概念整合与汉语非受事宾语句
|
摘要
文章介绍概念整合理论的理论基础和核心思想,提出以概念整合理论为基础的句法-词汇语义接口系统,用该理论解释现代汉语非受事宾语句的意义构建和句法语义实现过程。
全文共12章,约12万字。
第一章为绪论,介绍研究的历史、现状、对象、意义和方法等。
第二章从概念隐喻理论、框架转换、神经心理三个方面介绍概念整合的理论基础,整合借鉴了隐喻跨概念域的映射方式,将隐喻的两域模式扩展为四空间映射模式;框架转换能将静态的框架语义重新组织到新的框架中构建出新的意义,整合也将动态的框架转换应用到整合时整合框架对输入空间事件框架的选择上;大脑整合功能的发展历史、神经生物学的神经感知处理机制和事件相关电位实验均能证实概念整合的存在。第三章探讨概念整合的基础理论心理空间理论,心理空间认为语言并不携带意义,语言引导意义,心理空间也不同于一般认为的可能世界,它在意义建构观上属于认知语义学范畴。该理论建立在第二代认知科学基础之上,通过对跨域函数、框架化和视点理论的发展及对认知映现理论的发现而来。本章还介绍了心理空间的辨认原则、空间转换和认知建构等。第四章介绍了概念整合的基本框架、映射类型、整合网络类型、运作机制及整合原则。概念整合由输入空间、共有空间和整合空间构成,空间之间映射和投射形成创新结构;概念之间的映射类型有投射、图式和语用功能映射;整合网络类型有单一、镜像、单侧和双侧网络;整合的基本运作机制为组合、完善和扩展,整合会导致空间内部或空间之间关系的压缩与竞争;整合原则有组成原则和统治原则两类,人类量度原则为整合总原则。第五章介绍用于句法词汇语义接口的事件结构理论的产生与发展过程。事件结构理论起源于动词意义的体结构研究、逻辑语义中的事件研究,生成语义学用谓词解构将事件分解用于句法研究。此后,事件结构被用于句法语义接口研究,这些研究可以分为事件从词库映射到句法和事件直接映射到句法两类。第六章提出概念整合、构式语法与事件结构理论结合来表征语法与意义的表征模式。语法整合的句法实现是以想象事件和语法构式为输入空间,通过跨空间的映射和投射,在整合空间中由句法句式表征出来;语法整合的意义实现是以句法句式和事件结构为输入空间,通过跨空间的映射和投射,在整合空间中由想象事件表征出来。
第七章讨论供用句的意义构建及句法实现过程。句式由“一定数量的NP_1使用一定数量的NP_2”和“一定数量的NP_2供一定数量的NP_1”整合而成,分析其整合特征,得出浮现意义为“一定数量的物质供一定数量的人或物使用”。第八章讨论存现句的意义构建及句法实现过程。句式由“存在对象存在(或处于某种状态)”和“某处存在某物”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“某处存在处于某种状态的存在对象”。第九章讨论工具宾语句的意义构建和句法实现过程。句式由“A做P”和“A用I”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“主体实施动作时对工具的选择”。第十章讨论处所宾语句的意义构建和句法实现过程。句式由“A做(P)”和“A位于L”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“主体实施动作时对处所类型的选择”。第十一章讨论材料宾语句的意义构建和句法实现过程。句式由“A做P”和“A使用M”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“主体实施动作时使用某种材料”。
第十二章“结论”,对全文进行总结。
This paper introduces theoretical basis and core content of conceptual blending theory. A system of syntax-semantic interface is posed based on conceptual blending. It uses the system to explain the course of semantic construction and syntax-semantic realization.
The paper includes 12 chapters and about 120.000 words.
Chapter 1 is preface. This chapter provides informations of history, current situation, targets, values and measures of the study.
Chapter 2 introduces the theoretical basis of conceptual from three areas of conceptual metaphor, frame transformation and nerve psychology. Conceptual blending draws on the experiences of the metaphor pattern and extends the two domains of metaphor to the four ones. Frame transformation can organize static frame meaning to the new frame again and constructs new meaning. The conceptual blending applies the dynamic frame transformation to selects input spaces as the blending frame. Conceptual blending theory can be proved being existed by the development history of blending function, nerve perception and operation mechanism of nerve biology, Event-related Brain Potentials experiment. Chapter 3 research the basis theory of conceptual blending which is mental space theory. Language can’t bring meaning but it can guide it from mental space theory. Mental space theory is different from the possible world. The theory builds on the base of the second generation cognition science and originated from the development of cross-domain function, framed and point of view, and cognitive mappings. This chapter also introduces the Access Principle, space transformation and cognitive construction of mental space theory. Chapter 4 presents the basis frames, mapping types, blending networks types, operate mechanism and blending principles of conceptual blending theory. The blending spaces made up of two input spaces, a generic and a blending space. It comes into being emergent structure by the mapping and projection between different spaces. The mapping types have three which are projecting, scheme and pragmatics mappings. And the four types blending networks are simplex, mirror, single-scope and double-scope networks. There are two kinds of blending principles which are constitutive and governing principles. The head principle is human scale principle. Chapter 5 introduces the origination and development of the event structure theory used in syntax-semantics preface. The theory origins from the study of aspect of verb semantics and event research in logic semantics. The generate semantics deconstructed the event by predicate deconstruction in syntax study. From then on, event structure is used to the research of syntax-semantics preface. This research can be divided into two kinds: the first is mapping from lexicon to syntax, the second is mapping from event to syntax directly. Chapter 6 suggests a syntax and semantics realization pattern by three theories of conceptual blending, construction grammar and event structure. The syntax realization of grammar blending is represented from the syntactical structure based on the input spaces of conceived event and grammar construction by the mapping and projecting cross the spaces. And the semantic realization of grammar blending is represented from the conceived event based on the input spaces of syntactical structure and grammar construction by the mapping and projecting cross the spaces.
Chapter 7 explores the semantic construction and syntax realization of supply sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“a certain amount of NP1 use a certain amount of NP2”and“a certain amount of NP2 supply a certain amount of NP1”. The emergent meaning is“a certain amount of material supply a certain amount of people or things”through analyzing the blending characters. Chapter 8 explores the semantic construction and syntax realization of existing or appearing sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“the existing object exists (or lies on some status)”and“somewhere exists something”. It can concludes that the emergent meaning is“somewhere exists the existing object lying on some status”through analyzing the blending characters. Chapter 9 explores semantics construction and syntax realization of instrument object sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“A acts P”and“A uses I”. It can derive that the emergent meaning is“the subject selects the instrument when acting”through analyzing the blending characters. Chapter 10 explores the semantic construction and syntax realization of location object sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“A acts (P)”and“A is located in L”. Through analyzing the blending characters, it can derive that the emergent meaning is“the subject selects location when acting”. Chapter 11 explores the semantic construction and syntax of material object sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“A acts P”and“A uses M”. It can derive that the emergent meaning is“the subject uses certain material when acting”by analyzing the blending characters.
Chapter 12 is conclusion which sums up all the paper.
全文共12章,约12万字。
第一章为绪论,介绍研究的历史、现状、对象、意义和方法等。
第二章从概念隐喻理论、框架转换、神经心理三个方面介绍概念整合的理论基础,整合借鉴了隐喻跨概念域的映射方式,将隐喻的两域模式扩展为四空间映射模式;框架转换能将静态的框架语义重新组织到新的框架中构建出新的意义,整合也将动态的框架转换应用到整合时整合框架对输入空间事件框架的选择上;大脑整合功能的发展历史、神经生物学的神经感知处理机制和事件相关电位实验均能证实概念整合的存在。第三章探讨概念整合的基础理论心理空间理论,心理空间认为语言并不携带意义,语言引导意义,心理空间也不同于一般认为的可能世界,它在意义建构观上属于认知语义学范畴。该理论建立在第二代认知科学基础之上,通过对跨域函数、框架化和视点理论的发展及对认知映现理论的发现而来。本章还介绍了心理空间的辨认原则、空间转换和认知建构等。第四章介绍了概念整合的基本框架、映射类型、整合网络类型、运作机制及整合原则。概念整合由输入空间、共有空间和整合空间构成,空间之间映射和投射形成创新结构;概念之间的映射类型有投射、图式和语用功能映射;整合网络类型有单一、镜像、单侧和双侧网络;整合的基本运作机制为组合、完善和扩展,整合会导致空间内部或空间之间关系的压缩与竞争;整合原则有组成原则和统治原则两类,人类量度原则为整合总原则。第五章介绍用于句法词汇语义接口的事件结构理论的产生与发展过程。事件结构理论起源于动词意义的体结构研究、逻辑语义中的事件研究,生成语义学用谓词解构将事件分解用于句法研究。此后,事件结构被用于句法语义接口研究,这些研究可以分为事件从词库映射到句法和事件直接映射到句法两类。第六章提出概念整合、构式语法与事件结构理论结合来表征语法与意义的表征模式。语法整合的句法实现是以想象事件和语法构式为输入空间,通过跨空间的映射和投射,在整合空间中由句法句式表征出来;语法整合的意义实现是以句法句式和事件结构为输入空间,通过跨空间的映射和投射,在整合空间中由想象事件表征出来。
第七章讨论供用句的意义构建及句法实现过程。句式由“一定数量的NP_1使用一定数量的NP_2”和“一定数量的NP_2供一定数量的NP_1”整合而成,分析其整合特征,得出浮现意义为“一定数量的物质供一定数量的人或物使用”。第八章讨论存现句的意义构建及句法实现过程。句式由“存在对象存在(或处于某种状态)”和“某处存在某物”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“某处存在处于某种状态的存在对象”。第九章讨论工具宾语句的意义构建和句法实现过程。句式由“A做P”和“A用I”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“主体实施动作时对工具的选择”。第十章讨论处所宾语句的意义构建和句法实现过程。句式由“A做(P)”和“A位于L”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“主体实施动作时对处所类型的选择”。第十一章讨论材料宾语句的意义构建和句法实现过程。句式由“A做P”和“A使用M”整合而成,分析整合特征,得出浮现意义为“主体实施动作时使用某种材料”。
第十二章“结论”,对全文进行总结。
This paper introduces theoretical basis and core content of conceptual blending theory. A system of syntax-semantic interface is posed based on conceptual blending. It uses the system to explain the course of semantic construction and syntax-semantic realization.
The paper includes 12 chapters and about 120.000 words.
Chapter 1 is preface. This chapter provides informations of history, current situation, targets, values and measures of the study.
Chapter 2 introduces the theoretical basis of conceptual from three areas of conceptual metaphor, frame transformation and nerve psychology. Conceptual blending draws on the experiences of the metaphor pattern and extends the two domains of metaphor to the four ones. Frame transformation can organize static frame meaning to the new frame again and constructs new meaning. The conceptual blending applies the dynamic frame transformation to selects input spaces as the blending frame. Conceptual blending theory can be proved being existed by the development history of blending function, nerve perception and operation mechanism of nerve biology, Event-related Brain Potentials experiment. Chapter 3 research the basis theory of conceptual blending which is mental space theory. Language can’t bring meaning but it can guide it from mental space theory. Mental space theory is different from the possible world. The theory builds on the base of the second generation cognition science and originated from the development of cross-domain function, framed and point of view, and cognitive mappings. This chapter also introduces the Access Principle, space transformation and cognitive construction of mental space theory. Chapter 4 presents the basis frames, mapping types, blending networks types, operate mechanism and blending principles of conceptual blending theory. The blending spaces made up of two input spaces, a generic and a blending space. It comes into being emergent structure by the mapping and projection between different spaces. The mapping types have three which are projecting, scheme and pragmatics mappings. And the four types blending networks are simplex, mirror, single-scope and double-scope networks. There are two kinds of blending principles which are constitutive and governing principles. The head principle is human scale principle. Chapter 5 introduces the origination and development of the event structure theory used in syntax-semantics preface. The theory origins from the study of aspect of verb semantics and event research in logic semantics. The generate semantics deconstructed the event by predicate deconstruction in syntax study. From then on, event structure is used to the research of syntax-semantics preface. This research can be divided into two kinds: the first is mapping from lexicon to syntax, the second is mapping from event to syntax directly. Chapter 6 suggests a syntax and semantics realization pattern by three theories of conceptual blending, construction grammar and event structure. The syntax realization of grammar blending is represented from the syntactical structure based on the input spaces of conceived event and grammar construction by the mapping and projecting cross the spaces. And the semantic realization of grammar blending is represented from the conceived event based on the input spaces of syntactical structure and grammar construction by the mapping and projecting cross the spaces.
Chapter 7 explores the semantic construction and syntax realization of supply sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“a certain amount of NP1 use a certain amount of NP2”and“a certain amount of NP2 supply a certain amount of NP1”. The emergent meaning is“a certain amount of material supply a certain amount of people or things”through analyzing the blending characters. Chapter 8 explores the semantic construction and syntax realization of existing or appearing sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“the existing object exists (or lies on some status)”and“somewhere exists something”. It can concludes that the emergent meaning is“somewhere exists the existing object lying on some status”through analyzing the blending characters. Chapter 9 explores semantics construction and syntax realization of instrument object sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“A acts P”and“A uses I”. It can derive that the emergent meaning is“the subject selects the instrument when acting”through analyzing the blending characters. Chapter 10 explores the semantic construction and syntax realization of location object sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“A acts (P)”and“A is located in L”. Through analyzing the blending characters, it can derive that the emergent meaning is“the subject selects location when acting”. Chapter 11 explores the semantic construction and syntax of material object sentence. The sentence is blended by the input spaces of“A acts P”and“A uses M”. It can derive that the emergent meaning is“the subject uses certain material when acting”by analyzing the blending characters.
Chapter 12 is conclusion which sums up all the paper.
引文
①关于概念整合理论介绍的文章较多,这里只列举部分,读者可参考张辉、杨波(2008)的相关介绍。
②张云秋(2005:10-23)对受事宾语的历史研究状况进行了较详细的介绍。
①束定芳(2000:172-178)将相似性分为物理、心理和记号性相似性,物理相似性指事物之间的形状或功能上的相似;心理相似性指非物理的、心理感受上的相似;记号性相似指用某一情景表达另一情景。
①Fauconnier(1997:9-13)将映射进一步细分为三类:投射映射、语用功能映射和图式映射,下文在讨论整合理论的核心思想时再具体介绍这三种映射。
①Coulson(2001)的专著后来由世界图书出版社于2010年出版影印版,张辉先生在导读中有相关介绍,读者也可参考导读中的相关内容。
①读者可参考Levin and Rappaport Hovav(2005:78-130)对这三种方法的详细介绍。
①很多学者(如任鹰2005、丁加勇2006)都注意到了句式动词的抽象性。
①如任鹰(2005:82)认为“他戴着帽子”中的“他”有歧义,既可能是方所也可能是施动者。
①齐沪扬(1996)也注意到了这种现象,认为句式中存现对象存在有定性的倾向。
①徐默凡(2004:238)也提出了工具宾语的出现规律之一是不能被顺利理解为受事。
[1]陈昌来.现代汉语句子[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2000.
[2]陈建民.现代汉语句型论[M].北京:语文出版社,1986.
[3]丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆,1961.
[4]范晓.三个平面的语法观[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1996.
[5]胡裕树、范晓.动词研究[M].开封:河南大学出版社,1995.
[6]孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰.汉语动词用法词典[k].北京:商务印书馆,1987.
[7]任鹰.现代汉语非受事宾语句研究[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[8]沈园.句法-语义界面研究[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2007.
[9]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[10]宋玉柱.可逆句[M].太原:山西教育出版社,1991a.
[11]王斌.翻译与概念整合[M].上海:东华大学出版社,2004.
[12]王正元.概念整合及其应用研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2009.
[13]王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
[14]熊仲儒.现代汉语中的致使句式[M].安徽大学出版社,2004.
[15]徐默凡.现代汉语工具范畴的认知研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004.
[16]徐枢.宾语和补语[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1985.
[17]袁毓林.汉语动词的配价研究[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,1998.
[18]张辉.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京:军事谊文出版社,2003.
[19]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998/2008.
[20]张旺熹.汉语特殊句法的语义研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社, 1999.
[21]张云秋.现代汉语受事宾语句研究[M].上海:学林出版社,2004.
[22]赵元任(著)、吕叔湘(译).汉语口语语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1979.
[23]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(编).现代汉语词典[K].北京:商务印书馆,2007.
[24]朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[25]Baker, M. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Functional Changing[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[26]Comrie, B. Aspect[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
[27]Coulson,S. Semantics Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,2001.
[28]Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
[29]Dancygier, B and E. Sweetser. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[30]de Hoop, H. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation[D]. Groningen University, 1992.
[31]Dowty, D. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: the Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague PTO[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
[32]Fauconnier, G. 1985/1994. Mental Spaces[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.(张辉导读,2008,《心理空间》,北京:世界图书出版公司。)
[33]Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[34]Fauconnier, G. and E. Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds and grammar[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1996.
[35]Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. The Way We Think[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
[36]Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1990.
[37]Gruber, J. S. Studies in Lexical Relations[D]. Cambridge :MIT, 1965.
[38]Gruber, J. S. Lexical Structure in Syntax and Semantics [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.
[39]Jackendoff, R. Semantics Interpretation in Generative Grammar[M].Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1972.
[40]Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.
[41]Jackendoff, R. Semantics Structures[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
[42]Kenny, A. Action, Emotion and Will[M]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
[43]Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Vol.1. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987.
[44]Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Vol.2. Standford: Standford University Press, 1991.
[45]Lakoff, G. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity[D]. Indiana University, 1965.
[46]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[47]Lakoff G. and Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1980.
[48]Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.
[49]Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Argument Realization[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[50]Lin Tzong-Hong. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure[D]. California: University of California,2001.
[51]Mandelblit, N. Grammatical Blending: Creative and Schematic Aspects in Sentence Processing and Translation[D]. San Diego: University of California, 1997.
[52]Moens, M. Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference[D]. University of Edinburgh, 1987.
[53]Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference[M]. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Club.
[54]Olsen, M. B. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and GrammaticalAspect[M]. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997.
[55]Parsons, T. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
[56]Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
[57]Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
[58]Ryle, G. The Concept of Mind[M]. London: Barnes and Noble, 1949.
[59]Seuren, P. Discourse Semantics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984.
[60]Smith, C. The Parameter of Aspect[M]. Dordrecht :Kluwer, 1991.
[61]Tenny, C. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.
[62]Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[63]Van Valin, R. D., Jr.. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[64]Van Valin, R. D., Jr. and R. J. LaPolla. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[65]Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy[M]. New York: Cornell University Press, 1967.
[66]Verkuyl, H. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972.
[67]Verkuyl, H. A Theory of Aspectuality[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[68]Voorst, J. van. Event Structure[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company, 1988.
[69]Wasow, T. Postscript to Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: an Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar[M]. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Languange and Information,1987:193-205.
[1]陈昌来.论现代汉语“工具”成分在话语中的隐现[J].山西师范大学学报,1998(1).
[2]陈昌来.工具主语和工具宾语异议[J].世界汉语教学,2001(1).
[3]陈昌来.关于语义结构中材料成分的几个问题[J].柳州职业技术学院学报,2003(4):34.
[4]陈庭珍.汉语中处所词作主语的存在句[J].中国语文,1957(8).
[5]储泽祥.处所角色宾语及其属性标记的隐现情况[J].语言研究,2006(4).
[6]丁加勇.容纳句的数量关系、句法特征及认知解释[J].汉语学报,2006(1).
[7]范方莲.存在句[J].中国语文,1963(5).
[8]范晓.“施事宾语”句[J].世界汉语教学,1989(1).
[9]方梅.宾语与动量词语的顺序问题[J].中国语文,1993(1).
[10]房红梅、严世清.概念整合运作的认知理据[J].外语与外语教学, 2004(4): 9-12.
[11]冯胜利.“写毛笔”与韵律促发的动词并入[J].语言教学与研究,2000(1).
[12]顾阳.关于存现结构的理论探讨[J].现代外语,1997(3).
[13]郭继懋.试谈“飞上海”等不及物动词带宾语现象[J].中国语文,1999(5).
[14]雷涛.存在句的范围、构成和分类[J].中国语文,1993(4).
[15]李临定、范方莲.试论表“每”的数量结构对应式[J].中国语文,1960(11).
[16]李临定.宾语使用情况考察[J].语文研究,1983(2).
[17]李福印、田聪.概念隐喻理论与概念合成理论在意义构建中的优势和不足[J].外国语言文学研究,2005(1):35-40.
[18]李敏.现代汉语主宾可互易句的考察[J].语言教学与研究,1998(4).
[19]李艳惠、陆丙甫.数目短语[J].中国语文,2002(4).
[20]刘正光.Fauconnier的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑[J].外语与外语教学,2002(10).
[21]卢福波.非常组合的“动+处所宾语”[J].南开语言学刊,2005(1).
[22]陆俭明.语义特征分析在汉语语法研究中的运用[J].汉语学习,1991(1).
[23]陆俭明.“句式语法理论”与汉语研究[J].中国语文,2004(5).
[24]鹿荣、齐沪扬.供用句的语义特点及可逆动因[J].世界汉语教学,2010(4).
[25]吕冀平.主语和宾语的问题[J].语文学习,1955(7).
[26]马庆株.名词性宾语的类别[J].汉语学习,1987(5).
[27]孟庆海.动词+处所宾语[J].中国语文,1986(4).
[28]聂文龙存在和存在句的分类[J].中国语文,1989(2).
[29]齐沪扬“N+在+处所+V”句式语义特征分析[J].汉语学习,1994(6).
[30]齐沪扬表示静态位置的一种零动词句[J]南京师大学报(社会科学版),1996(3).
[31]齐沪扬表示静态位置的“着”字句的语义和语用分析[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(3).
[32]任鹰.主宾可换位供用句的语义条件分析[J].汉语学习,1999(3).
[33]任鹰.静态存在句中“V了”等于“V着”现象解析[J]世界汉语教学,2000(1).
[34]任鹰.动词词义在语言结构中的游移与实现[J].中国语文,2007(5):427.
[35]沈家煊.转指和转喻[J].当代语言学,1999(1).
[36]沈家煊.“分析”和“综合”[J].语言文字应用,2005(3).
[37]沈家煊.“糅合”和“截搭”[J].世界汉语教学,2006a(4).
[38]沈家煊.“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句[J].中国语文,2006b(4).
[39]沈家煊.概念整合与浮现意义[J].修辞学习,2006c(5).
[40]沈家煊.关于词法类型和句法类型[J].民族语文,2006d(6).
[41]沈家煊.语言中的整合现象[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2008(4).
[42]史有为.处所宾语初步考察[A].中国语学论文集:大河内康宪教授退官记念[C].东京:东方书店,1997.
[43]束定芳.论隐喻的运作机制[J].外语教学与研究,2002(2):98-106.
[44]宋玉柱.定心谓语存在句[J].语言教学与研究,1982a(3).
[45]宋玉柱.动态存在句[J].汉语学习,1982b(6).
[46]宋玉柱.完成体动态存现句[J].汉语学习,1989(6).
[47]宋玉柱.经历体存在句[J].汉语学习,1991b(5).
[48]苏晓军、张爱玲.概念合成理论的认知力[J].外国语,2001(3).
[49]谭景春.材料宾语和工具宾语[J].汉语学习,1995(6):28-29.
[50]陶红印.从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征[J].语言研究,2000(3).
[51]田臻.汉语静态存在句中动词语义偏离现象研究述评[J].外语研究, 2009(6).
[52]汪少华.概念合成与隐喻的合成意义建构[J].当代语言学,2002(1).
[53]王斌.概念整合与翻译[J].中国翻译,2001(3).
[54]王文斌.概念合成理论研究与应用的回顾与思考[J].外语研究,2004(1).
[55]王红孝.空间映射理论与概念整合的认知过程[J].外语学刊,2004(6).
[56]王勤玲.概念隐喻理论与概念整合理论的对比研究[J].外语学刊,2005(1).
[57]王占华.“吃食堂”的认知考察[J].语言教学与研究,2000(2).
[58]王正元.概念整合理论的发展与理论前沿[J].四川外语学院学报,2006(6).
[59]谢晓明、王宇波.概念整合与动宾常规关系的建立[J].汉语学报,2007(2).
[60]邢福义.汉语里宾语代入现象之观察[J].世界汉语教学,1991(2).
[61]徐杰.“工具”范畴和容纳“工具”范畴的句法结构[J].华中师范大学学报,1986第5、6期.
[62]徐靖.“移动样态动词+处所宾语”的认知模式[J].语言教学与研究,2008(2).
[63]杨素英.从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J].当代语言学,1999(1).
[64]杨秀杰.隐喻及其分类新论[J].外语学刊,2005(3).
[65]张伯江.动趋式里宾语位置的制约因素[J].汉语学习,1991(6).
[66]张云秋、王馥芳.概念整合的层级性与动宾结构的熟语化[J].世界汉语教学,2003(3).
[67]朱德熙.“在黑板上写字”及其相关句式[J].语言教学与研究,1981(1).
[68]朱景松.与工具成分有关的几种句法格式[J].安徽师范大学学报,1992(3).
[69]朱永生、蒋勇.空间映射理论与常规含意的推导[J].外语教学与研究,2003(1):26-33.
[70]Bach, E. The Algebra of Events[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1986(9).
[71]Barsalou, L.W. Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields[A]. In Adrienne Lehrerand Eva Feder Kittay(ed.). Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Lexical and Semantic Organization[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1992.
[72]Borer, H. The Projection of Arguments[A]. In E. Benedicto and J. Runner(ed.). Functional Projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17[C]. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Mass, 1994.
[73]Borer, H. Passive without Theta Grids[A]. In P. Farell and S. Lapoint(ed.). Morphological Interfaces[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[74]Brachman,R.J. Defaults and Definitions in Knowledge Representation[J]. The AI Magazine, 1985 (6) :80-93.
[75]Carlson, L. Aspect and Quantification[A]. In P.J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen(ed.). Syntax and Semantics VOL.4: Tense and Aspect[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
[76]Croft, W. The Semantics of Subjecthood[A]. In M. Yaguello(ed.). Subjecthood and Subjectivity: the Status of theSubject in Linguistic Theory[C]. Paris: Ophrys, 1994.
[77]Davidson, D. The Logical Form of Action Sentences[A]. In N. Rescher(ed.). The Logic of Decision and Action[C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
[78]Fauconnnier, G. 2007. Mental Spaces[A]. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[79]Fauconnier G. and M. Turner. Blending as a Central Process of Grammar[A]. In Goldberg A. (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language[C]. Stanford: CSLI, 1996:113-129.
[80]Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. Conceptual Integration Networks [J].Cognitive Science, 1998, 22 (2): 133-187.
[81]Fillmore, C.J. The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking[A]. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (ed.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1970:120-133.
[82]Fillmore, Charles J. Frame Semantics[A]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.1982:111-137.
[83]Grady, J. Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Integration[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 2001,11(3/4):335-345.
[84]Hale, Kenneth and S. J. Keyser. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations[A]. In K. Hale and J. Keyser(ed.). The View from Building 20: a Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger[C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
[85]Higginbotham, J. The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics[J]. Journal of Philosophy, 1983(80) .
[86]Hoeksema, J. Plurality and Conjunction[A]. In A.G.B. ter Meulen(ed.). Studies in Modaltheoretic Semantics[C]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1983.
[87]Huang, C-T. James. Existential Sentences in Chinese and Definiteness[A]. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (ed.). The Representation of (In)definiteness[C]. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.1987.
[88]Huang, C.-T. James. On Lexical Structure and Syntactic Projection[J]. Chinese Language and Linguistics, 1997(3).
[89]Johnson-Laird, P.N. The Mental Representation of the Meaning of Words[A]. In A.I. Goldman(ed.). Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science[C]. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1993:561-584.
[90]Kamp, H. 1984. A Theory of Truth and Semantics Representation[A]. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof(ed.). Truth, Interpretation, and Information[C]. Dordrecht: Foris.
[91]Kiparsky, P. Partitive Case and Aspect[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(ed.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[92]Krifka, M. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics[A]. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas(ed.).Semantics and Contextual Expression[C]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1989.
[93]Krifka, M. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution[A]. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi(ed.). Lexical Matters[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1992.
[94]Lakoff, G. The Contemporary theory of metaphor[A]. In Andrew Ortony(ed.).Metaphor and thought(2nd edition)[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[95]Larson, R. On the Double Object Construction[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1988(19).
[96]Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. The Semantic Determinants of Argument Expression: A View from the English Resultative Construction[A]. In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme(ed.). The Syntax of Time[C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
[97]Mandelblit, N. The Grammatical Marking of Conceptual Integration: from Syntax to Morphology[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,2000(3):197-251.
[98]McCawley, J. Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure[P]. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 1968(4).
[99]Perlmutter, D. M. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis[A]. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C]. Berkeley California: Berkeley Linguistic Society, University of California, Berkeley. 157-189.
[100]Pustejovsky, J. The Syntax of Event Structure[J]. Cognition, 1991(41).
[101]Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B. Building Verb Meanings[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(ed.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[102]Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen. Strong and Weak Predicates: Reducing the Lexical Burden[J]. Linguistic Analysis, 1996(26).
[103]Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen. Delimiting Events in Syntax[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(ed.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[104]Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen. Event Structure and Ergativity[A]. In C. Tenny and J.Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[105]Rosen, S. T. The Syntactic Representation of Linguistic Events[A]. In L. Cheng and R. Sybesma(ed.). The 2nd State of the Article Book[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
[106]Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. A History of Events in Linguistics Theory[A]. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[107]Travis, L. Event Phrase and a Theory of Functional Categories[A]. In P. Koskinen(ed.). Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association[C]. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 1994.
[108]Travis, L. The L-syntax/S-syntax Boundary. Evidence from Austronesian[A]. In I.Paul, V. Phillips and L. Travis (ed.). Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000a.
[109]Travis, L. Event Structure in Syntax[A]. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000b.
[110]Turner, M. Frame Blending[A]. In Rema R.F. (ed.). Frames, Corpora and Knowledge Representation[C]. Bologna: Bologna University Press.2008:13-32.
[111]Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression[J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1995(10):183-203.
[112]van Hout, A. Event Semantics in the Lexicon-Syntax Interface[A]. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
②张云秋(2005:10-23)对受事宾语的历史研究状况进行了较详细的介绍。
①束定芳(2000:172-178)将相似性分为物理、心理和记号性相似性,物理相似性指事物之间的形状或功能上的相似;心理相似性指非物理的、心理感受上的相似;记号性相似指用某一情景表达另一情景。
①Fauconnier(1997:9-13)将映射进一步细分为三类:投射映射、语用功能映射和图式映射,下文在讨论整合理论的核心思想时再具体介绍这三种映射。
①Coulson(2001)的专著后来由世界图书出版社于2010年出版影印版,张辉先生在导读中有相关介绍,读者也可参考导读中的相关内容。
①读者可参考Levin and Rappaport Hovav(2005:78-130)对这三种方法的详细介绍。
①很多学者(如任鹰2005、丁加勇2006)都注意到了句式动词的抽象性。
①如任鹰(2005:82)认为“他戴着帽子”中的“他”有歧义,既可能是方所也可能是施动者。
①齐沪扬(1996)也注意到了这种现象,认为句式中存现对象存在有定性的倾向。
①徐默凡(2004:238)也提出了工具宾语的出现规律之一是不能被顺利理解为受事。
[1]陈昌来.现代汉语句子[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2000.
[2]陈建民.现代汉语句型论[M].北京:语文出版社,1986.
[3]丁声树等.现代汉语语法讲话[M].北京:商务印书馆,1961.
[4]范晓.三个平面的语法观[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1996.
[5]胡裕树、范晓.动词研究[M].开封:河南大学出版社,1995.
[6]孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰.汉语动词用法词典[k].北京:商务印书馆,1987.
[7]任鹰.现代汉语非受事宾语句研究[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[8]沈园.句法-语义界面研究[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2007.
[9]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[10]宋玉柱.可逆句[M].太原:山西教育出版社,1991a.
[11]王斌.翻译与概念整合[M].上海:东华大学出版社,2004.
[12]王正元.概念整合及其应用研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2009.
[13]王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
[14]熊仲儒.现代汉语中的致使句式[M].安徽大学出版社,2004.
[15]徐默凡.现代汉语工具范畴的认知研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004.
[16]徐枢.宾语和补语[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1985.
[17]袁毓林.汉语动词的配价研究[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,1998.
[18]张辉.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京:军事谊文出版社,2003.
[19]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998/2008.
[20]张旺熹.汉语特殊句法的语义研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社, 1999.
[21]张云秋.现代汉语受事宾语句研究[M].上海:学林出版社,2004.
[22]赵元任(著)、吕叔湘(译).汉语口语语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1979.
[23]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(编).现代汉语词典[K].北京:商务印书馆,2007.
[24]朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[25]Baker, M. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Functional Changing[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[26]Comrie, B. Aspect[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
[27]Coulson,S. Semantics Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,2001.
[28]Croft, W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
[29]Dancygier, B and E. Sweetser. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[30]de Hoop, H. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation[D]. Groningen University, 1992.
[31]Dowty, D. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: the Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague PTO[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
[32]Fauconnier, G. 1985/1994. Mental Spaces[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.(张辉导读,2008,《心理空间》,北京:世界图书出版公司。)
[33]Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[34]Fauconnier, G. and E. Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds and grammar[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1996.
[35]Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. The Way We Think[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
[36]Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1990.
[37]Gruber, J. S. Studies in Lexical Relations[D]. Cambridge :MIT, 1965.
[38]Gruber, J. S. Lexical Structure in Syntax and Semantics [M]. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.
[39]Jackendoff, R. Semantics Interpretation in Generative Grammar[M].Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1972.
[40]Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.
[41]Jackendoff, R. Semantics Structures[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
[42]Kenny, A. Action, Emotion and Will[M]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
[43]Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Vol.1. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987.
[44]Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Vol.2. Standford: Standford University Press, 1991.
[45]Lakoff, G. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity[D]. Indiana University, 1965.
[46]Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[47]Lakoff G. and Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1980.
[48]Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.
[49]Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Argument Realization[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[50]Lin Tzong-Hong. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure[D]. California: University of California,2001.
[51]Mandelblit, N. Grammatical Blending: Creative and Schematic Aspects in Sentence Processing and Translation[D]. San Diego: University of California, 1997.
[52]Moens, M. Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference[D]. University of Edinburgh, 1987.
[53]Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference[M]. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Club.
[54]Olsen, M. B. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and GrammaticalAspect[M]. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997.
[55]Parsons, T. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
[56]Pinker, S. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
[57]Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
[58]Ryle, G. The Concept of Mind[M]. London: Barnes and Noble, 1949.
[59]Seuren, P. Discourse Semantics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984.
[60]Smith, C. The Parameter of Aspect[M]. Dordrecht :Kluwer, 1991.
[61]Tenny, C. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.
[62]Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[63]Van Valin, R. D., Jr.. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[64]Van Valin, R. D., Jr. and R. J. LaPolla. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[65]Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy[M]. New York: Cornell University Press, 1967.
[66]Verkuyl, H. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972.
[67]Verkuyl, H. A Theory of Aspectuality[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[68]Voorst, J. van. Event Structure[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company, 1988.
[69]Wasow, T. Postscript to Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: an Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar[M]. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Languange and Information,1987:193-205.
[1]陈昌来.论现代汉语“工具”成分在话语中的隐现[J].山西师范大学学报,1998(1).
[2]陈昌来.工具主语和工具宾语异议[J].世界汉语教学,2001(1).
[3]陈昌来.关于语义结构中材料成分的几个问题[J].柳州职业技术学院学报,2003(4):34.
[4]陈庭珍.汉语中处所词作主语的存在句[J].中国语文,1957(8).
[5]储泽祥.处所角色宾语及其属性标记的隐现情况[J].语言研究,2006(4).
[6]丁加勇.容纳句的数量关系、句法特征及认知解释[J].汉语学报,2006(1).
[7]范方莲.存在句[J].中国语文,1963(5).
[8]范晓.“施事宾语”句[J].世界汉语教学,1989(1).
[9]方梅.宾语与动量词语的顺序问题[J].中国语文,1993(1).
[10]房红梅、严世清.概念整合运作的认知理据[J].外语与外语教学, 2004(4): 9-12.
[11]冯胜利.“写毛笔”与韵律促发的动词并入[J].语言教学与研究,2000(1).
[12]顾阳.关于存现结构的理论探讨[J].现代外语,1997(3).
[13]郭继懋.试谈“飞上海”等不及物动词带宾语现象[J].中国语文,1999(5).
[14]雷涛.存在句的范围、构成和分类[J].中国语文,1993(4).
[15]李临定、范方莲.试论表“每”的数量结构对应式[J].中国语文,1960(11).
[16]李临定.宾语使用情况考察[J].语文研究,1983(2).
[17]李福印、田聪.概念隐喻理论与概念合成理论在意义构建中的优势和不足[J].外国语言文学研究,2005(1):35-40.
[18]李敏.现代汉语主宾可互易句的考察[J].语言教学与研究,1998(4).
[19]李艳惠、陆丙甫.数目短语[J].中国语文,2002(4).
[20]刘正光.Fauconnier的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑[J].外语与外语教学,2002(10).
[21]卢福波.非常组合的“动+处所宾语”[J].南开语言学刊,2005(1).
[22]陆俭明.语义特征分析在汉语语法研究中的运用[J].汉语学习,1991(1).
[23]陆俭明.“句式语法理论”与汉语研究[J].中国语文,2004(5).
[24]鹿荣、齐沪扬.供用句的语义特点及可逆动因[J].世界汉语教学,2010(4).
[25]吕冀平.主语和宾语的问题[J].语文学习,1955(7).
[26]马庆株.名词性宾语的类别[J].汉语学习,1987(5).
[27]孟庆海.动词+处所宾语[J].中国语文,1986(4).
[28]聂文龙存在和存在句的分类[J].中国语文,1989(2).
[29]齐沪扬“N+在+处所+V”句式语义特征分析[J].汉语学习,1994(6).
[30]齐沪扬表示静态位置的一种零动词句[J]南京师大学报(社会科学版),1996(3).
[31]齐沪扬表示静态位置的“着”字句的语义和语用分析[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(3).
[32]任鹰.主宾可换位供用句的语义条件分析[J].汉语学习,1999(3).
[33]任鹰.静态存在句中“V了”等于“V着”现象解析[J]世界汉语教学,2000(1).
[34]任鹰.动词词义在语言结构中的游移与实现[J].中国语文,2007(5):427.
[35]沈家煊.转指和转喻[J].当代语言学,1999(1).
[36]沈家煊.“分析”和“综合”[J].语言文字应用,2005(3).
[37]沈家煊.“糅合”和“截搭”[J].世界汉语教学,2006a(4).
[38]沈家煊.“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句[J].中国语文,2006b(4).
[39]沈家煊.概念整合与浮现意义[J].修辞学习,2006c(5).
[40]沈家煊.关于词法类型和句法类型[J].民族语文,2006d(6).
[41]沈家煊.语言中的整合现象[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2008(4).
[42]史有为.处所宾语初步考察[A].中国语学论文集:大河内康宪教授退官记念[C].东京:东方书店,1997.
[43]束定芳.论隐喻的运作机制[J].外语教学与研究,2002(2):98-106.
[44]宋玉柱.定心谓语存在句[J].语言教学与研究,1982a(3).
[45]宋玉柱.动态存在句[J].汉语学习,1982b(6).
[46]宋玉柱.完成体动态存现句[J].汉语学习,1989(6).
[47]宋玉柱.经历体存在句[J].汉语学习,1991b(5).
[48]苏晓军、张爱玲.概念合成理论的认知力[J].外国语,2001(3).
[49]谭景春.材料宾语和工具宾语[J].汉语学习,1995(6):28-29.
[50]陶红印.从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征[J].语言研究,2000(3).
[51]田臻.汉语静态存在句中动词语义偏离现象研究述评[J].外语研究, 2009(6).
[52]汪少华.概念合成与隐喻的合成意义建构[J].当代语言学,2002(1).
[53]王斌.概念整合与翻译[J].中国翻译,2001(3).
[54]王文斌.概念合成理论研究与应用的回顾与思考[J].外语研究,2004(1).
[55]王红孝.空间映射理论与概念整合的认知过程[J].外语学刊,2004(6).
[56]王勤玲.概念隐喻理论与概念整合理论的对比研究[J].外语学刊,2005(1).
[57]王占华.“吃食堂”的认知考察[J].语言教学与研究,2000(2).
[58]王正元.概念整合理论的发展与理论前沿[J].四川外语学院学报,2006(6).
[59]谢晓明、王宇波.概念整合与动宾常规关系的建立[J].汉语学报,2007(2).
[60]邢福义.汉语里宾语代入现象之观察[J].世界汉语教学,1991(2).
[61]徐杰.“工具”范畴和容纳“工具”范畴的句法结构[J].华中师范大学学报,1986第5、6期.
[62]徐靖.“移动样态动词+处所宾语”的认知模式[J].语言教学与研究,2008(2).
[63]杨素英.从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J].当代语言学,1999(1).
[64]杨秀杰.隐喻及其分类新论[J].外语学刊,2005(3).
[65]张伯江.动趋式里宾语位置的制约因素[J].汉语学习,1991(6).
[66]张云秋、王馥芳.概念整合的层级性与动宾结构的熟语化[J].世界汉语教学,2003(3).
[67]朱德熙.“在黑板上写字”及其相关句式[J].语言教学与研究,1981(1).
[68]朱景松.与工具成分有关的几种句法格式[J].安徽师范大学学报,1992(3).
[69]朱永生、蒋勇.空间映射理论与常规含意的推导[J].外语教学与研究,2003(1):26-33.
[70]Bach, E. The Algebra of Events[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1986(9).
[71]Barsalou, L.W. Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields[A]. In Adrienne Lehrerand Eva Feder Kittay(ed.). Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Lexical and Semantic Organization[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1992.
[72]Borer, H. The Projection of Arguments[A]. In E. Benedicto and J. Runner(ed.). Functional Projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17[C]. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Mass, 1994.
[73]Borer, H. Passive without Theta Grids[A]. In P. Farell and S. Lapoint(ed.). Morphological Interfaces[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[74]Brachman,R.J. Defaults and Definitions in Knowledge Representation[J]. The AI Magazine, 1985 (6) :80-93.
[75]Carlson, L. Aspect and Quantification[A]. In P.J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen(ed.). Syntax and Semantics VOL.4: Tense and Aspect[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
[76]Croft, W. The Semantics of Subjecthood[A]. In M. Yaguello(ed.). Subjecthood and Subjectivity: the Status of theSubject in Linguistic Theory[C]. Paris: Ophrys, 1994.
[77]Davidson, D. The Logical Form of Action Sentences[A]. In N. Rescher(ed.). The Logic of Decision and Action[C]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
[78]Fauconnnier, G. 2007. Mental Spaces[A]. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[79]Fauconnier G. and M. Turner. Blending as a Central Process of Grammar[A]. In Goldberg A. (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language[C]. Stanford: CSLI, 1996:113-129.
[80]Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. Conceptual Integration Networks [J].Cognitive Science, 1998, 22 (2): 133-187.
[81]Fillmore, C.J. The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking[A]. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (ed.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1970:120-133.
[82]Fillmore, Charles J. Frame Semantics[A]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C]. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.1982:111-137.
[83]Grady, J. Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Integration[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 2001,11(3/4):335-345.
[84]Hale, Kenneth and S. J. Keyser. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations[A]. In K. Hale and J. Keyser(ed.). The View from Building 20: a Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger[C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
[85]Higginbotham, J. The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics[J]. Journal of Philosophy, 1983(80) .
[86]Hoeksema, J. Plurality and Conjunction[A]. In A.G.B. ter Meulen(ed.). Studies in Modaltheoretic Semantics[C]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1983.
[87]Huang, C-T. James. Existential Sentences in Chinese and Definiteness[A]. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (ed.). The Representation of (In)definiteness[C]. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.1987.
[88]Huang, C.-T. James. On Lexical Structure and Syntactic Projection[J]. Chinese Language and Linguistics, 1997(3).
[89]Johnson-Laird, P.N. The Mental Representation of the Meaning of Words[A]. In A.I. Goldman(ed.). Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science[C]. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1993:561-584.
[90]Kamp, H. 1984. A Theory of Truth and Semantics Representation[A]. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof(ed.). Truth, Interpretation, and Information[C]. Dordrecht: Foris.
[91]Kiparsky, P. Partitive Case and Aspect[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(ed.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[92]Krifka, M. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics[A]. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas(ed.).Semantics and Contextual Expression[C]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1989.
[93]Krifka, M. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution[A]. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi(ed.). Lexical Matters[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1992.
[94]Lakoff, G. The Contemporary theory of metaphor[A]. In Andrew Ortony(ed.).Metaphor and thought(2nd edition)[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[95]Larson, R. On the Double Object Construction[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1988(19).
[96]Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. The Semantic Determinants of Argument Expression: A View from the English Resultative Construction[A]. In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme(ed.). The Syntax of Time[C]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
[97]Mandelblit, N. The Grammatical Marking of Conceptual Integration: from Syntax to Morphology[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,2000(3):197-251.
[98]McCawley, J. Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure[P]. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 1968(4).
[99]Perlmutter, D. M. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis[A]. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C]. Berkeley California: Berkeley Linguistic Society, University of California, Berkeley. 157-189.
[100]Pustejovsky, J. The Syntax of Event Structure[J]. Cognition, 1991(41).
[101]Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B. Building Verb Meanings[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(ed.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[102]Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen. Strong and Weak Predicates: Reducing the Lexical Burden[J]. Linguistic Analysis, 1996(26).
[103]Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen. Delimiting Events in Syntax[A]. In M. Butt and W. Geuder(ed.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.
[104]Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen. Event Structure and Ergativity[A]. In C. Tenny and J.Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[105]Rosen, S. T. The Syntactic Representation of Linguistic Events[A]. In L. Cheng and R. Sybesma(ed.). The 2nd State of the Article Book[C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
[106]Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. A History of Events in Linguistics Theory[A]. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[107]Travis, L. Event Phrase and a Theory of Functional Categories[A]. In P. Koskinen(ed.). Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association[C]. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 1994.
[108]Travis, L. The L-syntax/S-syntax Boundary. Evidence from Austronesian[A]. In I.Paul, V. Phillips and L. Travis (ed.). Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000a.
[109]Travis, L. Event Structure in Syntax[A]. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000b.
[110]Turner, M. Frame Blending[A]. In Rema R.F. (ed.). Frames, Corpora and Knowledge Representation[C]. Bologna: Bologna University Press.2008:13-32.
[111]Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression[J]. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1995(10):183-203.
[112]van Hout, A. Event Semantics in the Lexicon-Syntax Interface[A]. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky(ed.). Events as Grammatical Objects[C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.