ground notion, such as red flowers, are widely used as basic evidences. Second, important language structures such as complex sentences are seldom studied. Third, quantitative studies are carried out between qualitatively different structures, such as between locative sentences and existential sentences. Forth, data drawn from different language structures are mixed to make up some rather ambiguous conclusions. Therefore, it is necessary to further investigate the figure-ground order in both English and Chinese.
We study systematically figure-ground order of simple sentences, complex sentences and discourses in both English and Chinese. First, language structures that express figure-ground notion naturally are selected as our research objects. In line with the definition and characteristics of figure-ground, our research objects are narrowed down to simple sentences expressing location and possession, complex sentences expressing time, condition and cause-result, and descriptive discourses. Our finding is that both English and Chinese tend to use ground-before-figure order in various ways, in contrast to the previous belief that English features figure-before-ground order while Chinese features ground-before-figure order. Both English and Chinese simple sentences use figure-before-ground order and ground-before-figure order to fulfill different pragmatic functions and exhibit different conceptual processes. Ground-before-figure order is more basic in both English and Chinese. Similarly, complex sentences expressing figure-ground notion naturally in both languages tend to use ground-before-figure order. If the subordinate clause is defined as ground and the main clause is defined as figure, Chinese exhibit predominantly ground-before-figure order and English is more balanced. However, semantic analyses show that English subordinate clauses expressing figure meaning are more likely to precede main clauses. For instance, the event described in an after-clause usually happens before the event in the main clause while the event described in a before-clause usually happens after the event in the main clause. From the figure-ground perspective, the after-clause describes a ground notion while the before-clause describes a figure notion. Data show after-clauses are more likely to appear before the main clause than before-clauses. This can also explain why the if-clause tends to precede the main clause and why the cause-clause is more likely to precede the main clause than the result-clause. English and Chinese descriptive discourses also exhibit a ground-before-figure order. Both English and Chinese discourses use ground-chaining and center-linking as key organization techniques. Ground-chaining refers to a pattern of ground anchoring in which the current ground is anchored with an entity in the immediately previous sentence. Center-linking pattern refers to a pattern of ground anchoring in which some entities are anchored with one common ground. In both patterns the ground comes before the figure, exhibiting ground-before-figure order. To summarize, there is more similarity than difference between English and Chinese figure-ground order, both languages exhibiting ground-before-figure in various ways.
引文
Anderson, J. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Ansell, B., & Flowers, C.. Aphasic Adults' use of Heuristic and Structural Linguistic Cues for Analysis[J]. Brain and Language, 1982(16):61-72.
Bolinger,D. Meaning and Form[M]. London: London Group Ltd, 1977.
Chen Rong. English Inversion: a Ground-before-figure Construction[M]. Moutun De Gruyter, 2003.
Chua HF, Boland JE, Nisbett RE. Cultural Variation in Eye Movements During Scene Perception[Z]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2005(102):12629-12633.
Clark, E. V. On the Acquisition of the Meaning of Before and After[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971(10):266-275.
Clark, E. V. Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions [A]. J. H. Greenberg. Universals of Human Language (vol.4:Syntax)[C]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978.85-126.
Clark, H. H., and E. V. Clark. Semantic Distinctions and Memory for Complex Sentences[J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968(20):129-138.
de Vega, M., Rinck, M., Diaz, J.M., & Leon, E.. Figure and Ground in Temporal Sentences: The role of the Adverbs When and While[J]. Discourse Processes.2007(1):1-23.
Diessel, H. The Ordering Distribution of Main and Adverbial Clauses: a Typological Study[J]. Language.2001(3):343-365.
Drubig, H.B. On Topicalizaiton and Inversion[A]. R.Tracy (eds.). Who Climbs the Grammar Tress? [C].1992:375-422.
Evans, K., Rotello, C. M., Li, X. S., & Rayner, K. Scene Perception and Memory Revealed by Eye Movements and ROC Analyses: Does a Cultural Difference Truly Exist? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2009(2):276-85.
Ferreira, F. M.K.Tanenhaus. Introduction to the special issue on language-vision interactions[J] Journal of Memory and Language, 2007(57):455-459.
Ford, C.E., and Sandra A. Thompson. Conditionals in Discourse: A Text-based Study from English[A]. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.). On Conditionals[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986:353-372.
Freeze, R. Existential Constructions[A]. M. Haspelmath, E. Knig, W. Oeterreicher & W. Raible. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook [C]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 2001:941-953.
Freeze, R. Existentials and Other Locatives[J]. Language.1992,(3):553-595.
Givon, T. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1984.
Givon, T. Mind, Code and Context. Essays in Pragmatics [M]. New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1989.
Greenberg, J.H. Universals of Languages[C]. MIT Press. 1963.
Grenoble, Lenore A. Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Pragmatics & Beyona[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Press. 1998.
Grundy, P. The Figure/Ground Gestalt and Language Teaching Methodology[A]. Michel Achard and Susanne Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching[C]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004:119-141.
Grundy. P. & Y. Jiang.Ideological ground and relevant interpretation in a cognitive semantics [A]. R. Dirven, B. Hawkins and E. Sandikcioglu. (eds.). Language & Ideology, Vol.1: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.2001.
Haiman, J. Conditionals Are Topics. Language. 1978(3):564-589.
Halliday, M A K & Hasan R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman. 1976.
Hanks, W. The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference[A]. A. Duranti and C. Goowin (eds.). Rethinking Context, Language as an Interactive Phenomenon[C]. Cambridge: Cambribge University Press, 1992:209-246.
Heine, B. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Henderson, J.M., J.R. Brockmole, M.S. Castelhano. M. Mack. Visual Saliency Does Not Account For Eye Movements During Visual Search in Real World Scenes. Gompel R. P. G., M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray and R. L. Hill(eds.). Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain[C]. Elsevier, Oxford, 2007.
Kirkpatrick, A. Information Sequencing in Modern Standard Chinese in a Genre of Extended Spoken Discourse[J]. Text. 1993(3):423-453.
Kuno, S. The Position of Locatives in Existential Sentences [J]. Linguistic Inquiry. 1971(2):333-378.
Langacker, R. W, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(volume one) [M]. 北京:北京 大学出版社.1987.
Langacker, R. W, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(volume two) [M]. 北京:北京 大学出版社. 1991.
Langacker, R.W. Reference-point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics. 1993(4):1-38。
Langacker, R. W. Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise[A]. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Foundation, Scope and Methodology[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999:12-59.
Langacker, R. W. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.2001(2):143-188.
Langacker, R. W. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Mouton de Gruyter, 2009.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Li, C., S. Thompson. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1981.
Lyons, J. A Note on Possessive, Existential, and Locative Sentences[J]. Foundations of Language. 1967(3):390-396.
Maylor, R. The Morphosyntax of the German Inseparable Prefixes in a Figure/Ground Framework[D]. Durham University. 1998.
Munro, J. K., and R. J. Wales. Changes in the Child's Comprehension of Simultaneity and Sequence[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1982(21): 175-185.
Ostman, J., Virtanen, T. Theme, Comment, and Newness as Figures in Information Structuring[A].Van Hoek, K.,Kibrik, A.A., Noordman, L. (Eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics[C]. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 1999:91-110.
Prince, E.F. Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information[A]. P. Cole (eds), Radical Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic Press,1981:223-255.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[Z]. London:Longman, 1985.
Rayner, K., Li, X.S., Williams C.C., Cave, K. R., & Well, A.D. Eye Movements During Information Processing Tasks: Individual Differences and Cultural Effects[J]. Vision Research, 2007(21):2714-2726.
Reihart, T. Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Text[J]. Lingtuistics.1984 (22):779-809
Slobin, D. I. Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language Making Capacity[A]. Dan I. Slobin (eds.). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Volume 2: Theoretical issues[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1985:1157-1256.
Talmy, L. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences[A].Greenberg J.H. (eds.). Universals of Human Language[C].Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978, 625-649.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics[M]. MA:MIT Press, 2000.
Tsai Mei-chih. A Discourse Approach to Causal Sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language, Information and Computation[Z].1996:93-98.
Ungerer, F. & H. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Virtanen, T. Point of Departure: Cognitive Aspects of Sentence-Initial Adverbials[A]. T. Virtanen (eds.), Approaches to Cognition through Text and Discourse[C]. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004:79-97.
Wallace, S. Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories[A]. Paul J. Hopper(eds.). Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982:201-223.
Wang, Yong & Jie Xu. A Systemic Typology of Possessive and Existential Constructions[J]. Functions of Language. 2013 (1):1-30.
Wang Yufang. The Information Sequences of Adverbial Clauses in Madarin Chinese Conversation[J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1999(2):45-89.
Whorf, B. L. Language, mind, and reality [A] J.B. Carroll (eds.), Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[C]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT Press.1956:246-270.
Yeh, Hui-Chen. Temporal and Conditional Clauses in Chinese Spoken Discourse: A Function-based Study[A].The Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation[C].2000:365-376.
Zeshan, U., P. Perniss. Possessive and Existential Construction in Sign Languages[M]. Ishara Press, 2008.
Zhao,Yuanren.Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1968.
储泽祥、刘精盛、龙国富、田辉、叶桂郴、郑贤章.汉语存在句的历时性考察[J].古汉语研究.1997(4)：13-20.
范方莲.存在句[J].中国语文,1963(3)：386-395.
房玉清.实用汉语语法[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社.2008.
宫同喜.基于语料的英汉语图形-背景语序研究.外语电化教学.2012,(6)：16-22.
贺学勤.情状句之于叙事语篇发展的认知建构[J].外语学刊.2009,(1)：43-47.
胡菁,颜静兰.英汉存在句：基于句法和认知的对比研究[J]；内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版).2008,(1)：289-291
黄广平.图形-背景理论下的英语被动句认知分析.中南林业科技大学学报(社会科学版).2011,(6)：52-53.
邢福义.汉语语法学[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,1997.
李春林,李浩杰.以影像与背景理论对李商隐《无题》的分析[J].长春大学学报.2012,(3)：325-326.
梁丽,陈蕊.图形/背景理论在唐诗中的现实化及其对意境的作用[J].外国语,2008,(4)：31-37.
廖巧云.英语实据原因句探微[J].外国语.2004,(4)：46-52.
刘宁生.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,1995,(2)：81-89.
刘燕.英汉复合句语序差异的图形—背景理论阐释[D].山东大学,2010.
鲁川.“预想论”：现代汉语顺序的认知研究.世界汉语教学.2005(1)：32-43.
骆小平、萧立明.英汉语序对比与翻译[A]杨自俭编《英汉语比较与翻译》[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002：150-162.
牛保义.英语因果复句的认知语法研究.现代外语.2006,(4)：338-349.
潘文.现代汉语存现句研究[D].复旦大学,2003.
潘文国.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,1997.
沈家煊.英汉对比语法三题[J].外语教学与研究,1996,(4)：8-13.
沈家煊、王冬梅.“N的V”和“参照体—目标”构式[J].世界汉语教学.2000,(4)：25-32.
宋作艳、陶红印.汉英因果复句顺序的话语分析与比较研究[J].汉语学报.2008(4)：61-71.
唐玉柱.存现句中的there[J].现代外语.2001,(1)：23-33.
完权.语篇中的“参照体-目标”构式[J].语言教学与研究.2010,(6)：38-45.
王初艳.英汉存现句的类型学研究[D].湖南师范大学,2012.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇分Langacker的语篇分析观[J].外语教学与研究.2003(2)：83-88.
王寅.认知参照点原则与语篇连贯——认知语言学与语篇分析[J].中国外语.2005(5)：17-29.
王勇、周迎芳.存在句主语的类型学研究[J].外语教学与研究.2011(2)：163-182.
文旭.认知语言学中的顺序拟象原则[J].福建外语.2001(2)：7-11.
文旭、刘先清.英语倒装句的图形-背景论分析[J].外语教学与研究2004(6)6：438-443.
肖任飞.现代汉语因果复句优先序列研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.2010.
肖志红.英语动词语态生成与使用的认知研究[D].湖南师范大学.2007.
邢福义.2001.汉语复句研究[M].北京：商务印书馆.2001.
杨梅如.英语“时间事件”复合句研究：“图形-背景”视角[J].语文学刊·外语教育教学.2009(10)：49-51.
俞咏梅.论“在+处所”的语义功能和语序制约原则[J].中国语文,1999(1)：21-29.
张珂.英汉语存现构式的认知对比研究[D].河南大学.2007.
张克定.英语there-结构的认知解释[J].外语学刊,2007(2)：81-85.
张克定.图形-背景论视角下的汉语存现构式[J].外国语文,2009(5)：8-12.
张璐.从东西南北谈汉英语语序所反映的认知过程[J].语言研究,2002(4)：11-18.
赵世开.汉英对比语法论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999a。
赵世开.存在句与认知：英汉对比[J].华文教学与研究,1999b(3)：28-32.
赵世开.基于认知的英汉对比[C].董燕萍、王初明编《中国的语言学发展与研究》.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982.
Ansell, B., & Flowers, C.. Aphasic Adults' use of Heuristic and Structural Linguistic Cues for Analysis[J]. Brain and Language, 1982(16):61-72.
Bolinger,D. Meaning and Form[M]. London: London Group Ltd, 1977.
Chen Rong. English Inversion: a Ground-before-figure Construction[M]. Moutun De Gruyter, 2003.
Chua HF, Boland JE, Nisbett RE. Cultural Variation in Eye Movements During Scene Perception[Z]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2005(102):12629-12633.
Clark, E. V. On the Acquisition of the Meaning of Before and After[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971(10):266-275.
Clark, E. V. Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions [A]. J. H. Greenberg. Universals of Human Language (vol.4:Syntax)[C]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978.85-126.
Clark, H. H., and E. V. Clark. Semantic Distinctions and Memory for Complex Sentences[J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968(20):129-138.
de Vega, M., Rinck, M., Diaz, J.M., & Leon, E.. Figure and Ground in Temporal Sentences: The role of the Adverbs When and While[J]. Discourse Processes.2007(1):1-23.
Diessel, H. The Ordering Distribution of Main and Adverbial Clauses: a Typological Study[J]. Language.2001(3):343-365.
Drubig, H.B. On Topicalizaiton and Inversion[A]. R.Tracy (eds.). Who Climbs the Grammar Tress? [C].1992:375-422.
Evans, K., Rotello, C. M., Li, X. S., & Rayner, K. Scene Perception and Memory Revealed by Eye Movements and ROC Analyses: Does a Cultural Difference Truly Exist? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2009(2):276-85.
Ferreira, F. M.K.Tanenhaus. Introduction to the special issue on language-vision interactions[J] Journal of Memory and Language, 2007(57):455-459.
Ford, C.E., and Sandra A. Thompson. Conditionals in Discourse: A Text-based Study from English[A]. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.). On Conditionals[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986:353-372.
Freeze, R. Existential Constructions[A]. M. Haspelmath, E. Knig, W. Oeterreicher & W. Raible. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook [C]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 2001:941-953.
Freeze, R. Existentials and Other Locatives[J]. Language.1992,(3):553-595.
Givon, T. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1984.
Givon, T. Mind, Code and Context. Essays in Pragmatics [M]. New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1989.
Greenberg, J.H. Universals of Languages[C]. MIT Press. 1963.
Grenoble, Lenore A. Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Pragmatics & Beyona[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Press. 1998.
Grundy, P. The Figure/Ground Gestalt and Language Teaching Methodology[A]. Michel Achard and Susanne Niemeier(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching[C]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004:119-141.
Grundy. P. & Y. Jiang.Ideological ground and relevant interpretation in a cognitive semantics [A]. R. Dirven, B. Hawkins and E. Sandikcioglu. (eds.). Language & Ideology, Vol.1: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.2001.
Haiman, J. Conditionals Are Topics. Language. 1978(3):564-589.
Halliday, M A K & Hasan R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman. 1976.
Hanks, W. The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference[A]. A. Duranti and C. Goowin (eds.). Rethinking Context, Language as an Interactive Phenomenon[C]. Cambridge: Cambribge University Press, 1992:209-246.
Heine, B. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Henderson, J.M., J.R. Brockmole, M.S. Castelhano. M. Mack. Visual Saliency Does Not Account For Eye Movements During Visual Search in Real World Scenes. Gompel R. P. G., M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray and R. L. Hill(eds.). Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain[C]. Elsevier, Oxford, 2007.
Kirkpatrick, A. Information Sequencing in Modern Standard Chinese in a Genre of Extended Spoken Discourse[J]. Text. 1993(3):423-453.
Kuno, S. The Position of Locatives in Existential Sentences [J]. Linguistic Inquiry. 1971(2):333-378.
Langacker, R. W, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(volume one) [M]. 北京:北京 大学出版社.1987.
Langacker, R. W, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(volume two) [M]. 北京:北京 大学出版社. 1991.
Langacker, R.W. Reference-point Constructions[J]. Cognitive Linguistics. 1993(4):1-38。
Langacker, R. W. Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise[A]. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Foundation, Scope and Methodology[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999:12-59.
Langacker, R. W. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.2001(2):143-188.
Langacker, R. W. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Mouton de Gruyter, 2009.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Li, C., S. Thompson. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1981.
Lyons, J. A Note on Possessive, Existential, and Locative Sentences[J]. Foundations of Language. 1967(3):390-396.
Maylor, R. The Morphosyntax of the German Inseparable Prefixes in a Figure/Ground Framework[D]. Durham University. 1998.
Munro, J. K., and R. J. Wales. Changes in the Child's Comprehension of Simultaneity and Sequence[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1982(21): 175-185.
Ostman, J., Virtanen, T. Theme, Comment, and Newness as Figures in Information Structuring[A].Van Hoek, K.,Kibrik, A.A., Noordman, L. (Eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics[C]. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 1999:91-110.
Prince, E.F. Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information[A]. P. Cole (eds), Radical Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic Press,1981:223-255.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[Z]. London:Longman, 1985.
Rayner, K., Li, X.S., Williams C.C., Cave, K. R., & Well, A.D. Eye Movements During Information Processing Tasks: Individual Differences and Cultural Effects[J]. Vision Research, 2007(21):2714-2726.
Reihart, T. Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Text[J]. Lingtuistics.1984 (22):779-809
Slobin, D. I. Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language Making Capacity[A]. Dan I. Slobin (eds.). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Volume 2: Theoretical issues[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1985:1157-1256.
Talmy, L. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences[A].Greenberg J.H. (eds.). Universals of Human Language[C].Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978, 625-649.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics[M]. MA:MIT Press, 2000.
Tsai Mei-chih. A Discourse Approach to Causal Sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language, Information and Computation[Z].1996:93-98.
Ungerer, F. & H. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Virtanen, T. Point of Departure: Cognitive Aspects of Sentence-Initial Adverbials[A]. T. Virtanen (eds.), Approaches to Cognition through Text and Discourse[C]. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004:79-97.
Wallace, S. Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories[A]. Paul J. Hopper(eds.). Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982:201-223.
Wang, Yong & Jie Xu. A Systemic Typology of Possessive and Existential Constructions[J]. Functions of Language. 2013 (1):1-30.
Wang Yufang. The Information Sequences of Adverbial Clauses in Madarin Chinese Conversation[J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1999(2):45-89.
Whorf, B. L. Language, mind, and reality [A] J.B. Carroll (eds.), Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[C]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT Press.1956:246-270.
Yeh, Hui-Chen. Temporal and Conditional Clauses in Chinese Spoken Discourse: A Function-based Study[A].The Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation[C].2000:365-376.
Zeshan, U., P. Perniss. Possessive and Existential Construction in Sign Languages[M]. Ishara Press, 2008.
Zhao,Yuanren.Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1968.
储泽祥、刘精盛、龙国富、田辉、叶桂郴、郑贤章.汉语存在句的历时性考察[J].古汉语研究.1997(4)：13-20.
范方莲.存在句[J].中国语文,1963(3)：386-395.
房玉清.实用汉语语法[M].北京：北京语言大学出版社.2008.
宫同喜.基于语料的英汉语图形-背景语序研究.外语电化教学.2012,(6)：16-22.
贺学勤.情状句之于叙事语篇发展的认知建构[J].外语学刊.2009,(1)：43-47.
胡菁,颜静兰.英汉存在句：基于句法和认知的对比研究[J]；内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版).2008,(1)：289-291
黄广平.图形-背景理论下的英语被动句认知分析.中南林业科技大学学报(社会科学版).2011,(6)：52-53.
邢福义.汉语语法学[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社,1997.
李春林,李浩杰.以影像与背景理论对李商隐《无题》的分析[J].长春大学学报.2012,(3)：325-326.
梁丽,陈蕊.图形/背景理论在唐诗中的现实化及其对意境的作用[J].外国语,2008,(4)：31-37.
廖巧云.英语实据原因句探微[J].外国语.2004,(4)：46-52.
刘宁生.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,1995,(2)：81-89.
刘燕.英汉复合句语序差异的图形—背景理论阐释[D].山东大学,2010.
鲁川.“预想论”：现代汉语顺序的认知研究.世界汉语教学.2005(1)：32-43.
骆小平、萧立明.英汉语序对比与翻译[A]杨自俭编《英汉语比较与翻译》[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002：150-162.
牛保义.英语因果复句的认知语法研究.现代外语.2006,(4)：338-349.
潘文.现代汉语存现句研究[D].复旦大学,2003.
潘文国.汉英语对比纲要[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社,1997.
沈家煊.英汉对比语法三题[J].外语教学与研究,1996,(4)：8-13.
沈家煊、王冬梅.“N的V”和“参照体—目标”构式[J].世界汉语教学.2000,(4)：25-32.
宋作艳、陶红印.汉英因果复句顺序的话语分析与比较研究[J].汉语学报.2008(4)：61-71.
唐玉柱.存现句中的there[J].现代外语.2001,(1)：23-33.
完权.语篇中的“参照体-目标”构式[J].语言教学与研究.2010,(6)：38-45.
王初艳.英汉存现句的类型学研究[D].湖南师范大学,2012.
王寅.认知语言学与语篇分Langacker的语篇分析观[J].外语教学与研究.2003(2)：83-88.
王寅.认知参照点原则与语篇连贯——认知语言学与语篇分析[J].中国外语.2005(5)：17-29.
王勇、周迎芳.存在句主语的类型学研究[J].外语教学与研究.2011(2)：163-182.
文旭.认知语言学中的顺序拟象原则[J].福建外语.2001(2)：7-11.
文旭、刘先清.英语倒装句的图形-背景论分析[J].外语教学与研究2004(6)6：438-443.
肖任飞.现代汉语因果复句优先序列研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.2010.
肖志红.英语动词语态生成与使用的认知研究[D].湖南师范大学.2007.
邢福义.2001.汉语复句研究[M].北京：商务印书馆.2001.
杨梅如.英语“时间事件”复合句研究：“图形-背景”视角[J].语文学刊·外语教育教学.2009(10)：49-51.
俞咏梅.论“在+处所”的语义功能和语序制约原则[J].中国语文,1999(1)：21-29.
张珂.英汉语存现构式的认知对比研究[D].河南大学.2007.
张克定.英语there-结构的认知解释[J].外语学刊,2007(2)：81-85.
张克定.图形-背景论视角下的汉语存现构式[J].外国语文,2009(5)：8-12.
张璐.从东西南北谈汉英语语序所反映的认知过程[J].语言研究,2002(4)：11-18.
赵世开.汉英对比语法论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999a。
赵世开.存在句与认知：英汉对比[J].华文教学与研究,1999b(3)：28-32.
赵世开.基于认知的英汉对比[C].董燕萍、王初明编《中国的语言学发展与研究》.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982.