汉英致使交替现象的认知功能研究
|
摘要
功能语言学和认知语言学界一般认为,世界语言的类型可以分为及物性系统和作格性系统两大类(Halliday 1985, 1994; Langacker 1991; Lemmens 1998),但正如韩礼德(1985, 1994)、Langacker(1991)、Dixon(1994)等人所说,任何一种语言都同时存在两种模式,只是程度的不同。Lemmens(1998)、倪蓉(2009)等人认为,英汉语所存在的大量的作格现象,长期以来没有受到足够的重视。
致使交替是作格现象的核心概念,致使交替的突出特征是谓语动词既有及物用法又有不及物用法。其中不及物动词的典型用法是表示某实体所承受的状态变化事件,及物用法表示这一状态变化事件是由另一不同实体所带来的。本文研究的致使交替现象是指在语义上用同一动词来表达相同的动作事件,致使含义包括(原型)施事者参与角色及其引起动作的情况,而起动含义不包含该施事参与角色,动词所表示的动作是自发的。
致使交替存在不同的跨语言特征,很多研究者试图从不同角度对上述现象进行解释,此类的研究既有形式语言学视角,也有认知语言学和功能语言学视角。形式的角度主要有两派观点:去及物化(detransitivization)和致使化(causativization)。去及物化理论认为反致使动词标记是去及物化过程,反致使形态是否具备应被看作语素变体的特例。致使化理论认为及物形式是由基础反致使/非宾格词条通过致使化过程派生而来。但是,动词标记的不规律性使得无论去及物化还是致使化理论都不能解决全部问题。非交替非宾格动词(如blossom)既没有派生来源,也没有派生目标,这对于上述两种形式理论均构成了挑战。Goldberg的“表层概括理论”从致使交替现象中抽离出来,从构式的角度来进行观察,淡化了动词语义在交替中的作用,认为动词的多种用法和意义是构式所赋予的。但是,脱离了动词义来探讨致使构式和反致使构式与其他相关构式的联系与区别,会变得相当困难。
与先行研究相比,本研究具有以下特色:1)构建了统一的致使交替事件域认知模型;2)确立了研究致使交替强度的相关指标及计算公式;3)基于语料库展开汉英对比研究。
本文在力动态理论、使因链理论、A/D分层理论和独立识解观等认知语言学理论的基础上,建立了致使交替事件域认知模型,为进一步分析致使交替动词在相关构式中的表现提供了理论框架。本文提出,建立在多义基础上的致使交替动词也是一种构式,属于作格性构式,动词是否具有交替性在于作格性构式与及物性构式的相互压制与竞争的结果。
如何通过语料库测量致使交替强度,并就此展开汉英对比是本文的重点。在汉英对比部分采用“对比功能分析法”的理论假设和实证分析相结合的方法(Chesterman 1998)。语言对比语料主要是基于北京大学现代汉语语料库(CCL)和英国国家语料库(BNC)进行KWIC检索获得的。我们认为基于语料库考察致使交替性质和强度必须既要考察共有动词,还要考察共有客体,为此,我们在Stefanowitsch & Grie(s2003, 2004)和Lemmens(2009)的配式分析(collostructional analysis)基础上,提出研究致使交替强度(CAS)的三个指标及其计算方式:1)动词共同类符指数(verbal shared type index,简称STyI,“共类指数”);2)动词共同形符指数(verbal shared token index,简称SToI,“共形指数”);3)客体共同形符指数(theme shared token index,简称TSTI,“客形指数”)。在这三个CAS指标基础上,我们进而考察了汉英典型致使交替动词和“窒息”类致使交替动词。通过前者的考察我们总结CAV的一般特征和句法表现,后者的考察旨在寻求非典型致使交替动词(CAV)的交替特征和认知规律。我们对所检索到的两万余条句例逐条考察了CAV的致事特征、客体表现、动词语义结构和语义内容及其对交替特征的影响、时体特征。我们还从构式语法的角度,考察了有关致使交替现象的构式图谱以及动词与构式的互动关系。
本文的主要发现如下:
1)汉英致使交替现象的差异主要表现在:(i)就汉英典型CAV而言,除了结构差异较大之外,两者情状也有不同。英语致使交替动词通常都是达成或完结类动词,而汉语缺少完结动词,因此往往借助两种其他手段。一是在活动动词的基础上附加补语,将活动谓词变成完结谓词。二是借用时体标记词(如“了”)将结果义加于单音节动词之上,以此获取“过程+客体”独立识解的可能,其作用相当于“动作+结果”的动结式。(ii)汉英语“窒息”类动词的交替强度并不一致。汉语中单音节词致使交替动词非常有限,这是由汉语动词的双音化发展趋势所决定的。汉语中单音节动词的交替性低于英语,而汉语的双音节动词(如“窒息”类单音动词加“死”所构成的动结式)的交替广度和强度高于英语。汉语中受到话题句的影响,出现的假反致使句数量远远超过英语。
2)由于本文主要探讨致使交替现象的认知理据,因此也非常关注语料反映的共性:(i)英汉语中均存在共类指数与共形指数不一致的情况,但均呈连续统态势。动词客体使用频次的不均衡导致了致使交替的广度与强度的差异。连续统分布以及典型CAV也存在分裂作格的现象推翻了致使交替现象的作格/非作格两分说(Levin & Rappaport 1995;曾立英2007; 2009等)。(ii)汉英“窒息”类动词存在致使交替强度与认知概念的相关性,交替强度的最低值均出现在关涉外部的动词,而强度最高值均出现在关涉内部的动词,但是完全自发的动词也不具致使交替性(如smoulder)。汉英CAV在致使句中均具有行为义、致使义和结果状态义,其中行为义和致使义往往结合较为紧密。在反致使句中均具有结果状态义,不包含但不排斥行为义和致使义。(iii)致事“可移性”(transferability)是交替性的重要特点。如致事可以在施事、工具、自然力以及有无施事性之间转移,动词的可交替性就强,否则就弱。(iv)可交替性与动词结果义的语义指向以及内外论元生命度的级差有关。首先,致使交替动词的结果义需要指向客体论元。其次,动词语义要求的外论元与内论元的生命度级差越大,越具可交替性,同级则不能交替。
Functional linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics generally accept that world languages consist of transitive paradigm and ergative paradigm (Halliday 1985, 1994; Langacker 1991; Lemmens 1998), both of which, as put by Halliday (1985, 1994), Langacker (1991) and Dixon (1994), co-exist in every language. Lemmens (1998) and Ni Rong (2009) observe that substantial ergative phenomena in English and Chinese have long been neglected.
Causative alternation, as a core concept of ergativity, is characterized by verbs with both intransitive and transitive use. The intransitive use typically denotes a change-of-state event undergone by some entity while the transitive use denotes that this change-of-state event has been caused by some different entity. We define causative alternation in this dissertation as the same event denoted by the same verb, the causative content of which includes the prototypical agent and subsequent act, while the inchoative content of which does not, since the act denoted by the verb is voluntary.
Scholars have conducted much research on various cross-linguistic features of causative alternation from various perspectives of formal linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and functional linguistics. The formalist school holds two opposite interpretations: detransitivization and causativization. Researchers supporting detransitivization assume that all anticausatives are derived from their transitive counterpart and take the anticausative morphology as an idiosyncratic instance of allomorphy. The causativization approach assumes that the transitive entry is derived from the basic anticausative/unaccusative entry. However, the asymmetry of verb marking prevents both approaches from a satisfactory solution. The lack of derivational source and target of nonalternative unaccuatives constitutes a challenge for both transitive-based and intransitive-based approaches. Cognitive construction grammar, on the other hand, looks beyond alternations and considers each surface pattern on its own terms. Goldberg refers to the broader generalizations as Surface Generalizations. Nevertheless, it is no easy job to distinguish causative and anti-causative constructions from other relevant constructions.
The present research, compared with previous studies, differs in the following aspects: 1) We construct a unified Cognitive Model of Causative Alternation Event (CMCAE). 2) We set forth the relative indices of Causative Alternation Strength (CAS) and design corresponding formulae to measure them. 3) We conduct a corpus-based Chinese-English contrastive study.
Grounded on theories of Force-Dynamic, Causal Chain, A/D Layering and Absolute Construal, this study constructs CMCAE as a theoretical framework for further analyses of CAV in construction contexts. It proposes that polysemic CAV can also be taken as a construction, and the alternation ability is the outcome of the mutual competition between ergative and transitive constructions.
This study focuses on a contrastive study under the assistance of the measurement of CAS. We conduct this research with both qualitative and quantitative methods, adopting Chesterman’s (1998) CFA (Contrastive Functional Analysis) method. The data are gathered through KWIC search in CCL (Center for Chinese Linguistic PKU) Corpus and BNC (British National Corpus). We hold that it is essential to study the shared verbs plus shared themes. Thus, under the framework of collostructional analysis, we propose three CAS indices and design relative formulae: 1) verbal shared type index (“StyI”); 2) verbal shared token index (“SToI”); 3) theme shared token index (“TSTI”). We further explore the typical CAVs and the“SUFFOCATE”CAVs in both Chinese and English. We intend to obtain a general picture of semantic and syntactic features of CAVs and the cognitive motivations behind them. For that purpose, we have studied more than 20,000 samples in search of the nature of the causers, themes, tense-aspect features as well as the semantic structure and semantic content which influence alternation. This study also takes a close look at the construction family of causative alternation phenomena and the verb-construction interactions.
The major findings are as follows:
1) The dissimilarities between the two languages are: (i) Apart from structural differences, Chinese and English typical CAVs differ in situation types. English CAVs are generally achievement and accomplishment verbs, while due to the lack of accomplishment verbs, Chinese has to depend on two other means to achieve the same effect. One is to change activity predicates into accomplishment ones by attaching complements to activity verbs, and the other is to add the resultative meaning to monosyllabic verbs through tense-aspect markers (eg.“le”) so that“process + theme” obtains an absolute construal. (ii) Chinese and English“SUFFOCATE”verbs are dissimilar in CAS. Chinese monosyllabic CAVs are limited in number, as determined by the trend in disyllablization. The CAS of Chinese monosyllabic verbs is generally lower than that of their English counterparts, whereas that of Chinese disyllable verbs are higher in both STyI and SToI than that of the English ones. Considering the frequent occurrence of Chinese topic sentences, we conclude that the Chinese pseudo-anticausative sentences far outnumber English ones.
2) As this study tries to seek the cognitive motivation of causative alternations, the following commonalities reflected by the data should also deserve our attention. (i) With STyI-SToI inconsistencies in both languages, StyI and SToI reveal a tendency of continuum. The asymmetry of theme frequencies leads to the dissimilarities in the quality and quantity of causative alternations. The continuum trend and the split ergativity in even typical CAVs lead us to abandoning the clear-cut ergativity/non-ergativity distinction (Levin & Rappaport 1995; Zeng 2007, 2009, among others). (ii) In the case of Chinese and English“SUFFOCATE”verbs, there is a correlation between CAS and cognitive conception. The lowest CAS value is found in verbs concerning exterior organs, while the highest value is associated with verbs involving inner part of the body. Another interesting finding, though not many, is that fully voluntary verbs (such as“smoulder”) do not alternate. Chinese and English CAVs contain the semantic ingredients of ACT, CAUSE-BECOME and RESULT-STATE. The ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings are often integrated while the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning is the object argument. Anti-causatives must contain RESULT-STATE meaning, with neither inclusion nor expulsion of ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings. (iii) Another striking feature of causative alternations is the“transferability”of the causer. If the causer can be transferred among such semantic roles as agent, instrument, and natural force, or between the presence and absence of agentivity, the verb possesses a high potential for alternation. And it is also true the other way around. (iv) Potential for alternation is interrelated with the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning and animacy differences of the outer and inner arguments. First, the RESULT-STATE meaning directs toward the theme argument. Second, the broader the animacy gap between outer and inner argument is, the more potential for alternation a verb is. If both arguments are of the same animacy level, the verb is not likely to alternate.
致使交替是作格现象的核心概念,致使交替的突出特征是谓语动词既有及物用法又有不及物用法。其中不及物动词的典型用法是表示某实体所承受的状态变化事件,及物用法表示这一状态变化事件是由另一不同实体所带来的。本文研究的致使交替现象是指在语义上用同一动词来表达相同的动作事件,致使含义包括(原型)施事者参与角色及其引起动作的情况,而起动含义不包含该施事参与角色,动词所表示的动作是自发的。
致使交替存在不同的跨语言特征,很多研究者试图从不同角度对上述现象进行解释,此类的研究既有形式语言学视角,也有认知语言学和功能语言学视角。形式的角度主要有两派观点:去及物化(detransitivization)和致使化(causativization)。去及物化理论认为反致使动词标记是去及物化过程,反致使形态是否具备应被看作语素变体的特例。致使化理论认为及物形式是由基础反致使/非宾格词条通过致使化过程派生而来。但是,动词标记的不规律性使得无论去及物化还是致使化理论都不能解决全部问题。非交替非宾格动词(如blossom)既没有派生来源,也没有派生目标,这对于上述两种形式理论均构成了挑战。Goldberg的“表层概括理论”从致使交替现象中抽离出来,从构式的角度来进行观察,淡化了动词语义在交替中的作用,认为动词的多种用法和意义是构式所赋予的。但是,脱离了动词义来探讨致使构式和反致使构式与其他相关构式的联系与区别,会变得相当困难。
与先行研究相比,本研究具有以下特色:1)构建了统一的致使交替事件域认知模型;2)确立了研究致使交替强度的相关指标及计算公式;3)基于语料库展开汉英对比研究。
本文在力动态理论、使因链理论、A/D分层理论和独立识解观等认知语言学理论的基础上,建立了致使交替事件域认知模型,为进一步分析致使交替动词在相关构式中的表现提供了理论框架。本文提出,建立在多义基础上的致使交替动词也是一种构式,属于作格性构式,动词是否具有交替性在于作格性构式与及物性构式的相互压制与竞争的结果。
如何通过语料库测量致使交替强度,并就此展开汉英对比是本文的重点。在汉英对比部分采用“对比功能分析法”的理论假设和实证分析相结合的方法(Chesterman 1998)。语言对比语料主要是基于北京大学现代汉语语料库(CCL)和英国国家语料库(BNC)进行KWIC检索获得的。我们认为基于语料库考察致使交替性质和强度必须既要考察共有动词,还要考察共有客体,为此,我们在Stefanowitsch & Grie(s2003, 2004)和Lemmens(2009)的配式分析(collostructional analysis)基础上,提出研究致使交替强度(CAS)的三个指标及其计算方式:1)动词共同类符指数(verbal shared type index,简称STyI,“共类指数”);2)动词共同形符指数(verbal shared token index,简称SToI,“共形指数”);3)客体共同形符指数(theme shared token index,简称TSTI,“客形指数”)。在这三个CAS指标基础上,我们进而考察了汉英典型致使交替动词和“窒息”类致使交替动词。通过前者的考察我们总结CAV的一般特征和句法表现,后者的考察旨在寻求非典型致使交替动词(CAV)的交替特征和认知规律。我们对所检索到的两万余条句例逐条考察了CAV的致事特征、客体表现、动词语义结构和语义内容及其对交替特征的影响、时体特征。我们还从构式语法的角度,考察了有关致使交替现象的构式图谱以及动词与构式的互动关系。
本文的主要发现如下:
1)汉英致使交替现象的差异主要表现在:(i)就汉英典型CAV而言,除了结构差异较大之外,两者情状也有不同。英语致使交替动词通常都是达成或完结类动词,而汉语缺少完结动词,因此往往借助两种其他手段。一是在活动动词的基础上附加补语,将活动谓词变成完结谓词。二是借用时体标记词(如“了”)将结果义加于单音节动词之上,以此获取“过程+客体”独立识解的可能,其作用相当于“动作+结果”的动结式。(ii)汉英语“窒息”类动词的交替强度并不一致。汉语中单音节词致使交替动词非常有限,这是由汉语动词的双音化发展趋势所决定的。汉语中单音节动词的交替性低于英语,而汉语的双音节动词(如“窒息”类单音动词加“死”所构成的动结式)的交替广度和强度高于英语。汉语中受到话题句的影响,出现的假反致使句数量远远超过英语。
2)由于本文主要探讨致使交替现象的认知理据,因此也非常关注语料反映的共性:(i)英汉语中均存在共类指数与共形指数不一致的情况,但均呈连续统态势。动词客体使用频次的不均衡导致了致使交替的广度与强度的差异。连续统分布以及典型CAV也存在分裂作格的现象推翻了致使交替现象的作格/非作格两分说(Levin & Rappaport 1995;曾立英2007; 2009等)。(ii)汉英“窒息”类动词存在致使交替强度与认知概念的相关性,交替强度的最低值均出现在关涉外部的动词,而强度最高值均出现在关涉内部的动词,但是完全自发的动词也不具致使交替性(如smoulder)。汉英CAV在致使句中均具有行为义、致使义和结果状态义,其中行为义和致使义往往结合较为紧密。在反致使句中均具有结果状态义,不包含但不排斥行为义和致使义。(iii)致事“可移性”(transferability)是交替性的重要特点。如致事可以在施事、工具、自然力以及有无施事性之间转移,动词的可交替性就强,否则就弱。(iv)可交替性与动词结果义的语义指向以及内外论元生命度的级差有关。首先,致使交替动词的结果义需要指向客体论元。其次,动词语义要求的外论元与内论元的生命度级差越大,越具可交替性,同级则不能交替。
Functional linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics generally accept that world languages consist of transitive paradigm and ergative paradigm (Halliday 1985, 1994; Langacker 1991; Lemmens 1998), both of which, as put by Halliday (1985, 1994), Langacker (1991) and Dixon (1994), co-exist in every language. Lemmens (1998) and Ni Rong (2009) observe that substantial ergative phenomena in English and Chinese have long been neglected.
Causative alternation, as a core concept of ergativity, is characterized by verbs with both intransitive and transitive use. The intransitive use typically denotes a change-of-state event undergone by some entity while the transitive use denotes that this change-of-state event has been caused by some different entity. We define causative alternation in this dissertation as the same event denoted by the same verb, the causative content of which includes the prototypical agent and subsequent act, while the inchoative content of which does not, since the act denoted by the verb is voluntary.
Scholars have conducted much research on various cross-linguistic features of causative alternation from various perspectives of formal linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and functional linguistics. The formalist school holds two opposite interpretations: detransitivization and causativization. Researchers supporting detransitivization assume that all anticausatives are derived from their transitive counterpart and take the anticausative morphology as an idiosyncratic instance of allomorphy. The causativization approach assumes that the transitive entry is derived from the basic anticausative/unaccusative entry. However, the asymmetry of verb marking prevents both approaches from a satisfactory solution. The lack of derivational source and target of nonalternative unaccuatives constitutes a challenge for both transitive-based and intransitive-based approaches. Cognitive construction grammar, on the other hand, looks beyond alternations and considers each surface pattern on its own terms. Goldberg refers to the broader generalizations as Surface Generalizations. Nevertheless, it is no easy job to distinguish causative and anti-causative constructions from other relevant constructions.
The present research, compared with previous studies, differs in the following aspects: 1) We construct a unified Cognitive Model of Causative Alternation Event (CMCAE). 2) We set forth the relative indices of Causative Alternation Strength (CAS) and design corresponding formulae to measure them. 3) We conduct a corpus-based Chinese-English contrastive study.
Grounded on theories of Force-Dynamic, Causal Chain, A/D Layering and Absolute Construal, this study constructs CMCAE as a theoretical framework for further analyses of CAV in construction contexts. It proposes that polysemic CAV can also be taken as a construction, and the alternation ability is the outcome of the mutual competition between ergative and transitive constructions.
This study focuses on a contrastive study under the assistance of the measurement of CAS. We conduct this research with both qualitative and quantitative methods, adopting Chesterman’s (1998) CFA (Contrastive Functional Analysis) method. The data are gathered through KWIC search in CCL (Center for Chinese Linguistic PKU) Corpus and BNC (British National Corpus). We hold that it is essential to study the shared verbs plus shared themes. Thus, under the framework of collostructional analysis, we propose three CAS indices and design relative formulae: 1) verbal shared type index (“StyI”); 2) verbal shared token index (“SToI”); 3) theme shared token index (“TSTI”). We further explore the typical CAVs and the“SUFFOCATE”CAVs in both Chinese and English. We intend to obtain a general picture of semantic and syntactic features of CAVs and the cognitive motivations behind them. For that purpose, we have studied more than 20,000 samples in search of the nature of the causers, themes, tense-aspect features as well as the semantic structure and semantic content which influence alternation. This study also takes a close look at the construction family of causative alternation phenomena and the verb-construction interactions.
The major findings are as follows:
1) The dissimilarities between the two languages are: (i) Apart from structural differences, Chinese and English typical CAVs differ in situation types. English CAVs are generally achievement and accomplishment verbs, while due to the lack of accomplishment verbs, Chinese has to depend on two other means to achieve the same effect. One is to change activity predicates into accomplishment ones by attaching complements to activity verbs, and the other is to add the resultative meaning to monosyllabic verbs through tense-aspect markers (eg.“le”) so that“process + theme” obtains an absolute construal. (ii) Chinese and English“SUFFOCATE”verbs are dissimilar in CAS. Chinese monosyllabic CAVs are limited in number, as determined by the trend in disyllablization. The CAS of Chinese monosyllabic verbs is generally lower than that of their English counterparts, whereas that of Chinese disyllable verbs are higher in both STyI and SToI than that of the English ones. Considering the frequent occurrence of Chinese topic sentences, we conclude that the Chinese pseudo-anticausative sentences far outnumber English ones.
2) As this study tries to seek the cognitive motivation of causative alternations, the following commonalities reflected by the data should also deserve our attention. (i) With STyI-SToI inconsistencies in both languages, StyI and SToI reveal a tendency of continuum. The asymmetry of theme frequencies leads to the dissimilarities in the quality and quantity of causative alternations. The continuum trend and the split ergativity in even typical CAVs lead us to abandoning the clear-cut ergativity/non-ergativity distinction (Levin & Rappaport 1995; Zeng 2007, 2009, among others). (ii) In the case of Chinese and English“SUFFOCATE”verbs, there is a correlation between CAS and cognitive conception. The lowest CAS value is found in verbs concerning exterior organs, while the highest value is associated with verbs involving inner part of the body. Another interesting finding, though not many, is that fully voluntary verbs (such as“smoulder”) do not alternate. Chinese and English CAVs contain the semantic ingredients of ACT, CAUSE-BECOME and RESULT-STATE. The ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings are often integrated while the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning is the object argument. Anti-causatives must contain RESULT-STATE meaning, with neither inclusion nor expulsion of ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings. (iii) Another striking feature of causative alternations is the“transferability”of the causer. If the causer can be transferred among such semantic roles as agent, instrument, and natural force, or between the presence and absence of agentivity, the verb possesses a high potential for alternation. And it is also true the other way around. (iv) Potential for alternation is interrelated with the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning and animacy differences of the outer and inner arguments. First, the RESULT-STATE meaning directs toward the theme argument. Second, the broader the animacy gap between outer and inner argument is, the more potential for alternation a verb is. If both arguments are of the same animacy level, the verb is not likely to alternate.
引文
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object-marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21:435-483.
Alexiadou, Artemis, & Elena Anagnostopoulou, 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface, A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (eds), 114-136. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Sch?fer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. Phases of Interpretation, ed. by Mara Frascarelli, 187-211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson, Mona. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baker,Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20.219-252.
Berry-Rogghe, G. L. M. 1974. Automatic identification of phrasal verbs. In J. L. Mitchell (Ed.), Computers in the Humanities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 16–26.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bybee, J. 1998. The Emergent Lexicon. CLS 34: The Panels. Chicago Linguistics Society. pp. 421-35.
Chang, Vincent. 1986. The Particle LE in Chinese Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation Gainesville, FL: University of Florida
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, University of California Press. Chesterman, Andrew. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998: 55-58.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989/2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-LexiconInterface, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert, 22–59. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foils.
Cornips, Leonie and Aafke Hulk. 1999. Affected objects. Languges in Contrast 1:191–210.
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. The composition of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. M. Butt and W. Geuder. Stanford, CSLI Publications:47-48
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In Motivation in Language, Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), 49-68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Croft, William and Cruse, Allan D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidse, Kristin. 1991. Categories of Experiential Grammar. Unpub. Ph.D. Dissertation, K.U. Leuven.
Davis, Henry, and Hamida Demirdache. 2000. On lexical verb meanings: evidence from Salish. events as grammatical objects, ed. by Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 97–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.3:626-57.
Teng, Shou-hsin, 1975. A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California press.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar. 2 volumes. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirr, Adolf. 1912. Rutulskij jazyk. Grammati?eskij o?erk, teksty, sbornik rutulskix slov s russkim k nemu ukazatelem. Tiflis: Tipografija Glavnogo Uprevlenija Namestinika Kavkazsko (Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestonostej i plemen Kavkaza 42,3).
Dixon Robert M.W. 1979. Ergativity, Language 55, 59–138.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 3:547-619.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar– The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19.1 (Mar. 1993), 61-74
Embick, David. On the structure of resultative participles in English, Linguistic Inquiry, 35:3:355-392
Fillmore, C., Kay & M. O’connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical conditions: The case of LET ALONE. Language. 64: 501-538.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms. 1-88. New York.
Fillmore, Charles, J. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed.
by Mary Niepokuj, et. al., 73-86. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, Charles, J.1988. The mechanisms of construction grammar. Proceedings of the Fouteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster, 35-55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frei, Henri. 1956. The ergative construction in Chinese: theory of pekingese pa, Gengo Kenkyu 31, 22-50 (part I); 32, 83-115 (part II).
Givon, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7-5: 219-224.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. CognitiveLinguistics, 13: 327–356.
Gries, S. Th. &. Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan, 87–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Minimal Projection, Heads and Inversion. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
Hale , K. & S. J. Keyser. 1986. Some transitivity alternation in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 57, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 1987. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. in K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.) Views from Building 20, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicators. Complex predicates. A. Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells. Stanford, CSLI Publications: 29-65.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Event and Licensing. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.
H?rtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: the case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41. 883-916.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and Transitivity, ed. by Berhard Comrie & Maria Polinsky, 87–120.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1:1-33.
Hay, Jennifer, Chris Kennedy and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in‘degree achievements’. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9. Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 199-223.
Hoekstra, Teun and Rene Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 7:1-79.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua, 74:101-139.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta theory. In Roca, I. (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Berlin: Foris. 145-174.
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 139-157.
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. Activity-accomplishment-achievement: a language that can’t say,‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’and one that can. In Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells, Trier: LAUT Series A87, pp. 265–304.
Jaeggli, O.A. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17.587-622.
James, Carl. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. Harlow, Essex: Longman Group Ltd.
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part III. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Doosi imi ron (Verbal semantics). Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan.
Kallulli, Dalina. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38.770-780.
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1-33.
Kennedy, Christopher and Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements, in L. McNally and C. Kennedy, eds., Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 156-182.
Kennedy, G. 1991, Between and through: The company they keep and the functions they serve, in Aijmer und Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics, (pp. 95-110). London: Longman.
Kiparsky, Paul, 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alex Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.), Argument Structure. Stanford: CSLI.
Krzeszowski, T. P. Contrastive Generative Grammar. J. Fisiak. Theoretical Issues inContrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1980: 185-192.
Lakoff, George. 1968. Some verbs of change and causation. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report NSF-20, ed. by Susumu Kuno, 1–27. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularities in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. 2003. Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Universidad de La Rioja.
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20–1, 167–176
Langacker. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. R. de Mendoza and M. S. P. Cervel, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 101-59.
Larson, R. 1988. On the double construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lemmens, Maarten. 2009. Alternation or construction? A corpus-based study of alternation strength for the causative alternation. Paper presented at the international colloquium Evénement,événements et Sous-événements held at the Univ. ParisIII, 17-19 Sep. 2009.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration, in B. Levin and S. Pinker, eds. Lexical and Conceptual Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 123-151.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative verbs inEnglish, Lingua 92, 35-77. Also appears in L. Gleitman and B. Landau, eds. Lexical Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 35-77.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax- Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, Michael. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove, UK:Language Teaching Publications.
Li, Y.C. and M.Yip. 1979. The ba construction and ergativity in Chinese. In F. Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Academic Press, London.
Li, Yafei. 1995. The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 255-282.
MacGregor, David, 2007, It Really Wonders Me: On the Relationship Between Intransitives and Causatives in English. Ph. D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Manzini, M. R. 1983. On control and control theory, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421- 446.
Marantz, A. P. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. in A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, et al., eds., University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 4.2, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201-225.
Oh, S. Y. 2000. Actually and in fact in American English: a data‐b ased analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4: 243‐6 8.
Pedersen, T. 1996. Fishing for exactness. Proceedings of the SCSUG 96 in Austin, TX, 188-120.
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal passives and unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: University of California.
Perlmutter, D.M. and P.M. Postal 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In Perlmutter and C. Rosen (Eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, pp. 98-99
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiences and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pi?ón, Cristopher. 2001. A Finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI, ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson and Zsofia Zvolenszky. Ithaka, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications; and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pylkk?nen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
Pylkk?nen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntax: A minimalist introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics, in A. Zwicky and A. Spencer, eds., Handbook of Morphology, Blackwell, Oxford, 248-271.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin. 2011. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation, in M. Everaert, M. Marelj, and T. Siloni, eds., The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts OTS Working Papers. TL-00.002, Utrecht University.
Reinhart. 2002. The Theta System– An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28.229–290.
Roeper, Tom. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18.267-310.
Sch?fer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-) Causatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sch?fer, Florian. 2009, The causative alternation. In Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 3.2, 641-681.
Shi, Dingxu & Sze-Wing Tang. 1999. Some notes on the so-called pseudo-passives in Chinese. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Annual Research Forum. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Simpson, J. 1983. Resultatives. In L. Levin et al., eds., Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana, 143-157.
Sinclair,l999, Collins Cobuild English Grammar,任绍曾译,北京:商务印书馆。
Smith, C. S. 1993. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Paperback edition.
Smith, Carlotta S. 1970. Jespersen’s‘move and change’class and causative verbs in English. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. Vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics, ed. by In Mohammad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Poloméand Werner Winter, 101–109. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 1–43.
Stroik, Thomas. 1992. Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 127-137.
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles; On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of language, 2(1), 23-55.
Susumu Kuno, Takami Ken-ichi, Kenichi Takami, 2004. Functional Constraints In Grammar: On The Unergative-unaccusative Distinction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sybesma, Rint. 1997. Why Chinese verb-le is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6, 215-262.
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, James H-Y. 1984. Verbs and times in Chinese: Vendler's four categories. In Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics, ed. David Testen, Veena Mishra, and Joseph Drogo. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. 1976. Semantic causative types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (vol. 6): The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. 1981. Force Dynamics. In Language and Mental Imagery, Berkeley, University of California.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Vol.1: Concept Structuring System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, Tim Shopen (ed.), 57-149. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. & R. G. Ramos. Ergativity in the Analysis of Business Texts. DIRECT Working Papers. No. 3. Sao Paulo: CEPRIL, Catholic University of Sao Paulo, 1994.
van Oosten. J. 1986. The nature of subjects, topics and agents: a cognitive explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
van Valin, R. D., JR. & Lapolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Peking & Cambridge: Peking University Press & Cambridge University Press.
van Valin, R. D., JR. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221-260.
van Valin, R. D., JR. 1993. A Synposis of role and reference grammar. In Van Valin, R.D. (ed.). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Valin, R. D.,JR. and D. P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for‘effector’: case roles, agents, and agency revisited. in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review LXVI. 143-160.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wilkins, D. P., and R.D. Van valin, JR. 1993. The Case for a Case Reopened: Agents and Agency Revisited. Technical Report 93-2, Center for Cognitive Science, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1.81–114.
Williams, Edwin. 1991. Meaning categories of NPs and Ss. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 584–587.
Zhang, R. (张韧). 2006. Symbolic flexibility and argument structure variation. Linguistics 44,4: 689-720.
陈昌来,2001,论现代汉语的致使结构,《井冈山师范学院学报》第3期,28-33页。
邓守信,1983,汉语及物性关系的语义研究,哈尔滨:黑龙江大学科研处编印。
邓守信,1986,汉语动词的时间结构,《第一届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》,北京:北京语言学院出版社。
邓思颖,2004,作格化和汉语被动句,《中国语文》第4期,291-301页。
高明乐,2004,《题元角色的句法实现》,北京:中国社会科学出版社。
顾阳,1996,生成语法及词库中动词的一些特性,《国外语言学》第3期,1-16页。
顾阳,1994.论元结构理论介绍,《国外语言学》第1期,1-11页。
郭印、张艳,2010,也论对比语言学的定义问题,《南昌大学学报》第4期,153-157页。
胡裕树主编,1981,《现代汉语》第三版。上海:上海教育出版社。
黄正德,1990,中文的两种及物动词和两种不及物动词。《第二届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集》。台北:世界华文出版社,39-59。
黄正德,2008,题元理论与汉语动词题元结构研究,载沈阳、冯胜利主编,《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》,北京:商务印书馆,136-159页。
金立鑫,1997,“把”字句的句法、语义、语境特征,《中国语文》第6期,415-423页。
李临定,1999,《现代汉语疑难词词典》(编著),北京:商务印书馆。
刘礼进,2010,《视点回指和汉英长距离反身代词研究》(博士论文),上海外国语大学。
刘探宙,2009,一元非作格动词带宾语现象,《中国语文》第2期,110-119页。
刘晓林,2006,补语、特殊句式和作格化,《现代外语》第3期,243-256页。
刘晓林,2008,特殊句式作格化的强弱及其类型学意义,《外国语》第3期,31-38页。
刘晓林、王文斌,2010,动性弱化、语义自足、作格化与语序类型特征效应,《现代外语》第2期,133-141页。
吕叔湘,1986,汉语句法的灵活性,《中国语文》第1期,又载《吕叔湘文集》(第三卷),556-560页。
吕叔湘,1987,说“胜”和“败”。《中国语文》第1期,1-5页。
吕叔湘,1992,《吕叔湘文集》(第三卷),北京:商务印书馆。
罗思明,2009,英汉动结式的认知功能分析(博士论文),上海外国语大学。
梅德明、韩巍峰,2010,显性非宾格动词的主题化分析,《外语教学与研究》第5期,329-337页。
孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰,1999,《汉语动词用法词典》,北京:商务印书馆。
倪蓉,2009,《现代汉语作格交替现象研究》。长春:吉林大学出版社。
潘海华、韩景泉,2005,显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究,《语言研究》第3期,1-13页。
屈承熹,2006,《汉语篇章语法》,北京:北京语言学院出版社。
屈承熹,2004,《汉语认知功能语法》,哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社。
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。
沈家煊,2000,句式和配价,《中国语文》第4期,291-297页。
沈家煊,2004,动结式“追累”的语法和语义,《语言科学》第6期,3-15页。
沈家煊,2006,“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式—兼说汉语“揉合”造句,《中国语文》第4期,291-300页。
沈家煊,2009,“计量得失”和“计较得失”—再论“王冕死了父亲”的句式意义和生成方式,《语言教学与研究》第5期,15-22页。
沈园,2007,《句法-语义界面研究》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳,2008,《认知语义学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王玲玲、何元建,2002,《汉语动结结构》,浙江教育出版社。
王文斌、罗思明、刘晓林、于善志,2009,英汉作格动词语义、句法及其界面比较,《外语教学与研究》,第3期:193-201。
王寅,2001,《语义理论与语言教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2005,事件域认知模型及其解释力,《现代外语》第1期,17-26页。
王寅,2006,《认知语法概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,《认知语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
邢福义,1997,《汉语语法学》,长春:东北师范大学出版社。
徐杰,1999,两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题,《当代语言学》第1期,16-29页。
徐杰,2001,《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》,北京:北京大学出版社。
徐烈炯,1995,《语义学》(修订本),北京:语文出版社。
许余龙,2005,对比功能分析的研究方法及其应用,《外语与外语教学》第11期,12-15页。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2007,再论语言对比基础的类型,《外国语》第6期,21-27页。
杨素英,1999,从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系,《当代语言学》第1期,30-43页。
影山太郎,2001,《动词语义学》,于康、张勤、王占华译,北京:中国广播电视大学出版社。
袁毓林,2008,《基于认知的汉语计算语言学研究》,北京:北京大学出版社。
曾立英,2007,作格研究述评,《现代外语》第4期,424-432页。
曾立英,2009,《现代汉语作格现象研究》。北京:中央民族大学出版社。
张伯江,1999,现代汉语的双及物句式,《中国语文》第3期,175-184页。
张法科、周长银,2004,vP壳结构与英语一项谓词句的生成,《外语与外语教学》第7期,5-9页。
张韧,2007,认知语法视野下的构式研究,《外语研究》第3期,35-40页。
张韧,2009,关于词类本质的一个动态认知视角,《当代语言学》第3期,233-243页。
赵彦春,2002,作格动词与存现结构症结,《外语学刊》第2期,63-67页。
朱琳,2007,《现代汉语作格结构》(博士论文),香港科技大学。
Alexiadou, Artemis, & Elena Anagnostopoulou, 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface, A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (eds), 114-136. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Sch?fer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. Phases of Interpretation, ed. by Mara Frascarelli, 187-211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson, Mona. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baker,Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20.219-252.
Berry-Rogghe, G. L. M. 1974. Automatic identification of phrasal verbs. In J. L. Mitchell (Ed.), Computers in the Humanities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 16–26.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bybee, J. 1998. The Emergent Lexicon. CLS 34: The Panels. Chicago Linguistics Society. pp. 421-35.
Chang, Vincent. 1986. The Particle LE in Chinese Narrative Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation Gainesville, FL: University of Florida
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, University of California Press. Chesterman, Andrew. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998: 55-58.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989/2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-LexiconInterface, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert, 22–59. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foils.
Cornips, Leonie and Aafke Hulk. 1999. Affected objects. Languges in Contrast 1:191–210.
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. The composition of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. M. Butt and W. Geuder. Stanford, CSLI Publications:47-48
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In Motivation in Language, Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), 49-68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Croft, William and Cruse, Allan D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidse, Kristin. 1991. Categories of Experiential Grammar. Unpub. Ph.D. Dissertation, K.U. Leuven.
Davis, Henry, and Hamida Demirdache. 2000. On lexical verb meanings: evidence from Salish. events as grammatical objects, ed. by Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 97–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.3:626-57.
Teng, Shou-hsin, 1975. A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California press.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar. 2 volumes. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirr, Adolf. 1912. Rutulskij jazyk. Grammati?eskij o?erk, teksty, sbornik rutulskix slov s russkim k nemu ukazatelem. Tiflis: Tipografija Glavnogo Uprevlenija Namestinika Kavkazsko (Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestonostej i plemen Kavkaza 42,3).
Dixon Robert M.W. 1979. Ergativity, Language 55, 59–138.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 3:547-619.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar– The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19.1 (Mar. 1993), 61-74
Embick, David. On the structure of resultative participles in English, Linguistic Inquiry, 35:3:355-392
Fillmore, C., Kay & M. O’connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical conditions: The case of LET ALONE. Language. 64: 501-538.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms. 1-88. New York.
Fillmore, Charles, J. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed.
by Mary Niepokuj, et. al., 73-86. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, Charles, J.1988. The mechanisms of construction grammar. Proceedings of the Fouteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster, 35-55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frei, Henri. 1956. The ergative construction in Chinese: theory of pekingese pa, Gengo Kenkyu 31, 22-50 (part I); 32, 83-115 (part II).
Givon, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7-5: 219-224.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. CognitiveLinguistics, 13: 327–356.
Gries, S. Th. &. Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan, 87–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Minimal Projection, Heads and Inversion. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
Hale , K. & S. J. Keyser. 1986. Some transitivity alternation in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 57, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 1987. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. in K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.) Views from Building 20, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicators. Complex predicates. A. Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells. Stanford, CSLI Publications: 29-65.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Event and Licensing. Ph.D dissertation, MIT.
H?rtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: the case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41. 883-916.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and Transitivity, ed. by Berhard Comrie & Maria Polinsky, 87–120.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1:1-33.
Hay, Jennifer, Chris Kennedy and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in‘degree achievements’. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9. Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 199-223.
Hoekstra, Teun and Rene Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 7:1-79.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua, 74:101-139.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta theory. In Roca, I. (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Berlin: Foris. 145-174.
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 139-157.
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. Activity-accomplishment-achievement: a language that can’t say,‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’and one that can. In Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells, Trier: LAUT Series A87, pp. 265–304.
Jaeggli, O.A. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17.587-622.
James, Carl. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. Harlow, Essex: Longman Group Ltd.
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part III. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Doosi imi ron (Verbal semantics). Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan.
Kallulli, Dalina. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38.770-780.
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1-33.
Kennedy, Christopher and Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements, in L. McNally and C. Kennedy, eds., Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 156-182.
Kennedy, G. 1991, Between and through: The company they keep and the functions they serve, in Aijmer und Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics, (pp. 95-110). London: Longman.
Kiparsky, Paul, 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alex Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.), Argument Structure. Stanford: CSLI.
Krzeszowski, T. P. Contrastive Generative Grammar. J. Fisiak. Theoretical Issues inContrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1980: 185-192.
Lakoff, George. 1968. Some verbs of change and causation. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report NSF-20, ed. by Susumu Kuno, 1–27. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularities in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. 2003. Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Universidad de La Rioja.
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20–1, 167–176
Langacker. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. R. de Mendoza and M. S. P. Cervel, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 101-59.
Larson, R. 1988. On the double construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lemmens, Maarten. 2009. Alternation or construction? A corpus-based study of alternation strength for the causative alternation. Paper presented at the international colloquium Evénement,événements et Sous-événements held at the Univ. ParisIII, 17-19 Sep. 2009.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration, in B. Levin and S. Pinker, eds. Lexical and Conceptual Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 123-151.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative verbs inEnglish, Lingua 92, 35-77. Also appears in L. Gleitman and B. Landau, eds. Lexical Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 35-77.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax- Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, Michael. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove, UK:Language Teaching Publications.
Li, Y.C. and M.Yip. 1979. The ba construction and ergativity in Chinese. In F. Plank, ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Academic Press, London.
Li, Yafei. 1995. The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 255-282.
MacGregor, David, 2007, It Really Wonders Me: On the Relationship Between Intransitives and Causatives in English. Ph. D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Manzini, M. R. 1983. On control and control theory, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421- 446.
Marantz, A. P. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. in A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, et al., eds., University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 4.2, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201-225.
Oh, S. Y. 2000. Actually and in fact in American English: a data‐b ased analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4: 243‐6 8.
Pedersen, T. 1996. Fishing for exactness. Proceedings of the SCSUG 96 in Austin, TX, 188-120.
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal passives and unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: University of California.
Perlmutter, D.M. and P.M. Postal 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In Perlmutter and C. Rosen (Eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, pp. 98-99
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiences and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pi?ón, Cristopher. 2001. A Finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI, ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson and Zsofia Zvolenszky. Ithaka, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications; and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pylkk?nen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
Pylkk?nen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntax: A minimalist introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics, in A. Zwicky and A. Spencer, eds., Handbook of Morphology, Blackwell, Oxford, 248-271.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin. 2011. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation, in M. Everaert, M. Marelj, and T. Siloni, eds., The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts OTS Working Papers. TL-00.002, Utrecht University.
Reinhart. 2002. The Theta System– An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28.229–290.
Roeper, Tom. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18.267-310.
Sch?fer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-) Causatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sch?fer, Florian. 2009, The causative alternation. In Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 3.2, 641-681.
Shi, Dingxu & Sze-Wing Tang. 1999. Some notes on the so-called pseudo-passives in Chinese. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Annual Research Forum. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Simpson, J. 1983. Resultatives. In L. Levin et al., eds., Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana, 143-157.
Sinclair,l999, Collins Cobuild English Grammar,任绍曾译,北京:商务印书馆。
Smith, C. S. 1993. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Paperback edition.
Smith, Carlotta S. 1970. Jespersen’s‘move and change’class and causative verbs in English. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. Vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics, ed. by In Mohammad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Poloméand Werner Winter, 101–109. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 1–43.
Stroik, Thomas. 1992. Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 127-137.
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles; On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of language, 2(1), 23-55.
Susumu Kuno, Takami Ken-ichi, Kenichi Takami, 2004. Functional Constraints In Grammar: On The Unergative-unaccusative Distinction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sybesma, Rint. 1997. Why Chinese verb-le is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6, 215-262.
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, James H-Y. 1984. Verbs and times in Chinese: Vendler's four categories. In Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics, ed. David Testen, Veena Mishra, and Joseph Drogo. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. 1976. Semantic causative types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (vol. 6): The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. 1981. Force Dynamics. In Language and Mental Imagery, Berkeley, University of California.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Vol.1: Concept Structuring System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, Tim Shopen (ed.), 57-149. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. & R. G. Ramos. Ergativity in the Analysis of Business Texts. DIRECT Working Papers. No. 3. Sao Paulo: CEPRIL, Catholic University of Sao Paulo, 1994.
van Oosten. J. 1986. The nature of subjects, topics and agents: a cognitive explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
van Valin, R. D., JR. & Lapolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Peking & Cambridge: Peking University Press & Cambridge University Press.
van Valin, R. D., JR. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221-260.
van Valin, R. D., JR. 1993. A Synposis of role and reference grammar. In Van Valin, R.D. (ed.). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Valin, R. D.,JR. and D. P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for‘effector’: case roles, agents, and agency revisited. in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review LXVI. 143-160.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wilkins, D. P., and R.D. Van valin, JR. 1993. The Case for a Case Reopened: Agents and Agency Revisited. Technical Report 93-2, Center for Cognitive Science, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1.81–114.
Williams, Edwin. 1991. Meaning categories of NPs and Ss. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 584–587.
Zhang, R. (张韧). 2006. Symbolic flexibility and argument structure variation. Linguistics 44,4: 689-720.
陈昌来,2001,论现代汉语的致使结构,《井冈山师范学院学报》第3期,28-33页。
邓守信,1983,汉语及物性关系的语义研究,哈尔滨:黑龙江大学科研处编印。
邓守信,1986,汉语动词的时间结构,《第一届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选》,北京:北京语言学院出版社。
邓思颖,2004,作格化和汉语被动句,《中国语文》第4期,291-301页。
高明乐,2004,《题元角色的句法实现》,北京:中国社会科学出版社。
顾阳,1996,生成语法及词库中动词的一些特性,《国外语言学》第3期,1-16页。
顾阳,1994.论元结构理论介绍,《国外语言学》第1期,1-11页。
郭印、张艳,2010,也论对比语言学的定义问题,《南昌大学学报》第4期,153-157页。
胡裕树主编,1981,《现代汉语》第三版。上海:上海教育出版社。
黄正德,1990,中文的两种及物动词和两种不及物动词。《第二届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集》。台北:世界华文出版社,39-59。
黄正德,2008,题元理论与汉语动词题元结构研究,载沈阳、冯胜利主编,《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》,北京:商务印书馆,136-159页。
金立鑫,1997,“把”字句的句法、语义、语境特征,《中国语文》第6期,415-423页。
李临定,1999,《现代汉语疑难词词典》(编著),北京:商务印书馆。
刘礼进,2010,《视点回指和汉英长距离反身代词研究》(博士论文),上海外国语大学。
刘探宙,2009,一元非作格动词带宾语现象,《中国语文》第2期,110-119页。
刘晓林,2006,补语、特殊句式和作格化,《现代外语》第3期,243-256页。
刘晓林,2008,特殊句式作格化的强弱及其类型学意义,《外国语》第3期,31-38页。
刘晓林、王文斌,2010,动性弱化、语义自足、作格化与语序类型特征效应,《现代外语》第2期,133-141页。
吕叔湘,1986,汉语句法的灵活性,《中国语文》第1期,又载《吕叔湘文集》(第三卷),556-560页。
吕叔湘,1987,说“胜”和“败”。《中国语文》第1期,1-5页。
吕叔湘,1992,《吕叔湘文集》(第三卷),北京:商务印书馆。
罗思明,2009,英汉动结式的认知功能分析(博士论文),上海外国语大学。
梅德明、韩巍峰,2010,显性非宾格动词的主题化分析,《外语教学与研究》第5期,329-337页。
孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰,1999,《汉语动词用法词典》,北京:商务印书馆。
倪蓉,2009,《现代汉语作格交替现象研究》。长春:吉林大学出版社。
潘海华、韩景泉,2005,显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究,《语言研究》第3期,1-13页。
屈承熹,2006,《汉语篇章语法》,北京:北京语言学院出版社。
屈承熹,2004,《汉语认知功能语法》,哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社。
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。
沈家煊,2000,句式和配价,《中国语文》第4期,291-297页。
沈家煊,2004,动结式“追累”的语法和语义,《语言科学》第6期,3-15页。
沈家煊,2006,“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式—兼说汉语“揉合”造句,《中国语文》第4期,291-300页。
沈家煊,2009,“计量得失”和“计较得失”—再论“王冕死了父亲”的句式意义和生成方式,《语言教学与研究》第5期,15-22页。
沈园,2007,《句法-语义界面研究》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳,2008,《认知语义学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王玲玲、何元建,2002,《汉语动结结构》,浙江教育出版社。
王文斌、罗思明、刘晓林、于善志,2009,英汉作格动词语义、句法及其界面比较,《外语教学与研究》,第3期:193-201。
王寅,2001,《语义理论与语言教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2005,事件域认知模型及其解释力,《现代外语》第1期,17-26页。
王寅,2006,《认知语法概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2007,《认知语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
邢福义,1997,《汉语语法学》,长春:东北师范大学出版社。
徐杰,1999,两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题,《当代语言学》第1期,16-29页。
徐杰,2001,《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》,北京:北京大学出版社。
徐烈炯,1995,《语义学》(修订本),北京:语文出版社。
许余龙,2005,对比功能分析的研究方法及其应用,《外语与外语教学》第11期,12-15页。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2007,再论语言对比基础的类型,《外国语》第6期,21-27页。
杨素英,1999,从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系,《当代语言学》第1期,30-43页。
影山太郎,2001,《动词语义学》,于康、张勤、王占华译,北京:中国广播电视大学出版社。
袁毓林,2008,《基于认知的汉语计算语言学研究》,北京:北京大学出版社。
曾立英,2007,作格研究述评,《现代外语》第4期,424-432页。
曾立英,2009,《现代汉语作格现象研究》。北京:中央民族大学出版社。
张伯江,1999,现代汉语的双及物句式,《中国语文》第3期,175-184页。
张法科、周长银,2004,vP壳结构与英语一项谓词句的生成,《外语与外语教学》第7期,5-9页。
张韧,2007,认知语法视野下的构式研究,《外语研究》第3期,35-40页。
张韧,2009,关于词类本质的一个动态认知视角,《当代语言学》第3期,233-243页。
赵彦春,2002,作格动词与存现结构症结,《外语学刊》第2期,63-67页。
朱琳,2007,《现代汉语作格结构》(博士论文),香港科技大学。