基于汉语句法结构的语法转喻研究
|
摘要
转喻作为人类的思维方式和认知机制,分布于语言结构的各个层面(包括音位、词义、语法、语篇、语用等),但语法中的转喻研究一直未能得到足够的关注和重视,其研究成果较为零散,未成体系。有鉴于此,本研究以认知语言学的概念转喻理论为基础,尝试把语法转喻视为概念转喻的一个分支,从理论构建和语言事实分析两个方面,对其加以系统探讨和阐发,旨在揭示隐匿于语法结构背后的认知机制,丰富和拓展概念转喻的理论研究和应用范围。本研究主要关注三个问题：一是语法转喻的含义和本质特征；二是语法转喻的运作模式；三是语法转喻在汉语句法结构中的体现。本研究的主要发现如下：
第一,对语法转喻的定义、动因、本质特征、功能、始源的实现方式等进行了系统描述和阐释。基于对以往语法转喻定义的评述,本研究根据语法的内涵提出,语法转喻有广义和狭义之分。广义的语法转喻指语法系统中所体现的概念转喻；狭义的语法转喻则指对句法成分的分布或整体句法结构的形成产生影响的概念转喻。本研究持狭义的语法转喻观,认为句法结构是具有典型语法特征的语言现象,并将语法转喻置于句子层面来分析。
语法转喻的产生有其深层的多重动因。语言思维的产生过程和体验哲学为其提供了哲学基础,完型趋向理论和扩散激活理论是其产生的心理学基础,语言的理据性和语言经济性原则为其提供了语言学基础。
作为概念转喻的一个分支,语法转喻的本质特征主要体现如下：1)语法转喻是一种认知机制,属于概念现象；2)语法转喻具有语法效应,必定会对语法结构产生影响。语法转喻与系统功能语言‘学所称的语法隐喻截然不同：前者是一种概念现象,后者是一种语言现象。通过与其他转喻类型的对比分析发现,部分指称转喻在改变始源语义的同时,也改变了其语法属性,从而导致句法成分分布的变化,因此当属于语法转喻的范畴；语法转喻具有层级性,有高层和低层之分,不只限于Ruiz de Mendoza及其合作者所认为的高层转喻；语法转喻与词汇转喻构成一个连续统,二者间并无明确界限。
除概念转喻的一般功能外,语法转喻亦有其独特的功能：1)语法转喻是语法结构意义建构的基本原则；2)语法转喻是语言创新表达的认知理据；3)语法转喻是种句法策略。传统上认为转喻的功能主要是指称,因此,转喻始源的语言表达形式主要是名词。本研究发现,语法转喻始源的实现方式呈多样性和复杂性,名词、动词、形容词、动宾结构、主谓结构、定中结构、整句等均可担任始源。
第二,构建了语法转喻的运作模式,阐释了影响其运作的基本要素。本研究认为,语法结构和概念转喻之间呈双向互动关系：概念转喻是语法结构形成的认知理据,语法结构对概念转喻操作起促使或限制作用。本研究提出了“语法转喻链”的概念,认为概念转喻对语法结构的作用通常需经多次认知参照活动方能完成。在语法转喻的运作过程中,语境起着重要的调控作用。语法转喻在句法结构中的具体实现路径有两种：一是通过改变始源的语义和语法属性,从而导致句法成分分布的变化；二是转喻的目标义直接导致句法结构的重构。对于不同句法结构而言,语法转喻的具体操作表现形式各异,各种因素对其影响程度亦不相同。
第三,考察了语法转喻在汉语句法结构中的作用。为进一步验证和完善语法转喻的理论探索,本研究选取了汉语中的动结式、形容词谓语祈使句、动宾结构中的宾语变换三类句法现象分别进行个案分析。
汉语动结式的语法转喻分析旨在探究语法转喻对句法结构的生成和句法成分配置的影响。研究表明,动结式的句法生成过程体现了“部分激活整体”的转喻思维。动结式是一个同时包含使因事件和结果事件的双表述语义结构,在进行句法表征时,可以突显致使场景的不同侧面,由此形成不同的语法结构。动结式的表层句法结构仅充当认知参照点功能,为通达整个致使场景提供心理通道。汉语动结式致事的实现形式多样,包括典型致事与非典型致事。典型致事表示事件或活动,非典型致事又有内在与外在之分。非典型内在致事体现了“突显的语义角色代使因事件”的语法转喻操作过程,非典型外在致事则牵涉到语法转喻链。语法转喻能够对动结式致事实现方式的多样性和复杂性做出统一解释。
汉语形容词谓语祈使句的语法转喻分析旨在探究语法转喻对整个句式结构形成的作用。对“形容词+点”祈使结构的分析表明,静态形容词能为表动作的祈使结构所允准,当归因于语法转喻“结果代动作”；阐明该结构产生的认知动因有助于明晰结构中形容词的语义特征,即形容词的意义限定为动作行为所导致的某种结果或状态,因而必须具有“可控性”和“可度量性”。
对汉语动宾结构中宾语变换的语法转喻分析意在表明语法转喻对语法结构形成的综合作用。研究发现,动宾结构中的宾语变换归因于三类语法转喻操作：一是关系项名词实体发生转喻导致宾语变换。担任宾语的名词实体之间存在概念邻近关系,
个概念实体可以为另一个概念实体提供心理可及,从而导致宾语之间的相互转换。二是宾语的语义角色发生转喻导致宾语变换。在动作ICM中,各个语义角色之间具有概念上的邻近关系,突显的语义角色可通过转喻操作代替受事占据宾语的位置。三是动词的语义发生转喻导致宾语变换。动词语义通过转喻操作发生变化的过程中,其语法属性也相应发生了变化,与之搭配的宾语类型也随之而变。分析结果不仅展现了语法转喻对句法成分分布的作用,而且表明其对整个动宾结构形成的影响。
对三类句法结构的深入分析从不同层面阐释了语法转喻对语法结构的作用,揭示了语法结构背后的认知理据,同时也例证了语法与转喻之间唇齿相依的关系,以及语境对语法转喻操作的制约作用。
综上所述,本文将语法转喻视为概念转喻的一个分支,对其进行了较系统的理论阐释,并以几个典型的汉语句法结构为例,对语法转喻的操作过程进行了实例解析。语法转喻研究有助于洞察语法结构内部的认知机制,进一步揭示一般思维方式和语言能力之间的关系。本研究在一定程度上开启了概念转喻研究的新视野,加深了对语法结构本质的认识,同时拓展了概念转喻的应用范围,为概念转喻的认知解释力提供了新的佐证。
As a basic way of thinking and cognitive operation, metonymy operates at all levels of linguistic structure including phonology, lexical semantics, grammar, discourse, pragmatics and so on, but research on metonymy in grammar has visibly been underrepresented, and the previous studies lack systematization. Based on the theory of conceptual metonymy, this dissertation attempts to treat grammatical metonymy (GM) as a sub-branch of conceptual metonymy and explore it with reference both to theoretical construction and empirical analysis. It aims at disclosing the cognitive motivation underlying grammatical structures in general and enriching the theoretical research of conceptual metonymy and extending its applicability in particular. This dissertation addresses three aspects of GM:1) the definition and characteristics of GM.2) the operational model of GM.3) the way GM behaves in Chinese grammatical structures. The major findings are summarized as follows:
Firstly, a comparatively systematic study has been conducted on GM, ranging from its definition, motivations, characteristics, functions and the realization patterns of its source. Based on the review of previous definitions concerning GM and the implication of grammar, this dissertation distinguishes GM in the broad sense and in the narrow sense. The former refers to conceptual metonymies reflected in the grammatical system, and the latter refers to conceptual metonymies which have an impact on the distribution of syntactic elements or the overall organization of the sentences. This dissertation holds GM in its narrow sense and takes syntactic structures as the prototypical grammatical structures. Therefore, the research explores GM on the sentence level.
The operation of GM is motivated on multiple dimensions. The production of thinking for speaking and the embodied philosophy provide the philosophical basis, and the Law of Pragnanz and Spreading Activation Theory lay the psychological foundations. Furthermore, the conceptual motivation of language and the principle of economy in linguistic expression constitute the linguistic grounding for grammatical metonymy.
As a sub-branch of conceptual metonymy, GM is characterized by the following two features:1) GM is understood as a conceptual phenomenon and serves as a cognitive mechanism; 2) GM has grammatical reflections and is bound to have an impact on grammatical structures. GM, conceptual in nature, differs from grammatical metaphor in Systemic and Functional Grammar, which is regarded as a kind of linguistic phenomenon. A comparative study of GM and other kinds of metonymies shows that some referential metonymies are categorized into GM for they not only change the semantic meaning of source but also its grammatical meaning, which leads to the change of the distribution of syntactic elements. It is also discovered that GM is hierarchically structured from the high-level metonymies to the low-level metonymies, which differs from the view of Ruiz de Mendoza and his collaborators that GM is limited to high-level metonymy. The research evidences that GM and lexical metonymy form a continuum and the boundary between them is blurry and fuzzy.
Apart from the general functions of conceptual metonymies, GM plays crucial roles in the following aspects:1) GM is a general guiding principle of meaning construction for grammatical structures; 2) GM is the cognitive motivation for creative expressions; 3) GM is a kind of syntactic strategy. The linguistic realization of the source in GM is multifarious and complicated. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, verb-object constructions, subject-predicate constructions, modifier-head constructions and even whole sentences can all act as the source of GM, which differs from the traditional view that the source of metonymy is restricted to nouns.
Secondly, the operational model of GM has been constructed and some important factors related to its operation are elaborated. It is argued that bi-directional interaction exists between grammatical structures and conceptual metonymy. On the one hand, conceptual metonymy has an important regulatory and motivating role in grammar, which in turn can license and constrain metonymic processes on the other. This dissertation puts forward the notion of chained GM, indicating that GM may work in chains and that grammatical structures may be motivated by a sequence of reference and mental access. Context can accommodate and regulate the operation of GM. There are two ways in which GM motivates grammatical structures:1) GM changes the grammatical meaning as well as the lexical meaning of the source, which has consequences on the distribution of grammatical elements; 2) The target meaning of metonymy licenses the reconstruction of grammatical structures.
Thirdly, the research elaborates on how GM behaves in Chinese grammatical structure. Three case studies are carried out in order to testify and complement the theory of GM.
The case of Chinese resultative construction (RC) from the perspective of GM aims to disclose the impact of GM on the generation of grammatical structures and the rearrangement of grammatical elements. The generation of RC embodies the metonymic thinking PART FOR WHOLE. RC is a semantic structure consisting of caused event and causing event. When it is represented explicitly, profiling different aspects of the whole scenario will lead to different grammatical forms. Explicit linguistic coding merely acts as a reference point to provide mental access to the whole scenario. The causer in RC can be realized in various ways, which allows a distinction between the prototypical causer and the non-prototypical causer. The former generally indicates event or activity, while the latter can be further divided into the internal and the external non-prototypical causers. The internal non-prototypical causer is motivated by grammatical metonymy SALINET SEMATIC ROLES FOR CAUSING EVENT; By contrast, the external counterpart is motivated by the chained grammatical metonymies. GM can provide a unified explanation for the variety and complexity of causers in RC.
The investigation of Chinese imperative construction with adjective acting as predicate aims, on the other hand, to testify the impact of GM on the whole construction. The analysis of imperative construction ("Adj+dian") shows that it is the grammatical metonymy RESUTL FOR ACTION that sanctions the stative adjectives to enter action constructions. It is much easier to characterize the adjectives in the construction when its cognitive motivation is disclosed. The adjectives are restricted to those denoting the resultative state brought about by the action, so "controllable" and "measurable" are the typical properties of these adjectives.
The analysis of object change in Chinese verb-object construction is expected to explore the overall impact of GM on the shaping of grammatical structure. It is found that object change is motivated by three kinds of grammatical metonymies. First, the object change is caused by the metonymic operation on nouns acting as object. The nouns acting as object are conceptually contiguous and one of them can provide mental access to the other. Second, the object change is caused by the metonymic operation on the semantic roles in action ICM. The semantic roles are conceptually contiguous, so the salient semantic role can take the place of patient by means of metonymic operation. Third, the object change is caused by the metonymic operation on verbs. The metonymic operation changes not only the semantic meaning of a verb but also its grammatical properties. Accordingly, the object followed the verb is changed. The findings not only display the impact of GM on the distribution of grammatical elements, but also its shaping effect on the whole construction.
The analysis of the above structures has illustrated the consequences of GM on grammatical structure on different levels and disclosed the cognitive motivation underlying the grammatical structures. Moreover, the study evidences that GM and grammar are mutually dependent and that context plays a crucial role in accommodating the metonymic operation.
To sum up, this dissertation proposes that GM is a sub-branch of conceptual metonymy. The study not only makes a detailed investigation of the theory of GM but also analyzes the operational mechanism of GM in several Chinese syntactic structures. The study is of significance in shedding light on the cognitive mechanism of grammatical structures, disclosing the relationship between the basic way of thinking and language faculty. Furthermore, this study opens up new avenues of research on conceptual metonymy to some extent, extends conceptual metonymy to its wider applicability, and provides further evidence for its explanatory power.
第一,对语法转喻的定义、动因、本质特征、功能、始源的实现方式等进行了系统描述和阐释。基于对以往语法转喻定义的评述,本研究根据语法的内涵提出,语法转喻有广义和狭义之分。广义的语法转喻指语法系统中所体现的概念转喻；狭义的语法转喻则指对句法成分的分布或整体句法结构的形成产生影响的概念转喻。本研究持狭义的语法转喻观,认为句法结构是具有典型语法特征的语言现象,并将语法转喻置于句子层面来分析。
语法转喻的产生有其深层的多重动因。语言思维的产生过程和体验哲学为其提供了哲学基础,完型趋向理论和扩散激活理论是其产生的心理学基础,语言的理据性和语言经济性原则为其提供了语言学基础。
作为概念转喻的一个分支,语法转喻的本质特征主要体现如下：1)语法转喻是一种认知机制,属于概念现象；2)语法转喻具有语法效应,必定会对语法结构产生影响。语法转喻与系统功能语言‘学所称的语法隐喻截然不同：前者是一种概念现象,后者是一种语言现象。通过与其他转喻类型的对比分析发现,部分指称转喻在改变始源语义的同时,也改变了其语法属性,从而导致句法成分分布的变化,因此当属于语法转喻的范畴；语法转喻具有层级性,有高层和低层之分,不只限于Ruiz de Mendoza及其合作者所认为的高层转喻；语法转喻与词汇转喻构成一个连续统,二者间并无明确界限。
除概念转喻的一般功能外,语法转喻亦有其独特的功能：1)语法转喻是语法结构意义建构的基本原则；2)语法转喻是语言创新表达的认知理据；3)语法转喻是种句法策略。传统上认为转喻的功能主要是指称,因此,转喻始源的语言表达形式主要是名词。本研究发现,语法转喻始源的实现方式呈多样性和复杂性,名词、动词、形容词、动宾结构、主谓结构、定中结构、整句等均可担任始源。
第二,构建了语法转喻的运作模式,阐释了影响其运作的基本要素。本研究认为,语法结构和概念转喻之间呈双向互动关系：概念转喻是语法结构形成的认知理据,语法结构对概念转喻操作起促使或限制作用。本研究提出了“语法转喻链”的概念,认为概念转喻对语法结构的作用通常需经多次认知参照活动方能完成。在语法转喻的运作过程中,语境起着重要的调控作用。语法转喻在句法结构中的具体实现路径有两种：一是通过改变始源的语义和语法属性,从而导致句法成分分布的变化；二是转喻的目标义直接导致句法结构的重构。对于不同句法结构而言,语法转喻的具体操作表现形式各异,各种因素对其影响程度亦不相同。
第三,考察了语法转喻在汉语句法结构中的作用。为进一步验证和完善语法转喻的理论探索,本研究选取了汉语中的动结式、形容词谓语祈使句、动宾结构中的宾语变换三类句法现象分别进行个案分析。
汉语动结式的语法转喻分析旨在探究语法转喻对句法结构的生成和句法成分配置的影响。研究表明,动结式的句法生成过程体现了“部分激活整体”的转喻思维。动结式是一个同时包含使因事件和结果事件的双表述语义结构,在进行句法表征时,可以突显致使场景的不同侧面,由此形成不同的语法结构。动结式的表层句法结构仅充当认知参照点功能,为通达整个致使场景提供心理通道。汉语动结式致事的实现形式多样,包括典型致事与非典型致事。典型致事表示事件或活动,非典型致事又有内在与外在之分。非典型内在致事体现了“突显的语义角色代使因事件”的语法转喻操作过程,非典型外在致事则牵涉到语法转喻链。语法转喻能够对动结式致事实现方式的多样性和复杂性做出统一解释。
汉语形容词谓语祈使句的语法转喻分析旨在探究语法转喻对整个句式结构形成的作用。对“形容词+点”祈使结构的分析表明,静态形容词能为表动作的祈使结构所允准,当归因于语法转喻“结果代动作”；阐明该结构产生的认知动因有助于明晰结构中形容词的语义特征,即形容词的意义限定为动作行为所导致的某种结果或状态,因而必须具有“可控性”和“可度量性”。
对汉语动宾结构中宾语变换的语法转喻分析意在表明语法转喻对语法结构形成的综合作用。研究发现,动宾结构中的宾语变换归因于三类语法转喻操作：一是关系项名词实体发生转喻导致宾语变换。担任宾语的名词实体之间存在概念邻近关系,
个概念实体可以为另一个概念实体提供心理可及,从而导致宾语之间的相互转换。二是宾语的语义角色发生转喻导致宾语变换。在动作ICM中,各个语义角色之间具有概念上的邻近关系,突显的语义角色可通过转喻操作代替受事占据宾语的位置。三是动词的语义发生转喻导致宾语变换。动词语义通过转喻操作发生变化的过程中,其语法属性也相应发生了变化,与之搭配的宾语类型也随之而变。分析结果不仅展现了语法转喻对句法成分分布的作用,而且表明其对整个动宾结构形成的影响。
对三类句法结构的深入分析从不同层面阐释了语法转喻对语法结构的作用,揭示了语法结构背后的认知理据,同时也例证了语法与转喻之间唇齿相依的关系,以及语境对语法转喻操作的制约作用。
综上所述,本文将语法转喻视为概念转喻的一个分支,对其进行了较系统的理论阐释,并以几个典型的汉语句法结构为例,对语法转喻的操作过程进行了实例解析。语法转喻研究有助于洞察语法结构内部的认知机制,进一步揭示一般思维方式和语言能力之间的关系。本研究在一定程度上开启了概念转喻研究的新视野,加深了对语法结构本质的认识,同时拓展了概念转喻的应用范围,为概念转喻的认知解释力提供了新的佐证。
As a basic way of thinking and cognitive operation, metonymy operates at all levels of linguistic structure including phonology, lexical semantics, grammar, discourse, pragmatics and so on, but research on metonymy in grammar has visibly been underrepresented, and the previous studies lack systematization. Based on the theory of conceptual metonymy, this dissertation attempts to treat grammatical metonymy (GM) as a sub-branch of conceptual metonymy and explore it with reference both to theoretical construction and empirical analysis. It aims at disclosing the cognitive motivation underlying grammatical structures in general and enriching the theoretical research of conceptual metonymy and extending its applicability in particular. This dissertation addresses three aspects of GM:1) the definition and characteristics of GM.2) the operational model of GM.3) the way GM behaves in Chinese grammatical structures. The major findings are summarized as follows:
Firstly, a comparatively systematic study has been conducted on GM, ranging from its definition, motivations, characteristics, functions and the realization patterns of its source. Based on the review of previous definitions concerning GM and the implication of grammar, this dissertation distinguishes GM in the broad sense and in the narrow sense. The former refers to conceptual metonymies reflected in the grammatical system, and the latter refers to conceptual metonymies which have an impact on the distribution of syntactic elements or the overall organization of the sentences. This dissertation holds GM in its narrow sense and takes syntactic structures as the prototypical grammatical structures. Therefore, the research explores GM on the sentence level.
The operation of GM is motivated on multiple dimensions. The production of thinking for speaking and the embodied philosophy provide the philosophical basis, and the Law of Pragnanz and Spreading Activation Theory lay the psychological foundations. Furthermore, the conceptual motivation of language and the principle of economy in linguistic expression constitute the linguistic grounding for grammatical metonymy.
As a sub-branch of conceptual metonymy, GM is characterized by the following two features:1) GM is understood as a conceptual phenomenon and serves as a cognitive mechanism; 2) GM has grammatical reflections and is bound to have an impact on grammatical structures. GM, conceptual in nature, differs from grammatical metaphor in Systemic and Functional Grammar, which is regarded as a kind of linguistic phenomenon. A comparative study of GM and other kinds of metonymies shows that some referential metonymies are categorized into GM for they not only change the semantic meaning of source but also its grammatical meaning, which leads to the change of the distribution of syntactic elements. It is also discovered that GM is hierarchically structured from the high-level metonymies to the low-level metonymies, which differs from the view of Ruiz de Mendoza and his collaborators that GM is limited to high-level metonymy. The research evidences that GM and lexical metonymy form a continuum and the boundary between them is blurry and fuzzy.
Apart from the general functions of conceptual metonymies, GM plays crucial roles in the following aspects:1) GM is a general guiding principle of meaning construction for grammatical structures; 2) GM is the cognitive motivation for creative expressions; 3) GM is a kind of syntactic strategy. The linguistic realization of the source in GM is multifarious and complicated. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, verb-object constructions, subject-predicate constructions, modifier-head constructions and even whole sentences can all act as the source of GM, which differs from the traditional view that the source of metonymy is restricted to nouns.
Secondly, the operational model of GM has been constructed and some important factors related to its operation are elaborated. It is argued that bi-directional interaction exists between grammatical structures and conceptual metonymy. On the one hand, conceptual metonymy has an important regulatory and motivating role in grammar, which in turn can license and constrain metonymic processes on the other. This dissertation puts forward the notion of chained GM, indicating that GM may work in chains and that grammatical structures may be motivated by a sequence of reference and mental access. Context can accommodate and regulate the operation of GM. There are two ways in which GM motivates grammatical structures:1) GM changes the grammatical meaning as well as the lexical meaning of the source, which has consequences on the distribution of grammatical elements; 2) The target meaning of metonymy licenses the reconstruction of grammatical structures.
Thirdly, the research elaborates on how GM behaves in Chinese grammatical structure. Three case studies are carried out in order to testify and complement the theory of GM.
The case of Chinese resultative construction (RC) from the perspective of GM aims to disclose the impact of GM on the generation of grammatical structures and the rearrangement of grammatical elements. The generation of RC embodies the metonymic thinking PART FOR WHOLE. RC is a semantic structure consisting of caused event and causing event. When it is represented explicitly, profiling different aspects of the whole scenario will lead to different grammatical forms. Explicit linguistic coding merely acts as a reference point to provide mental access to the whole scenario. The causer in RC can be realized in various ways, which allows a distinction between the prototypical causer and the non-prototypical causer. The former generally indicates event or activity, while the latter can be further divided into the internal and the external non-prototypical causers. The internal non-prototypical causer is motivated by grammatical metonymy SALINET SEMATIC ROLES FOR CAUSING EVENT; By contrast, the external counterpart is motivated by the chained grammatical metonymies. GM can provide a unified explanation for the variety and complexity of causers in RC.
The investigation of Chinese imperative construction with adjective acting as predicate aims, on the other hand, to testify the impact of GM on the whole construction. The analysis of imperative construction ("Adj+dian") shows that it is the grammatical metonymy RESUTL FOR ACTION that sanctions the stative adjectives to enter action constructions. It is much easier to characterize the adjectives in the construction when its cognitive motivation is disclosed. The adjectives are restricted to those denoting the resultative state brought about by the action, so "controllable" and "measurable" are the typical properties of these adjectives.
The analysis of object change in Chinese verb-object construction is expected to explore the overall impact of GM on the shaping of grammatical structure. It is found that object change is motivated by three kinds of grammatical metonymies. First, the object change is caused by the metonymic operation on nouns acting as object. The nouns acting as object are conceptually contiguous and one of them can provide mental access to the other. Second, the object change is caused by the metonymic operation on the semantic roles in action ICM. The semantic roles are conceptually contiguous, so the salient semantic role can take the place of patient by means of metonymic operation. Third, the object change is caused by the metonymic operation on verbs. The metonymic operation changes not only the semantic meaning of a verb but also its grammatical properties. Accordingly, the object followed the verb is changed. The findings not only display the impact of GM on the distribution of grammatical elements, but also its shaping effect on the whole construction.
The analysis of the above structures has illustrated the consequences of GM on grammatical structure on different levels and disclosed the cognitive motivation underlying the grammatical structures. Moreover, the study evidences that GM and grammar are mutually dependent and that context plays a crucial role in accommodating the metonymic operation.
To sum up, this dissertation proposes that GM is a sub-branch of conceptual metonymy. The study not only makes a detailed investigation of the theory of GM but also analyzes the operational mechanism of GM in several Chinese syntactic structures. The study is of significance in shedding light on the cognitive mechanism of grammatical structures, disclosing the relationship between the basic way of thinking and language faculty. Furthermore, this study opens up new avenues of research on conceptual metonymy to some extent, extends conceptual metonymy to its wider applicability, and provides further evidence for its explanatory power.
引文
Al-Sharafi, A. G.2004. Textual Metonymy:A Semiotic Approach [M]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Barcelona, A.2000. Introduction:The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-28.
Barcelona, A.2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.207-278.
Barcelona, A.2003a. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics:An analysis and a few modest proposals [A]. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven,& K.-U. Panther (eds.). Motivation in Language:Studies in Honor of Gunter Radden [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.223-255.
Barcelona, A.2003b. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing:evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.80-102.
Barcelona, A.2004. Metonymy behind grammar:the motivation of the seemingly "irregular" grammatical behavior of English paragon names [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.357-374.
Barcelona, A.2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. Pena (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.313-352.
Barcelona, A.2007. The multilevel role of metonymy in grammar and discourse:A case study [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang. 103-131.
Barcelona, A.2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form:The roles of metonymy and inference [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.363-400.
Basilio, M.2009. The role of metonymy in word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.99-109.
Blank, A.1999. Co-presence and succession:A cognitive typology of metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.169-191.
Boas, H.2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives [M]. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Brdar, M.2007a. Metonymy in Grammar:Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions [M]. Osijek:Faculty of Philosophy.
Brdar, M.2007b. Where have all the metonymies gone? [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.69-86.
Brdar, M.2009. Motonymies we live without [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.259-274.
Brdar, M.& R. Brdar-Szabo.2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.241-266.
Brdar, M.& R. Brdar-Szabo.2007. When Zildane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 126-142.
Brdar, M.& R. Brdar-Szabo.2009. The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Crotian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.229-257.
Brdar-Szabo, R & M. Brdar.2003a. The MANNER FOR ACTIVITY metonymy across domains and languages [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1):43-69.
Brdar-Szabo, R.& M. Brdar.2003b. Referential metonymy across languages:What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? [J]. International Journal of English Studies 3(2):85-105.
Brdar-Szabo, R & M. Brdar.2004. Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy:The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.321-355.
Brdar-Szabo, R.2007. The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals as indirect directives [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.175-197.
Brdar-Szabo, R.2009. Metonymy in indirect directives:Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.323-336.
Broccias, C.2006. Cognitive approach to grammar [A]. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza. Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.81-116.
Brugman, C.& G. Lakoff.1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks [A]. In D. Geeraerts (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.109-113.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution and the Grammar:Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Collins, A. M & E. F. Loftus.1975. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing [J]. Psychological Review 82:407-428.
Comrie, B.1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4):335-37.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.161-205.
Croft, W.2006. On explaining metonymy:Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, "Metonymy as a prototypical category" [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):269-316.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.2002. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language [Z]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research/Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Diez, V. O. I.2002. Body part metonymies in action and perception frames:A cognitive analysis [J]. EPOS 18:309-323.
Dirven, R.1993. Metonymy and metaphor:different mental strategies of conceptualization [J]. Leuvense Bijdragen 82:1-28.
Dirven, R.1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.275-289.
Dirven, R.2002. Metonymy and metaphor:Different mental strategies of conceptualization [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R.& R. Porings (eds.).2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dowty, D.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection [J]. Language 67:547-619.
Fass, D.1997. Processing Metonymy and Metaphor [M]. London:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Fauconnier, G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Feyaerts, K.2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis:Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter. 59-78.
Fillmore, C. J.1968. The case for case [A]. In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.).Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.1-88.
Fillmore, C. J.1971. Types of lexical information [A]. In D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (eds.). Semantics:An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.370-392.
Frisson, E.& B. McIlee.2008. Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: evidence from eye movements [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology 34(1):1-11.
Geeraerts, D.2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.435-465.
Geeraerts, D.2005. Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza., S. Pena & M. Sandra (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.163-190.
Geeraerts, D.2006. Methodology in cognitive linguistics [A]. In G. Kristiansen et al. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.21-50.
Gibbs, R. W.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W.2007. Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods [A]. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, M.J. Spivey (eds.). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.2-18.
Goldberg, A. E.1995. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E.& R. Jackendoff.2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions [J]. Language 80:532-568.
Goossens, L.1990. Metaphtonymy:the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1:323-340.
Goossens, L.1999. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.193-210.
Grimshaw, J.1990. Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1996. Things and relations:Regrammatizing experience as technical knowledge [A]. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel. Reading Science:Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science [C]. London:Edward Arnold.
Haser, V.2005. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientialist Philosophy:Challenging Cognitive Semantics [M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Hendrikse, A. P.1989. Syntactic structures as pragmatic options [J]. Studies in Language 13:333-379.
Hilpert, M.2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar:A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.77-98.
Hilpert, M.2006. Keeping an eye on the data:Metonymies and their patterns [A].In A. Stefanwitch & G. Stefan. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.123-151.
Hobbs, J. et al.1993. Interpretation as abduction [J]. Artificial Intelligence 63:95-103.
Hoekstra, T.1988. Small clause results [J]. Lingua 74:101-139.
Holme, R.2003. Grammatical metaphor as a cognitive construct [A]. In A. Maria & S. Vandenbergen (eds.).Grammatical Metaphor [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.391-415.
Hyman, L. M.1984. Form and substance in language universals [A]. In B. Butterworth (eds.). Explanations for Language Universals [C]. Berlin:Mouton.67-85.
Imamoviu, A.2006. Limitations on metonymic uses of-ion nominalizations [J]. Jezikoslovlj 7(1-2):45-65.
Jackendoff, R.1990. Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty [M]. Cambridge MA:MIT Press.
Jakel, O.1999. Metonymy in onomastics [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.211-229.
Jakobson, R.1956/1990. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances [A]. In L. R. Waugh & M. B. Monville (eds.). On Language:Roman Jakobson [C]. Cambridge & Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.115-133.
Jakobson, R.1960/1990. Parts and Wholes in Language [A]. In L. R. Waugh & M. B. Monville (eds.). On Language:Roman Jakobson [C]. Cambridge & Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.110-114.
Jakobson, R.& M. Halle.1971. Fundamentals of Language [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, T. R.& F. J. Krems.2001. Use of current explanations in multicausal abductive reasoning [J]. Cognitive Science 25:903-939.
Koch, P.1999. Frame and contiguity:on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.139-168.
Kovecses, Z.& G. Radden.1998. Metonymy:Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1):37-77.
Kovecses, Z.2002. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& M. Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.202-251.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York:Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol Ⅱ:Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:1-38.
Langacker, R. W.1995. Raising and transparency [J]. Language 71 (1):1-62.
Langacker, R. W.1999. Grammar and conceptualization [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2004. Metonymy in grammar [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages 4:2-24.
Langacker, R. W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.45-71.
Levin, B.& M. Rappaport.1995. Unaccusativity:At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Markert, K.& M. Nissim.2006. Metonymic proper names:A corpus-based account [A]. In A. Stefanwitch & G. Stefan. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.152-174.
Michaelis, L.2003. Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction [A]. E. Francis & L. Michaelis. Mismatch:Form-function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar[C]. Stanford, CA:CSLI.259-310.
Nerlich, B.& D. Clark.2001. Serial metonymy:A study of reference-based polysemisation [J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2:245-272.
Nunberg, G.2004. The pragmatic of deferred interpretation [A]. In L. Horn & G. Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Otal, C. J. L., J. L. Otal, I. N. Ferando.& B. B. Fortuno 2005. Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Publications de la University Jaume I.
Palmer, G., R. Rader & A. Clarito.2009. The metonymic basis of a'semantic partial' Tagalog lexical constructions with ka-[A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.111-144.
Pankurst, A.1999. Recontextualization of metonymy in narrative and the case of Morrison's Song of Solomon [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.385-399.
Panther, K.-U.2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics-Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.353-386.
Panther, K.-U.2006. Metonymy as a usage event [A]. In M. Achard, R. Dirven & I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.147-185.
Panther, K.-U.2008. Conceptual and pragmatic motivation as an explanatory concept in linguistics [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5:2-19.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30:755-769.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.1999a. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.333-357.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.1999b. Coercion and metonymy:The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning [A]. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.). Cognitive Perspectives on Language [C]. Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.37-51.
Panther, K.-U.& L.Thornburg.2000. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.215-232.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English-er nominals [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.279-319.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2003a. Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1):71-101.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2003b. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas:The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts [A].In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.127-148.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2003c. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2006. Metonymy and the way we speak [A]. In Reka Benczes & Szilvia Csabi (eds.). The Metaphors of Sixty:Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltdn Kovecses [C]. Budapest:Eotvos Lorand University, Department of American Studies.183-195.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2007. Metonymy [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 236-263.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2009. Introduction:On figuration in grammar [A]. In K.-U.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1-44.
Panther, K.-U., L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona.2009. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Paradis, C.2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones [J]. Metaphor and Symbol 19(4):245-264.
Paradis, C.2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics [J]. Axiomathes 15: 541-573.
Peirsman, Y.& D. Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):330.
Perez, L.2007. High-level metonymies in the understanding of modality [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.133-146.
Poli, R.2002. Ontological methodology [J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 56:639-664.
Putsejovsky. J.1991. The syntax of event structure [J]. Cognition 41:47-81.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Radden, G.2005. The ubiquity of metonymy [A]. In Otal, C. J. L. et al. Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Publications de la Universitat Jaume I.17-28.
Radden, G.2009. Generic reference in English:A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.199-228.
Radden, G.& Z. Kovecses.1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.17-59.
Radden, G & K. Seto.2003. Metonymic construal of shopping requests in HAVE and BE languages [A]. In K. U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.223-239.
Radden, G.& K.-U. Panther.2004. Introduction:Reflections on motivation [A]. In G. Radden & K. Panther. Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.1-46.
Radden, G.& R. Dirven.2007. Cognitive English Grammar [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Radden, G., K. Kopcke.& T. Berg.2007. The Construction of meaning in language [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1-15.
Rappaport, M.& B. Levin.2001. An event structure account of English resultatives [J]. Language 77:766-797.
Recanati, F.1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation [J]. Cognitive Science 19: 207-232.
Reddy, M.1979. The conduit metaphor:A case of frame conflict in our language about language [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.164-201.
Ruiz de Mendoza,I. F. J.2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.109-132.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.2007. High level cognitive models:In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.11-30.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& O. I. Diez.2001. High-level metonymy and linguistic structure [OL]. Unpublished draft.http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/metonymy.htm.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& O. I. Diez.2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.489-532.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& O. Diez.2004. Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.293-320.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& M. Pena.2008. Grammatical metonymy within the action frame in English and Spanish [A]. In Maria De Los Angeles Gomez Gonzalez (eds.). Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics:Functional and Cognitive Perspectives [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.251-280.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& L. Perez.2001. Metonymy and the grammar:motivation, constraints and interaction [J]. Language and Communication 21(4):321-357.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& J. L. Otal.2002. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication [M]. Granda:Comares.Coleccion Estuduis de Lengua Inglesa.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& R. M. Uson.2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.33-49.
Saussure, F. de.1966. Course in General Linguistics [M]. New York, Toronto, London.
Schmid, H.1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns [A]. In K. V. Hoek & A. A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.111-132.
Simpson, J.1983. Resultatives [A]. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical-functional Grammar [C]. Bloomington:Indiana University Club.
Song, J. J.2008. Linguistic Typology:Morphology and Syntax [M]. Beijing:Beijing University Press.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1986. Relevance:Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwekk.
Steen, G. J.2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage:A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A.& S. Gries.2006. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A.2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy [A]. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-16.
Stubbs, M.1996. Text and Corpus Analysis [M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Sullivan, K. S.2007. Grammar in Metaphor:A Construction Grammar Account of Metaphoric Language [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley:The University of California.
Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatic:Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Szawerna, M.2007. Deverbal nominalization as a type of metonymic extension from processes to things [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland: Peter Lang.133-146.
Talmy, L.1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition [J]. Cognitive Science 12(1).
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. Ⅰ:Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge and London:MIT Press.
Talmy, L 2007. Foreword [A]. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, M. J. Spivey (eds.). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taverniers, M.2006. Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor:Different perspectives on semantic variation [J]. Neophilologus 90:321-332.
Taylor, J.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J.2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Traugott, E. C.& R. B. Dasher.2005. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C.& E. Konig.1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited [A]. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol.1) [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.189-218.
Ungerer, F.2000. Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.321-340.
Vendler, Z.1967. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Waltereit, R.1999. Grammatical constraints on metonymy:On the role of the direct object [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.233-254.
Warren, B.2004. Anaphoric pronouns of metonymic expressions [J]. Metaphorik de 7.
Ziegeler, D & S. Lee.2009. A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.291-322.
Ziegeler, D.2007. A word of caution on coercion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 39:990-1028.
陈昌来,1998,汉语语义结构中工具成分的性质[J]。世界汉语教学(2)：22-26。
陈昌来,2001,工具主语和工具宾语异议[J]。世界汉语教学(1)：65-73。
陈敏哲、易经,2007,英语动词现在时语法意义的多义关系认知研究[J]。外语与外语教学(8)：17-22。
陈平,1994,试论汉语中三种句子成分与语义成分的配位原则[J]。中国语文(3)：161-168。
陈贤纯,1991,也谈“差一点儿”[J]。世界汉语教学(3)：173-174。
陈香兰、周流溪,2007,异形回指和联想回指理解的转喻动机[J]。外语与外语教学(2)： 1-4。
程琪龙,2010,转喻种种[J]。外语教学(3)：1-12。
储泽祥,2004,处所角色宾语的判定及其典型性问题[J]。语言教学与研究(6)：43-48。
董成如、杨才元,2009,构式对词项压制的探索[J]。外语学刊(5),42-46。
范文芳、王倩、许颖,2002,试论语言符号的理据性[J]。清华大学学报(3)：87-90。
范晓、张豫峰等,2003,语法理论纲要[M]。上海：上海译文出版社。
冯胜利,2000,“写毛笔”与韵律促发的动词并入[J]。语言教学与研究(1)：25-31。
冯志伟,1999,现代语言学流派[M]。西安：陕西人民出版社。
高波,2009,语法隐喻的认知识解[J]。北京第二外国语学院学报(12)：8-13。
高航,2008,认知语法与汉语转类问题[M]。上海：上海交通大学出版社。
高原,2010,唐诗中隐喻和转喻互动的翻译[J]。天津外国语学院学报(5)：29-34。
高云莉、方琰,2001,浅谈汉语宾语的语义类别问题[J]。语言教学与研究(6)：62-65。
郭继懋,1998,谈动宾语义关系分类的性质问题[J]。南开学报(6)：73-80。
郭锐,1995,述结式述补结构的配价结构和成分整合[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价语法研究[C]。北京：北京大学出版社。
郭锐,2002,现代汉语词类研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
郭姝慧,2004,现代汉语致使句式研究[D]。北京大学博士学位论文。
韩蕾,201 0,选择·缩略·转喻——谈网络词语“人肉搜索”[J]。当代修辞学(3)：71-79。
韩孝平,1992,人称与句子功能的关系刍议[J]。世界汉语教学(1)：33-39。
何伟,2008,语法隐喻：形式变体和意义变体[J]。解放军外国语学院(3)：1-6。
何自然等,2006,认知语用学——言语交际的认知研究[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1994,语篇的衔接与连贯[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2000,评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式[J]。外语教学与研究(2)：88-94。
黄洁,2009a,基于参照点理论的汉语隐喻和转喻名名复合词认知研究[D]。上海外国语大学博士论文。
黄洁,2009b,副名结构转喻操作的语义压制动因[J]。解放军外国语学院(1)：9-13。
江莉,2009,基于转喻认知机制的文学隐含意翻译研究[J]。西安外国语大学学报(3)：55-57。
江晓红,2010,转喻词语识别的语境制约[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：411-417。
蒋平,1984,形容词谓语祈使句[J]。中国语文通讯(5)：1-7。
蒋遐,2010,整指全称数量结构与语法转喻[J]。郑州航空工业管理学院学报(2)：81-82。
蒋严,2002,论语用推理的逻辑属性——形式语用学初探[J]。外国语(2)：18-29。
李恒威、王小潞、唐孝威,2008,表征、感受性和言语思维[J]。浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)(5)：26-33。
李临定,1980,动补格句式[J]。中国语文(2)。
李临定,1983,宾语使用情况考察[J]。语文研究(2)：31-38。
李泉,2005,单音形容词原型性研究[D]。北京语言大学博士论文。
李晓琪、章欣,2010,新形势下对外汉语语法教学研究[J]。汉语学习(2)：77-87。
李勇忠,2005,祈使句语法构式的转喻阐释[J]。外语教学(2)：1-5。
梁银峰,2006,汉语动补结构的产生与演变[M]。上海：学林出版社。
林正军,2005,一词多义现象的历史和认知解析[J]。外语教学与研究(5)：362-367。
刘辰诞,2008,结构和边界一句法表达式认知机制探索[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘宇红、谢亚军,2007,从构式语法看汉语成语的仿用[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(6),10-13。
刘云,2006,现代汉语中的对举现象及其作用[J]。汉语学报(4),75-85。
刘振平,2007,单音形容词作状语和补语的对比研究[D]。北京语言大学博士论文。
刘正光,2006,语言的非范畴化一语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘正光,2008,转喻与宾语转换[A]。载束定芳主编,语言研究的语用和认知视角[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社：198-212。
刘正光、王燕娃,2009,“不+名词”的句法语义接口研究[J]。外国语(4)：26-33。
卢卫中,2008,汉语构词的转喻阐释[A]。载束定芳主编,语言研究的语用和认知视角[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社,213-221。
卢卫中、刘玉华,2009,小说叙事的转喻机制[J]。外语教学与研究(1)：11-17。
陆俭明,1998,语言‘的认知研究和计算分析·序[A]。载袁毓林编,语言的认知研究和计算分析[C]。北京：北京大学出版社。
陆俭明、沈阳,2003,汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
陆俭明,2004,词语句法、语义的多功能性：对“构式语法”理论的解释[J]。外国语(2)：15-20。
陆俭明,2009a,隐喻、转喻散议[J]。外国语(1),44-50。
陆剑明,2009b,当代语言学理论与汉语教学[J]。世界汉语教学(3)：391-398。
吕叔湘,1980,现代汉语八百词[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
罗思明,2009,英汉动结式的认知功能分析[D]。上海外国语大学博十论文。
罗思明,2010,界化与单一界化限制[J]。外语教学(4)：20-23。
马庆株,1992,与“(一)点儿”、“差(一)点儿”相关的句法语义问题[A]。载中国语文杂志社编,语法研究与探索(六)[C]。北京：语文出版社。
马庆株,2005,汉语动词和动词性结构·一编[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
马庆株,2007,理据性：汉语语法的特点[J]。吉林大学社会科学学报(2)：126-132。
马真、陆俭明,1997,形容词作结果补语情况考察(二)[J]。汉语学习(4)：14-18。
马玉蕾,陶明忠,2007,语法隐喻·构式·类比·映射[J]。外语教学(1)：40-44
孟琮等,1987,汉语动词用法词典[Z]。北京：商务印书馆。
彭玉海,2009,动词语义变化的多向位解释[J]。中国俄语教学(2)：11-16。
任鹰,2000,“吃食堂”与语法转喻[J]。中国社会科学院研究生学报(3)：59-67。
任鹰,2005,现代汉语非受事宾语句研究[M]。北京：社会科学文献出版社。
任鹰,2007,动词词义在结构中的游移与实现[J]。中国语文(5)：419-430。
邵敬敏、马婧,2009,新兴组合“X一下”的泛化趋势及其修辞价值[J]。修辞学习(2)：81-87。
邵菁、金立鑫,2011,补语和Complement [J]。外语教学与研究(1)：48-57。
沈家煊,1994,“语法化”研究综观[J]。外语教学与研究(4)：17-24。
沈家煊,1998,语用法的语法化[J]。福建外语(2)：1-13。
沈家煊,1999,转指与转喻[J]。当代语言学(1),3-15。
沈家煊,2000,句式和配价[J]。中国语文(4)：291-297。
沈家煊,2003,复句三域“行、知、言”[J]。中国语文(3)：195-204。
沈家煊,2004a,语法研究的目标—预测还是解释[J]。中国语文(6)：483-492。
沈家煊,2004b,动结式“追累”的语法和语义[J]。语言科学(6)：3-15。
沈家煊,2006a,认知与汉语语法研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
沈家煊,2006b,“糅合”和“截搭”[J]。世界汉语教学(4)：5-12。
沈家煊,2006c,“语法隐喻”和“隐喻语法”[A]。载中国语文杂志社编,语法研究和探索[C]。北京：商务印书馆。1-14。
沈家煊,2008,认知语言学理论与隐喻语法和转喻语法研究[A]。载沈阳、冯胜利主编,当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C]。北京：商务印书馆。305-320。
施春宏,2001,名词的描述性语义特征与副名组合的可能性[J]。中国语文(3)：212-224。
施春宏,2003,动结式的论元结构和配位方式研究[D]。北京大学博士学位论文。
施春宏,2005,动结式论元结构的整合过程及相关问题[J]。世界汉语教学(1)：5-21。
施春宏,2007,动结式致事的类型、语义性质及其句法表现[J]。世界汉语教学(2)：21-39。
施春宏,2008,汉语动结式的句法语义研究[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
石毓智,2001,肯定与否定的对称与不对称[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
石毓智,2003a,现代汉语语法系统的建立[M]。北京：北京语言大学出版社。
石毓智,2003b,形容词的数量特征及其对句法行为的影响[J].世界汉语教学(2)：13-26。
石毓智,2007a,语法的概念基础[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
石毓智,2007b,论语言表达的创新机制[J]。外语研究(3)：28-34。
石毓智,2008,语法规律的理据[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：409-417。
石毓智、白解红,2006,汉英形容词概念化的差别及其句法后果[J]。四川外语学院学报(6)：82。
束定芳,2008,认知语义学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
宋文辉,2004a,动结式在几个句式中的分布[J]。语文研究(3)：13-19。
宋文辉,2004b,再论现代汉语动结式的句法核心[J]。现代外语(2)：163-172。
宋文辉,2007,现代汉语动结式的认知分析[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
谭景春,1995,材料宾语和工具宾语[J]。汉语学习(6)：28-30。
谭业升,2010,转喻的图式-例示与反义的认知路径[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：465-471。
唐依力、齐泸扬,2010,非常规关系下的动词带处所宾语现象考察[J]。汉语学习(5),20-27。
陶红印,2000,从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征[J]。语言研究(3)：21-38。
王艾录、司富珍,2002,语言理据研究[M]。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
王纯清,2000,汉语动宾结构的理解因素[J]。世界汉语教学(3)：34-43。
王冬梅,2001,现代汉语动名互转的认知研究[D]。中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文。
王红旗,1995,动结式述补结构配价研究[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价研究[C]。北京：北京大学出版社。
王继同,1988,说“一点点”[J]。汉语学习(6)：20-22。
王玲玲、何元建,2002,汉语动结式[C]。杭州：浙江教育出版社。
王霜梅,2005,汉语定中短语转喻探微[J]。北方论丛(5)：64-67。
工天星,2005,借代论析[M]。北京：中国文联出版社。
王文斌,2007,隐喻的认知构建与解读机制[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2009,动结构式的体验性事件结构分析[J]。外语教学与研究(5)：345-350。
王占华,2000,“吃食堂”的认知考察[J]。语言教学与研究(2)：58-64。
魏红,2009,汉语常用动词带宾情况的静态动态对比研究[J]。云南师范大学学报(2)：53-59。
魏在江,2007,语篇转喻纵观[J]。外语学刊(3)：32-37。
文旭,2000,论语言符号的距离拟象性[J]。外语学刊(2)：71-74。
文旭、叶狂,2006,转喻的类型及其认知理据[J]。解放军外国语学院(6)：1-7。
吴福祥,2000,关于动补结构“V死O”的来源[J]。古汉语研究(3)：44-48。
吴淑琼、文旭,2010,逻辑转喻的动态意义建构模式[J]。外语与外语教学(3)：7-11。
吴颖、杨逸鸥,2007,形容词后续成分“一点儿”的制约作用及认知基础[J]。云南师范大学学报(2)：20-25。
伍敬芳,2009,汉语拟声词的动词化与转喻[J]。修辞学习(2)：52-58。
夏鹭,2007,论汉语中形容词类祈使句—从转喻角度看其语义生成过程[J]。广西教育学院学报(4)：123-125。
萧国政,1998,状位“形容词+‘一点’”的入位条件和语义取值[J]。中国语文(1)：13-17。
萧国政,1999,“形容词+‘点’”的信息功能与语义取值[J]。世界汉语教学(4)：39-46。
谢晓明,2004a,代体宾语的理解因素[J]。汉语学报(1)：85-92。
谢晓明,2004b,宾语代入现象的认知解释[J]。湖南大学学报(社科版)(3)：71-73。
谢晓明,2008,语义相关动词带宾语的多角度考察—“吃”、“喝”带宾语个案研究[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
谢晓明、乔东蕊,2009,工具宾语的鉴定模式及其典型性[J]。汉语学习(2)：12-16。
邢福义,1991,汉语里宾语代入现象之观察[J]。世界汉语教学(2)。
邢福义,1997,汉语语法结构的兼容性和趋简性[J]。世界汉语教学(1)。
熊学亮、梁晓波,2004,论典型致使结构的英汉表达异同[J]。外语教学与研究(2)：90-96。
熊学亮,2009,论“吃”在“吃+NP”结构中的功能承载量和分辨度[J]。外语研究(5)：7-12。
熊仲儒,2003,现代汉语中的致使句式[D]。北京语言大学博士学位论文。
熊仲儒,2004,动结式的致事选择[J]。安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)(4)：471-476。
熊仲儒、刘丽萍,2006,动结式的论元实现[J]。现代外语(2)：120-130。
徐靖,2008,“移动样态动词+处所宾语”的认知模式[J]。语言教学与研究(2)：82-88。
徐乐,2006,汉语中一类特殊祈使句的转喻和隐喻动因[J]。四川理工学院学报(2)：108-111。
徐默凡,2004,现代汉语工具范畴的认知研究[M]。上海：复旦大学出版社。
徐盛桓,2005,句法研究的认知语言学视野[J]。外语与外语教学(4)：1-7。
徐盛桓,2006,“成都小吃团”的认知解读[J]。外国语(2)：18-24。
徐盛桓,2010a,心智哲学与认知语言学创新[J]。北京科技大学学报(1)：84-88。
徐盛桓,2010b,心智哲学与语言研究[J]。外国语文(5),30-35。
许艾明,2006,中动构式的转喻阐释[J]。外语与外语教学(9)：14-17。
许国璋,1988,语言符号的任意性问题[J]。外语教学与研究(3)：2-10。
薛玉萍,2001,汉语祈使句和形容词的类[J]。语言与翻译(4)：30-32。
严辰松,2007,“给予”双及物结构中的转喻[J]。外语学刊(2)：41-45。
杨成虎,2010,语法转喻的认知研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
杨从洁,1988,不定量词“点”以及“一点”“有点”的用法[J]。语言教学与研究(3)：59-72。
杨峥琳,2006,现代汉语述结式的不对称研究[D]。北京语言大学博士论文。
袁毓林,1993,现代汉语祈使句研究[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
袁毓林,2001,述结式配价的控制—还原分析[J]。中国语文(5)：399-410。
袁毓林,2007,语义角色的精细等级及其在信息处理中的应用[J]。中文信息学报(4)：10-20。
詹卫东,2004,论元结构与句式变换[J]。中国语文(3)：209-221。
张宝胜,2000,也谈状位“形容词+点”的入位条件和语义取值[J]。中国语文(2)：182-187。
张伯江,1999,现代汉语的双及物结构式[J]。中国语文(3)：175-184。
张国宪,2006,现代汉语形容词的功能与认知研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
张辉、承华,2002,试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J]。外语研究(6)：15-32。
张辉、卢卫中,2010,认知转喻[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张平,2004,“A点儿+V”与“V+A点儿”[D]。湖南师范大学博士论文。
张韧,2007,转喻的构式化表征[J]。外国语(2)：21-27。
张绍杰、张延飞,2007,语言符号任意性和象似性：相互排斥还是相互依存?[J]。外语与外语教学(7)：62-64。
张谊生,2008,从“非常X”的陌生化搭配看汉语修辞学的现代取向[J]。修辞学习(2)： 31-40。
张云秋,2004,现代汉语受事宾语句研究[M]。·上海：学林出版社。
张媛,2010,英语人体器官名词动用的语法转喻阐释[J]。山东外语教学(3)：107-112。
章婷,2006,句义结构中的非强制性语义角色[J]。语文学刊(11)：120-123。
赵长才,2000,汉语述补结构的历史研究[D]。中国社会科学院研究生院语言系博士学位论文。
赵琪,2009,英汉动结构式的论元实现[D]。复旦大学博士论文。
赵微,2010,指令行为与汉语祈使句研究[M]。上海：上海社会科学院出版社。
赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
周福娟,2009,指称转喻：词汇语义的认知途径[D]。苏州大学博士论文。
朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱景松,1992,与工具成分有关的几种句法格式—兼谈加工制作义动词“价”的分析[J]。安徽大学学报(3)：346-356。
朱景松,2002,形容词能动意义的确定和提取[J]。语言教学与研究(3)：22-29。
朱彦,2010,基于意象图式的动词“穿”的多义体系及意义连接机制[J]。语言科学(3)：287-300。
Barcelona, A.2000. Introduction:The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-28.
Barcelona, A.2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics:An update [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.207-278.
Barcelona, A.2003a. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics:An analysis and a few modest proposals [A]. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven,& K.-U. Panther (eds.). Motivation in Language:Studies in Honor of Gunter Radden [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.223-255.
Barcelona, A.2003b. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing:evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.80-102.
Barcelona, A.2004. Metonymy behind grammar:the motivation of the seemingly "irregular" grammatical behavior of English paragon names [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.357-374.
Barcelona, A.2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. Pena (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.313-352.
Barcelona, A.2007. The multilevel role of metonymy in grammar and discourse:A case study [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang. 103-131.
Barcelona, A.2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form:The roles of metonymy and inference [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.363-400.
Basilio, M.2009. The role of metonymy in word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.99-109.
Blank, A.1999. Co-presence and succession:A cognitive typology of metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.169-191.
Boas, H.2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives [M]. Stanford:CSLI Publications.
Brdar, M.2007a. Metonymy in Grammar:Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions [M]. Osijek:Faculty of Philosophy.
Brdar, M.2007b. Where have all the metonymies gone? [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.69-86.
Brdar, M.2009. Motonymies we live without [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.259-274.
Brdar, M.& R. Brdar-Szabo.2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.241-266.
Brdar, M.& R. Brdar-Szabo.2007. When Zildane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 126-142.
Brdar, M.& R. Brdar-Szabo.2009. The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Crotian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.229-257.
Brdar-Szabo, R & M. Brdar.2003a. The MANNER FOR ACTIVITY metonymy across domains and languages [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1):43-69.
Brdar-Szabo, R.& M. Brdar.2003b. Referential metonymy across languages:What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? [J]. International Journal of English Studies 3(2):85-105.
Brdar-Szabo, R & M. Brdar.2004. Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy:The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.321-355.
Brdar-Szabo, R.2007. The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals as indirect directives [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.175-197.
Brdar-Szabo, R.2009. Metonymy in indirect directives:Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.323-336.
Broccias, C.2006. Cognitive approach to grammar [A]. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza. Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.81-116.
Brugman, C.& G. Lakoff.1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks [A]. In D. Geeraerts (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.109-113.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution and the Grammar:Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Collins, A. M & E. F. Loftus.1975. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing [J]. Psychological Review 82:407-428.
Comrie, B.1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W.1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4):335-37.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar:Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective [M]. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.
Croft, W.2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.161-205.
Croft, W.2006. On explaining metonymy:Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, "Metonymy as a prototypical category" [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):269-316.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.2002. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language [Z]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research/Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Diez, V. O. I.2002. Body part metonymies in action and perception frames:A cognitive analysis [J]. EPOS 18:309-323.
Dirven, R.1993. Metonymy and metaphor:different mental strategies of conceptualization [J]. Leuvense Bijdragen 82:1-28.
Dirven, R.1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.275-289.
Dirven, R.2002. Metonymy and metaphor:Different mental strategies of conceptualization [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R.& R. Porings (eds.).2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dowty, D.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection [J]. Language 67:547-619.
Fass, D.1997. Processing Metonymy and Metaphor [M]. London:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Fauconnier, G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Feyaerts, K.2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis:Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter. 59-78.
Fillmore, C. J.1968. The case for case [A]. In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.).Universals in Linguistic Theory [C]. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.1-88.
Fillmore, C. J.1971. Types of lexical information [A]. In D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (eds.). Semantics:An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.370-392.
Frisson, E.& B. McIlee.2008. Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: evidence from eye movements [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology 34(1):1-11.
Geeraerts, D.2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.435-465.
Geeraerts, D.2005. Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza., S. Pena & M. Sandra (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.163-190.
Geeraerts, D.2006. Methodology in cognitive linguistics [A]. In G. Kristiansen et al. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.21-50.
Gibbs, R. W.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W.2007. Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods [A]. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, M.J. Spivey (eds.). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.2-18.
Goldberg, A. E.1995. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E.& R. Jackendoff.2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions [J]. Language 80:532-568.
Goossens, L.1990. Metaphtonymy:the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 1:323-340.
Goossens, L.1999. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.193-210.
Grimshaw, J.1990. Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1996. Things and relations:Regrammatizing experience as technical knowledge [A]. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel. Reading Science:Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science [C]. London:Edward Arnold.
Haser, V.2005. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientialist Philosophy:Challenging Cognitive Semantics [M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hunnemeyer.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Hendrikse, A. P.1989. Syntactic structures as pragmatic options [J]. Studies in Language 13:333-379.
Hilpert, M.2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar:A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.77-98.
Hilpert, M.2006. Keeping an eye on the data:Metonymies and their patterns [A].In A. Stefanwitch & G. Stefan. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.123-151.
Hobbs, J. et al.1993. Interpretation as abduction [J]. Artificial Intelligence 63:95-103.
Hoekstra, T.1988. Small clause results [J]. Lingua 74:101-139.
Holme, R.2003. Grammatical metaphor as a cognitive construct [A]. In A. Maria & S. Vandenbergen (eds.).Grammatical Metaphor [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.391-415.
Hyman, L. M.1984. Form and substance in language universals [A]. In B. Butterworth (eds.). Explanations for Language Universals [C]. Berlin:Mouton.67-85.
Imamoviu, A.2006. Limitations on metonymic uses of-ion nominalizations [J]. Jezikoslovlj 7(1-2):45-65.
Jackendoff, R.1990. Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty [M]. Cambridge MA:MIT Press.
Jakel, O.1999. Metonymy in onomastics [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.211-229.
Jakobson, R.1956/1990. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances [A]. In L. R. Waugh & M. B. Monville (eds.). On Language:Roman Jakobson [C]. Cambridge & Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.115-133.
Jakobson, R.1960/1990. Parts and Wholes in Language [A]. In L. R. Waugh & M. B. Monville (eds.). On Language:Roman Jakobson [C]. Cambridge & Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.110-114.
Jakobson, R.& M. Halle.1971. Fundamentals of Language [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, T. R.& F. J. Krems.2001. Use of current explanations in multicausal abductive reasoning [J]. Cognitive Science 25:903-939.
Koch, P.1999. Frame and contiguity:on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.139-168.
Kovecses, Z.& G. Radden.1998. Metonymy:Developing a cognitive linguistic view [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1):37-77.
Kovecses, Z.2002. Metaphor:A Practical Introduction [M]. New York:Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& M. Turner.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.202-251.
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York:Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol Ⅱ:Descriptive Application [M]. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 4:1-38.
Langacker, R. W.1995. Raising and transparency [J]. Language 71 (1):1-62.
Langacker, R. W.1999. Grammar and conceptualization [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.2004. Metonymy in grammar [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages 4:2-24.
Langacker, R. W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.2009. Metonymic grammar [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.45-71.
Levin, B.& M. Rappaport.1995. Unaccusativity:At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Markert, K.& M. Nissim.2006. Metonymic proper names:A corpus-based account [A]. In A. Stefanwitch & G. Stefan. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.152-174.
Michaelis, L.2003. Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction [A]. E. Francis & L. Michaelis. Mismatch:Form-function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar[C]. Stanford, CA:CSLI.259-310.
Nerlich, B.& D. Clark.2001. Serial metonymy:A study of reference-based polysemisation [J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2:245-272.
Nunberg, G.2004. The pragmatic of deferred interpretation [A]. In L. Horn & G. Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Otal, C. J. L., J. L. Otal, I. N. Ferando.& B. B. Fortuno 2005. Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Publications de la University Jaume I.
Palmer, G., R. Rader & A. Clarito.2009. The metonymic basis of a'semantic partial' Tagalog lexical constructions with ka-[A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.111-144.
Pankurst, A.1999. Recontextualization of metonymy in narrative and the case of Morrison's Song of Solomon [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.385-399.
Panther, K.-U.2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction [A]. In I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics-Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.353-386.
Panther, K.-U.2006. Metonymy as a usage event [A]. In M. Achard, R. Dirven & I. F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Current Applications and Future Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.147-185.
Panther, K.-U.2008. Conceptual and pragmatic motivation as an explanatory concept in linguistics [J]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5:2-19.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 30:755-769.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.1999a. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.333-357.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.1999b. Coercion and metonymy:The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning [A]. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.). Cognitive Perspectives on Language [C]. Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.37-51.
Panther, K.-U.& L.Thornburg.2000. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.215-232.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English-er nominals [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.279-319.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2003a. Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French [J]. Jezikoslovlje 4(1):71-101.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2003b. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas:The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts [A].In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.127-148.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2003c. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2006. Metonymy and the way we speak [A]. In Reka Benczes & Szilvia Csabi (eds.). The Metaphors of Sixty:Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltdn Kovecses [C]. Budapest:Eotvos Lorand University, Department of American Studies.183-195.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2007. Metonymy [A]. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 236-263.
Panther, K.-U.& L. Thornburg.2009. Introduction:On figuration in grammar [A]. In K.-U.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1-44.
Panther, K.-U., L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona.2009. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Paradis, C.2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones [J]. Metaphor and Symbol 19(4):245-264.
Paradis, C.2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics [J]. Axiomathes 15: 541-573.
Peirsman, Y.& D. Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3):330.
Perez, L.2007. High-level metonymies in the understanding of modality [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.133-146.
Poli, R.2002. Ontological methodology [J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 56:639-664.
Putsejovsky. J.1991. The syntax of event structure [J]. Cognition 41:47-81.
Pustejovsky, J.1995. The Generative Lexicon [M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Radden, G.2005. The ubiquity of metonymy [A]. In Otal, C. J. L. et al. Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Publications de la Universitat Jaume I.17-28.
Radden, G.2009. Generic reference in English:A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.199-228.
Radden, G.& Z. Kovecses.1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.17-59.
Radden, G & K. Seto.2003. Metonymic construal of shopping requests in HAVE and BE languages [A]. In K. U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.223-239.
Radden, G.& K.-U. Panther.2004. Introduction:Reflections on motivation [A]. In G. Radden & K. Panther. Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.1-46.
Radden, G.& R. Dirven.2007. Cognitive English Grammar [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Radden, G., K. Kopcke.& T. Berg.2007. The Construction of meaning in language [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1-15.
Rappaport, M.& B. Levin.2001. An event structure account of English resultatives [J]. Language 77:766-797.
Recanati, F.1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation [J]. Cognitive Science 19: 207-232.
Reddy, M.1979. The conduit metaphor:A case of frame conflict in our language about language [A]. In A. Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and thought [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.164-201.
Ruiz de Mendoza,I. F. J.2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.109-132.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.2007. High level cognitive models:In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland:Peter Lang.11-30.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& O. I. Diez.2001. High-level metonymy and linguistic structure [OL]. Unpublished draft.http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/metonymy.htm.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& O. I. Diez.2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction [A]. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.489-532.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& O. Diez.2004. Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference [A]. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.). Studies in Linguistic Motivation [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.293-320.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& M. Pena.2008. Grammatical metonymy within the action frame in English and Spanish [A]. In Maria De Los Angeles Gomez Gonzalez (eds.). Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics:Functional and Cognitive Perspectives [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.251-280.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& L. Perez.2001. Metonymy and the grammar:motivation, constraints and interaction [J]. Language and Communication 21(4):321-357.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& J. L. Otal.2002. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication [M]. Granda:Comares.Coleccion Estuduis de Lengua Inglesa.
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.& R. M. Uson.2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction [A]. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.33-49.
Saussure, F. de.1966. Course in General Linguistics [M]. New York, Toronto, London.
Schmid, H.1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns [A]. In K. V. Hoek & A. A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.111-132.
Simpson, J.1983. Resultatives [A]. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical-functional Grammar [C]. Bloomington:Indiana University Club.
Song, J. J.2008. Linguistic Typology:Morphology and Syntax [M]. Beijing:Beijing University Press.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson.1986. Relevance:Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwekk.
Steen, G. J.2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage:A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A.& S. Gries.2006. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A.2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy [A]. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-16.
Stubbs, M.1996. Text and Corpus Analysis [M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Sullivan, K. S.2007. Grammar in Metaphor:A Construction Grammar Account of Metaphoric Language [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley:The University of California.
Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatic:Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Szawerna, M.2007. Deverbal nominalization as a type of metonymic extension from processes to things [A]. In K. Kosecki (eds.). Perspectives on Metonymy [C]. Poland: Peter Lang.133-146.
Talmy, L.1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition [J]. Cognitive Science 12(1).
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. Ⅰ:Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge and London:MIT Press.
Talmy, L 2007. Foreword [A]. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, M. J. Spivey (eds.). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taverniers, M.2006. Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor:Different perspectives on semantic variation [J]. Neophilologus 90:321-332.
Taylor, J.1995. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J.2002. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Traugott, E. C.& R. B. Dasher.2005. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C.& E. Konig.1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited [A]. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol.1) [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.189-218.
Ungerer, F.2000. Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising [A]. In A. Barcelona (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive Perspective [C]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.321-340.
Vendler, Z.1967. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Waltereit, R.1999. Grammatical constraints on metonymy:On the role of the direct object [A]. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.233-254.
Warren, B.2004. Anaphoric pronouns of metonymic expressions [J]. Metaphorik de 7.
Ziegeler, D & S. Lee.2009. A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions [A]. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.291-322.
Ziegeler, D.2007. A word of caution on coercion [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 39:990-1028.
陈昌来,1998,汉语语义结构中工具成分的性质[J]。世界汉语教学(2)：22-26。
陈昌来,2001,工具主语和工具宾语异议[J]。世界汉语教学(1)：65-73。
陈敏哲、易经,2007,英语动词现在时语法意义的多义关系认知研究[J]。外语与外语教学(8)：17-22。
陈平,1994,试论汉语中三种句子成分与语义成分的配位原则[J]。中国语文(3)：161-168。
陈贤纯,1991,也谈“差一点儿”[J]。世界汉语教学(3)：173-174。
陈香兰、周流溪,2007,异形回指和联想回指理解的转喻动机[J]。外语与外语教学(2)： 1-4。
程琪龙,2010,转喻种种[J]。外语教学(3)：1-12。
储泽祥,2004,处所角色宾语的判定及其典型性问题[J]。语言教学与研究(6)：43-48。
董成如、杨才元,2009,构式对词项压制的探索[J]。外语学刊(5),42-46。
范文芳、王倩、许颖,2002,试论语言符号的理据性[J]。清华大学学报(3)：87-90。
范晓、张豫峰等,2003,语法理论纲要[M]。上海：上海译文出版社。
冯胜利,2000,“写毛笔”与韵律促发的动词并入[J]。语言教学与研究(1)：25-31。
冯志伟,1999,现代语言学流派[M]。西安：陕西人民出版社。
高波,2009,语法隐喻的认知识解[J]。北京第二外国语学院学报(12)：8-13。
高航,2008,认知语法与汉语转类问题[M]。上海：上海交通大学出版社。
高原,2010,唐诗中隐喻和转喻互动的翻译[J]。天津外国语学院学报(5)：29-34。
高云莉、方琰,2001,浅谈汉语宾语的语义类别问题[J]。语言教学与研究(6)：62-65。
郭继懋,1998,谈动宾语义关系分类的性质问题[J]。南开学报(6)：73-80。
郭锐,1995,述结式述补结构的配价结构和成分整合[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价语法研究[C]。北京：北京大学出版社。
郭锐,2002,现代汉语词类研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
郭姝慧,2004,现代汉语致使句式研究[D]。北京大学博士学位论文。
韩蕾,201 0,选择·缩略·转喻——谈网络词语“人肉搜索”[J]。当代修辞学(3)：71-79。
韩孝平,1992,人称与句子功能的关系刍议[J]。世界汉语教学(1)：33-39。
何伟,2008,语法隐喻：形式变体和意义变体[J]。解放军外国语学院(3)：1-6。
何自然等,2006,认知语用学——言语交际的认知研究[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1994,语篇的衔接与连贯[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2000,评语法隐喻的韩礼德模式[J]。外语教学与研究(2)：88-94。
黄洁,2009a,基于参照点理论的汉语隐喻和转喻名名复合词认知研究[D]。上海外国语大学博士论文。
黄洁,2009b,副名结构转喻操作的语义压制动因[J]。解放军外国语学院(1)：9-13。
江莉,2009,基于转喻认知机制的文学隐含意翻译研究[J]。西安外国语大学学报(3)：55-57。
江晓红,2010,转喻词语识别的语境制约[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：411-417。
蒋平,1984,形容词谓语祈使句[J]。中国语文通讯(5)：1-7。
蒋遐,2010,整指全称数量结构与语法转喻[J]。郑州航空工业管理学院学报(2)：81-82。
蒋严,2002,论语用推理的逻辑属性——形式语用学初探[J]。外国语(2)：18-29。
李恒威、王小潞、唐孝威,2008,表征、感受性和言语思维[J]。浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)(5)：26-33。
李临定,1980,动补格句式[J]。中国语文(2)。
李临定,1983,宾语使用情况考察[J]。语文研究(2)：31-38。
李泉,2005,单音形容词原型性研究[D]。北京语言大学博士论文。
李晓琪、章欣,2010,新形势下对外汉语语法教学研究[J]。汉语学习(2)：77-87。
李勇忠,2005,祈使句语法构式的转喻阐释[J]。外语教学(2)：1-5。
梁银峰,2006,汉语动补结构的产生与演变[M]。上海：学林出版社。
林正军,2005,一词多义现象的历史和认知解析[J]。外语教学与研究(5)：362-367。
刘辰诞,2008,结构和边界一句法表达式认知机制探索[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘宇红、谢亚军,2007,从构式语法看汉语成语的仿用[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(6),10-13。
刘云,2006,现代汉语中的对举现象及其作用[J]。汉语学报(4),75-85。
刘振平,2007,单音形容词作状语和补语的对比研究[D]。北京语言大学博士论文。
刘正光,2006,语言的非范畴化一语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
刘正光,2008,转喻与宾语转换[A]。载束定芳主编,语言研究的语用和认知视角[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社：198-212。
刘正光、王燕娃,2009,“不+名词”的句法语义接口研究[J]。外国语(4)：26-33。
卢卫中,2008,汉语构词的转喻阐释[A]。载束定芳主编,语言研究的语用和认知视角[C]。上海：上海外语教育出版社,213-221。
卢卫中、刘玉华,2009,小说叙事的转喻机制[J]。外语教学与研究(1)：11-17。
陆俭明,1998,语言‘的认知研究和计算分析·序[A]。载袁毓林编,语言的认知研究和计算分析[C]。北京：北京大学出版社。
陆俭明、沈阳,2003,汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
陆俭明,2004,词语句法、语义的多功能性：对“构式语法”理论的解释[J]。外国语(2)：15-20。
陆俭明,2009a,隐喻、转喻散议[J]。外国语(1),44-50。
陆剑明,2009b,当代语言学理论与汉语教学[J]。世界汉语教学(3)：391-398。
吕叔湘,1980,现代汉语八百词[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
罗思明,2009,英汉动结式的认知功能分析[D]。上海外国语大学博十论文。
罗思明,2010,界化与单一界化限制[J]。外语教学(4)：20-23。
马庆株,1992,与“(一)点儿”、“差(一)点儿”相关的句法语义问题[A]。载中国语文杂志社编,语法研究与探索(六)[C]。北京：语文出版社。
马庆株,2005,汉语动词和动词性结构·一编[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
马庆株,2007,理据性：汉语语法的特点[J]。吉林大学社会科学学报(2)：126-132。
马真、陆俭明,1997,形容词作结果补语情况考察(二)[J]。汉语学习(4)：14-18。
马玉蕾,陶明忠,2007,语法隐喻·构式·类比·映射[J]。外语教学(1)：40-44
孟琮等,1987,汉语动词用法词典[Z]。北京：商务印书馆。
彭玉海,2009,动词语义变化的多向位解释[J]。中国俄语教学(2)：11-16。
任鹰,2000,“吃食堂”与语法转喻[J]。中国社会科学院研究生学报(3)：59-67。
任鹰,2005,现代汉语非受事宾语句研究[M]。北京：社会科学文献出版社。
任鹰,2007,动词词义在结构中的游移与实现[J]。中国语文(5)：419-430。
邵敬敏、马婧,2009,新兴组合“X一下”的泛化趋势及其修辞价值[J]。修辞学习(2)：81-87。
邵菁、金立鑫,2011,补语和Complement [J]。外语教学与研究(1)：48-57。
沈家煊,1994,“语法化”研究综观[J]。外语教学与研究(4)：17-24。
沈家煊,1998,语用法的语法化[J]。福建外语(2)：1-13。
沈家煊,1999,转指与转喻[J]。当代语言学(1),3-15。
沈家煊,2000,句式和配价[J]。中国语文(4)：291-297。
沈家煊,2003,复句三域“行、知、言”[J]。中国语文(3)：195-204。
沈家煊,2004a,语法研究的目标—预测还是解释[J]。中国语文(6)：483-492。
沈家煊,2004b,动结式“追累”的语法和语义[J]。语言科学(6)：3-15。
沈家煊,2006a,认知与汉语语法研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
沈家煊,2006b,“糅合”和“截搭”[J]。世界汉语教学(4)：5-12。
沈家煊,2006c,“语法隐喻”和“隐喻语法”[A]。载中国语文杂志社编,语法研究和探索[C]。北京：商务印书馆。1-14。
沈家煊,2008,认知语言学理论与隐喻语法和转喻语法研究[A]。载沈阳、冯胜利主编,当代语言学理论和汉语研究[C]。北京：商务印书馆。305-320。
施春宏,2001,名词的描述性语义特征与副名组合的可能性[J]。中国语文(3)：212-224。
施春宏,2003,动结式的论元结构和配位方式研究[D]。北京大学博士学位论文。
施春宏,2005,动结式论元结构的整合过程及相关问题[J]。世界汉语教学(1)：5-21。
施春宏,2007,动结式致事的类型、语义性质及其句法表现[J]。世界汉语教学(2)：21-39。
施春宏,2008,汉语动结式的句法语义研究[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
石毓智,2001,肯定与否定的对称与不对称[M]。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
石毓智,2003a,现代汉语语法系统的建立[M]。北京：北京语言大学出版社。
石毓智,2003b,形容词的数量特征及其对句法行为的影响[J].世界汉语教学(2)：13-26。
石毓智,2007a,语法的概念基础[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
石毓智,2007b,论语言表达的创新机制[J]。外语研究(3)：28-34。
石毓智,2008,语法规律的理据[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：409-417。
石毓智、白解红,2006,汉英形容词概念化的差别及其句法后果[J]。四川外语学院学报(6)：82。
束定芳,2008,认知语义学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
宋文辉,2004a,动结式在几个句式中的分布[J]。语文研究(3)：13-19。
宋文辉,2004b,再论现代汉语动结式的句法核心[J]。现代外语(2)：163-172。
宋文辉,2007,现代汉语动结式的认知分析[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
谭景春,1995,材料宾语和工具宾语[J]。汉语学习(6)：28-30。
谭业升,2010,转喻的图式-例示与反义的认知路径[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：465-471。
唐依力、齐泸扬,2010,非常规关系下的动词带处所宾语现象考察[J]。汉语学习(5),20-27。
陶红印,2000,从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征[J]。语言研究(3)：21-38。
王艾录、司富珍,2002,语言理据研究[M]。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
王纯清,2000,汉语动宾结构的理解因素[J]。世界汉语教学(3)：34-43。
王冬梅,2001,现代汉语动名互转的认知研究[D]。中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文。
王红旗,1995,动结式述补结构配价研究[A]。载沈阳、郑定欧主编,现代汉语配价研究[C]。北京：北京大学出版社。
王继同,1988,说“一点点”[J]。汉语学习(6)：20-22。
王玲玲、何元建,2002,汉语动结式[C]。杭州：浙江教育出版社。
王霜梅,2005,汉语定中短语转喻探微[J]。北方论丛(5)：64-67。
工天星,2005,借代论析[M]。北京：中国文联出版社。
王文斌,2007,隐喻的认知构建与解读机制[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,认知语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2009,动结构式的体验性事件结构分析[J]。外语教学与研究(5)：345-350。
王占华,2000,“吃食堂”的认知考察[J]。语言教学与研究(2)：58-64。
魏红,2009,汉语常用动词带宾情况的静态动态对比研究[J]。云南师范大学学报(2)：53-59。
魏在江,2007,语篇转喻纵观[J]。外语学刊(3)：32-37。
文旭,2000,论语言符号的距离拟象性[J]。外语学刊(2)：71-74。
文旭、叶狂,2006,转喻的类型及其认知理据[J]。解放军外国语学院(6)：1-7。
吴福祥,2000,关于动补结构“V死O”的来源[J]。古汉语研究(3)：44-48。
吴淑琼、文旭,2010,逻辑转喻的动态意义建构模式[J]。外语与外语教学(3)：7-11。
吴颖、杨逸鸥,2007,形容词后续成分“一点儿”的制约作用及认知基础[J]。云南师范大学学报(2)：20-25。
伍敬芳,2009,汉语拟声词的动词化与转喻[J]。修辞学习(2)：52-58。
夏鹭,2007,论汉语中形容词类祈使句—从转喻角度看其语义生成过程[J]。广西教育学院学报(4)：123-125。
萧国政,1998,状位“形容词+‘一点’”的入位条件和语义取值[J]。中国语文(1)：13-17。
萧国政,1999,“形容词+‘点’”的信息功能与语义取值[J]。世界汉语教学(4)：39-46。
谢晓明,2004a,代体宾语的理解因素[J]。汉语学报(1)：85-92。
谢晓明,2004b,宾语代入现象的认知解释[J]。湖南大学学报(社科版)(3)：71-73。
谢晓明,2008,语义相关动词带宾语的多角度考察—“吃”、“喝”带宾语个案研究[M]。武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
谢晓明、乔东蕊,2009,工具宾语的鉴定模式及其典型性[J]。汉语学习(2)：12-16。
邢福义,1991,汉语里宾语代入现象之观察[J]。世界汉语教学(2)。
邢福义,1997,汉语语法结构的兼容性和趋简性[J]。世界汉语教学(1)。
熊学亮、梁晓波,2004,论典型致使结构的英汉表达异同[J]。外语教学与研究(2)：90-96。
熊学亮,2009,论“吃”在“吃+NP”结构中的功能承载量和分辨度[J]。外语研究(5)：7-12。
熊仲儒,2003,现代汉语中的致使句式[D]。北京语言大学博士学位论文。
熊仲儒,2004,动结式的致事选择[J]。安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)(4)：471-476。
熊仲儒、刘丽萍,2006,动结式的论元实现[J]。现代外语(2)：120-130。
徐靖,2008,“移动样态动词+处所宾语”的认知模式[J]。语言教学与研究(2)：82-88。
徐乐,2006,汉语中一类特殊祈使句的转喻和隐喻动因[J]。四川理工学院学报(2)：108-111。
徐默凡,2004,现代汉语工具范畴的认知研究[M]。上海：复旦大学出版社。
徐盛桓,2005,句法研究的认知语言学视野[J]。外语与外语教学(4)：1-7。
徐盛桓,2006,“成都小吃团”的认知解读[J]。外国语(2)：18-24。
徐盛桓,2010a,心智哲学与认知语言学创新[J]。北京科技大学学报(1)：84-88。
徐盛桓,2010b,心智哲学与语言研究[J]。外国语文(5),30-35。
许艾明,2006,中动构式的转喻阐释[J]。外语与外语教学(9)：14-17。
许国璋,1988,语言符号的任意性问题[J]。外语教学与研究(3)：2-10。
薛玉萍,2001,汉语祈使句和形容词的类[J]。语言与翻译(4)：30-32。
严辰松,2007,“给予”双及物结构中的转喻[J]。外语学刊(2)：41-45。
杨成虎,2010,语法转喻的认知研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
杨从洁,1988,不定量词“点”以及“一点”“有点”的用法[J]。语言教学与研究(3)：59-72。
杨峥琳,2006,现代汉语述结式的不对称研究[D]。北京语言大学博士论文。
袁毓林,1993,现代汉语祈使句研究[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
袁毓林,2001,述结式配价的控制—还原分析[J]。中国语文(5)：399-410。
袁毓林,2007,语义角色的精细等级及其在信息处理中的应用[J]。中文信息学报(4)：10-20。
詹卫东,2004,论元结构与句式变换[J]。中国语文(3)：209-221。
张宝胜,2000,也谈状位“形容词+点”的入位条件和语义取值[J]。中国语文(2)：182-187。
张伯江,1999,现代汉语的双及物结构式[J]。中国语文(3)：175-184。
张国宪,2006,现代汉语形容词的功能与认知研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
张辉、承华,2002,试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J]。外语研究(6)：15-32。
张辉、卢卫中,2010,认知转喻[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张平,2004,“A点儿+V”与“V+A点儿”[D]。湖南师范大学博士论文。
张韧,2007,转喻的构式化表征[J]。外国语(2)：21-27。
张绍杰、张延飞,2007,语言符号任意性和象似性：相互排斥还是相互依存?[J]。外语与外语教学(7)：62-64。
张谊生,2008,从“非常X”的陌生化搭配看汉语修辞学的现代取向[J]。修辞学习(2)： 31-40。
张云秋,2004,现代汉语受事宾语句研究[M]。·上海：学林出版社。
张媛,2010,英语人体器官名词动用的语法转喻阐释[J]。山东外语教学(3)：107-112。
章婷,2006,句义结构中的非强制性语义角色[J]。语文学刊(11)：120-123。
赵长才,2000,汉语述补结构的历史研究[D]。中国社会科学院研究生院语言系博士学位论文。
赵琪,2009,英汉动结构式的论元实现[D]。复旦大学博士论文。
赵微,2010,指令行为与汉语祈使句研究[M]。上海：上海社会科学院出版社。
赵艳芳,2001,认知语言学概论[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
周福娟,2009,指称转喻：词汇语义的认知途径[D]。苏州大学博士论文。
朱德熙,1982,语法讲义[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
朱景松,1992,与工具成分有关的几种句法格式—兼谈加工制作义动词“价”的分析[J]。安徽大学学报(3)：346-356。
朱景松,2002,形容词能动意义的确定和提取[J]。语言教学与研究(3)：22-29。
朱彦,2010,基于意象图式的动词“穿”的多义体系及意义连接机制[J]。语言科学(3)：287-300。