英语非限定动词结构中的句法语义关系之认知研究
|
摘要
对英语动词的研究在语法研究中占有重要的地位。英语非限定动词形式是动词的句法呈现的手段之一。由于非限定动词的句法地位有别于限定动词,所以动词究竟采用何种形式体现于句法层面取决于句法选择的控制；另一方面,句法选择对非限定动词形式的控制必须反映相关的语义框架关系对句法层面的映射。句法对语义关系映射的镜像效应充分体现在英语非限定动词结构上。英语非限定动词结构不是孤立的命题内关系,而是与其主命题之间的复命题关系。这种复杂的复命题结构需要系统的认知研究。英语非限定动词结构体现着一定的语言规律。本研究的目的是运用认知语言学的相关理论系统地探寻英语非限定动词结构呈现的语言规律。由于研究视角的不同或时代的局限性,已有的英语非限定动词研究显得零散,要么没有进行语义分析,要么研究欠深度,难具系统性。本研究站在已有研究的肩膀上,拟对英语非限定动词的构建特点进行较全面系统的认知研究,以有效地探寻英语非限定动词的语言规律。主要研究英语非限定动词结构的句法特征、语义映射规律、逻辑主语构建机制、时段构建和概念规约化构式。
英语非限定动词结构通常对反映相关语义命题的语义投射进行句法处理,进而形成规约的句法范畴化结构。无论是充当论元还是附加成分,英语非限定动词遵循这种规约的句法范畴化原理在句法层面作为某一相应的句法范畴构造而成。这种概念化和范畴化遵循语言认知规律,反映了句法形式是由语言使用者对命题进行适当的语义估算后的实现语义映射的句法顺应。英语非限定动词结构遵循“语义为主”的原则镜像出语义模块之间的逻辑关系演算。动词的语义框架生成出或激发出与其相应的句法结构。英语非限定动词的句法结构并非凭空而成,而是受到其相关的语义框架映射而产生的。英语非限定动词结构镜像似地反映着投射在其句法结构上的语义框架的语义关系演算。英语英语非限定动词结构的根基是表述命题的述谓结构。语义映射相应地把语义框架中次命题的从属性归约化成句法形式的动词非限定性。这种从属性并不破坏述谓结构的语义框架完整性：英语非限定动词结构的时段体现了与主命题述谓结构的关系,而且非限定动词的语态选择体现了述谓结构中与谓词相关的论元之间关系的句法呈现之竞争。论元与谓词的关系提供了语态的语义认知基础。非限定动词的语态句法呈现不与语义意义相冲突：主动语态句法形式表达施事的主动意义,而不是表达与之矛盾的被动意义。这种句法形式与语义意义一致的认知理据来自语义框架对句法结构的映射。人们认知世界的概念在句法结构中反映语义结构。
时间关系是动词的本质特征。其实,如同动词的限定形式一样,英语非限定动词也具备与参照点相关的时间概念,并以非限定动词的句法标记为基础构建含时间概念意义的规约句法形式。基于非限定动词时段原型意义进化来的时段强调型体现语言使用者为了有效避免同一时段标记歧义而着意凸显其中某一规约时段的语用性。非限定动词时段基本型意义是其强调型意义的认知基础。在此意义上,非限定动词的时段基本型具有原型性,提供了时段意义扩展的可能性。非限定动词时段的显著特征就是拥有相关的时间参照性。非限定动词的时段参照性显示：非限定动词的时间性是关联的,不是孤立的。在一定程度上,句法存在认知惯性。非限定动词形式生成出可能与时段基本型一致的强调型,也可能产生相异于时段基本型的固定型。如果规约的某一基本型时段意义在句法层面得到强化,就形成反映语言使用者强调的强调型,自然可简化地还原成基本型。与此相反,如果规约的某一基本型时段意义被命题语义预设零化,随即丧失基本型的时段意义,那么体现语义框架强势映射的时段固定型意义明显区分于时段的强调型意义。
英语非限定动词结构体现某些重要概念的映射。一旦某一非限定句法结构规约地形成,其某些抽象特征在语义框架的呈现和解释中起着不可忽视的认知作用。体现在非限定动词结构中的句法意义主要有从属性、论元性或附加性、原型性、完型性和隐喻性。这些句法意义在非限定动词结构中也许单独起作用,也可能联合起作用。英语非限定动词句法形式是反映相关语义框架关系的规约结构。一方面,次命题谓词时间的参照性概念在很大程度上决定着其非限定动词形式的时段意义,使得其基本的时段意义具有原型性,可以映射到非限定动词时段的句法呈现上。另一方面,基于谓词的行为性,语义框架关系可以衍生出次命题述谓结构的施事性概念,影响到诸如事件型、功能型的非限定动词结构的语态选择偏向。非限定动词结构的规约性可以有机地凸显或背景化语义框架关系中的某些因素,体现语言使用者的语用意识。习语性英语非限定动词结构不但没有背弃非限定动词构建的重要概念,反而凸显概念的规约作用。具有习语特征的英语非限定动词结构并非随意构建的,而是在非限定动词结构中体现诸如语态演算机制和时段参照性的相关概念。非限定动词结构的基本概念不是孤立的,而是关联的,有时是互动的。非限定动词基本概念的强大体现力表明：正是概念的原型意义赋予习语性非限定动词结构存在的合理性和其构建所依赖的语义基石。
本研究认为：英语非限定动词是体现从属性特征的句法呈现顺应语义框架关系演算的结构。换言之,非限定动词结构中的语义框架是其句法呈现的基石,反映语言使用者的认知能力和运用习惯,其中对非限定动词的概念化和范畴化等认知意识在非限定动词构建中起着重要的认知作用。非限定动词结构不是随意而生的,而是遵循语义关系作用于句法表征的语言构建原则生成的规约结构。英语非限定动词结构的句法多样性源自其语义框架关系演算中的选择性,这反映出语言结构构建的广泛性：在句法上呈现多样性,但万变不离其宗的语义框架的惟一性。英语非限定动词结构中,语义框架关系决定句法呈现形式。
The study of verb in English is indispensable to the research on grammar. The non-finite form, which is distinct from its counterpart finite form, of the verb is a common optional syntactic representation of the verb in English. Whether the verb is represented in the non-finite form or in the finite form depends on the syntactic option and preference. In this respect, the syntactically opted non-finite verb mirrors the semantic relationship from the base semantic framework onto the syntactic representation. The semantic framework that is multi-propositional rather than mono-propositional generates the potentiality for the non-finiteness in the verb. The complex multi-propositional representation calls for a systematic study, for some linguistic regularity is embodied in the non-finiteness in the verb. The aim of this study is to systematically delve into the linguistic regularities characteristic of the non-finite verb structure in English from the cognitive perspective. Due to the different perspectives, the research that has been conducted on the English non-finite verb seems unsystematic and rather skin-deep. Even some research is anything but cognition-oriented. Based on the previous research, this study aims to systematically look into the structure of the English non-finite verb in order to scrutinize the linguistic rules underlying the English non-finite verb. This study is mainly concerned with the characteristics of the syntactic representation in the non-finite verb structure, the semantic relationship, the mechanism of the logical subject, the phase construction and some essential conceptions that are conventionally constructed in the non-finite verb in English.
In English, the non-finite verb structure, which is a conventionalized syntactic construction, reflects the related semantic mapping onto the syntactic representation from the semantic proposition. The non-finite verb is syntactically structured as a syntactic category, be it an argument of a clause or an adjunct to the clause, according to the conventionalized categorization in the syntactic structure which filters the relevant semantic mapping projected from the related semantic framework in question. The conceptualization and categorization, which symbolizes the syntactic adaptation in the non-finite verb structure via the semantic mapping from the language user's calculation of the base proposition, in the English non-finite verb structure are closely connected with linguistic cognition. In terms of the semantic-based principle, the English non-finite verb structure reflects the logical computation of the semantic framework. The syntactic representation reflects the related semantic framework though it, to a certain extent, does not necessarily duplicate its semantic source. The syntactic structure of the non-finite verb in English does not exist in a vacuum. The non-finite verb structure iconically mirrors the semantic framework from which the semantic relationship is mapped. The English non-finite verb structure is based on its relevant predication in the form of the proposition. The subordination in the minor predication is embodied in the non-finite verb structure. The semantic mapping symbolizes the non-finiteness by virtue of the conventionalization of its syntactic structure in light of subordination, which keeps the semantic relationship intact. The relationship between the predicate and its arguments provides the semantically cognitive foundation for the syntactic representation of the voice. As the core of the propositional representation in language, the verb has the most salient argument opted for its syntactical subject in the finite form or its logical subject in the non-finite form. As far as the non-finite verb in English is concerned, it is the option for the logical subject among the arguments related to the predicate that launches a cognitive ranking of subjectivity. The potentiality or nullification of the passive voice in the non-finite verb structure lies in the syntactical mechanism of the logical subject. In this sense, the semantic ranking of the multi-propositional framework is correspondently embodied in the syntactic categorization of the predicates and their respective arguments. In brief, the logical subject belongs to the scope of the non-finiteness. The configuration of the logical subject in the non-finite verb structure finds the semantic calculation as the core of the structure. The linguistic phenomenon that the syntactic representation of the non-finite verb structure does not conflict with its semantic relationship in the predication indicates that the voice system at the syntactical level conforms with its semantic relationship between the predicate and its arguments. In other words, the active voice of the non-finite verb structure is deeply rooted in the agent argument instead of the patient argument. The iconicity in the syntactic representation, which does not stray away from the semantic framework, descends from the semantic mapping onto the syntactic structure. It is self-evident that the conceptualization from our cognition of the world around us maps the correspondent semantic framework onto the syntactic representation.
The temporal relationship is an indispensable ingredient to the verb in language. Although the tense is lost in the non-finite verb, temporality is not ruled out but represented in a different way. The semantic feature of temporality in the predicate is syntactically represented or symbolized in the non-finite verb structure in a variety of ways in which the cognitive conventionalization takes root. A variety of temporality in the non-finite verb is embodied in the limited non-finite forms so that the identical morphologically inflectionalized non-finite forms may extend the scope of temporality or beyond. The emphasis version based on its relevant base version pragmatically highlights a certain temporal relationship by means of ruling out the ambiguity in the same non-finite form. In this sense, the base version of phase serves as the cognititve foundation for the emphasis version, which makes possible the extension of the temporal sense that is characteristic of the temporal prototypicality. The temporal referentiality is characterstic of the temporal relationship in the non-finite verb structure. In terms of the temporal referentiality, the temporal relationship is related rather than isolated. To some extent, there is a certain cogntitive inertia in syntactic representation:the convergence between the emphasis version and the base version versus the divergence of the fossilized version from the base version. The emphasis version of the temporal relationship highlights its base version while the fossilized version is deviant from the base version. In this respect, there is a great difference between the emphasis version and the fossilized version in the course of the syntactic evolution of the temporal relationship.
There are some conceptualized senses underlying the English non-finite verb structure. Once some structure of the English non-finite verb is conventionalized, the abstract characteristics that are embodied in the English non-finite verb play a vital role in linguistic cognition. In addition to subordination, there exists argumentation, adjunction, prototypicality, and metaphoricality in the English non-finite verb. The syntactic senses may act respectively or interact jointly. For one thing, the time referentiality in the minor predication greatly determines the phase conceptualization in the non-finite verb. For another, the semantic framework characteristic of action generates the concept of agentivity that has a cognitive effect on the voice option in event-oriented and fuction-oriented non-finite verb structures. Even the idiomaticity does not rule out the conventionalization in the English non-finite verb. In this sense, the basic concepts in the English non-finite verb are not isolated but associated as well as interactive. The powerful conceptualized representation in the English non-finite verb structure illustrates that the protptypicality in conceptualization of the non-finiteness lays a solid semantic foundation for the idiomatic non-finite verb structure and leads to the plausibility in the idiomatic non-finite verb structure.
This study has accordingly come to the conclusion that the non-finite verb structure in English is characteristic of the syntactic adaptation to represent the dependency in the predicate that is semantically projected from the correlated semantic framework. In other words, the non-finite verb structure in English, which reflects the cognitive competence and performance in the language user, has the semantic framework as its cornerstone laid for the syntactic representation. It goes without saying that the non-finite verb structure, which is not borne at random but conventionally structured via the syntactic adaptation to the semantic computation, is deeply rooted in conceptualization and categorization in terms of the non-finiteness in the verb. To some extent, the non-finite verb structure in English exemplifies the universality that language structure is syntactically diverse but semantically unique. The non-finite verb structure in English is semantically framed and syntactically mirrored. The semantic relationship in the predication determines the relevant syntactic representation of the English non-finite verb structure.
英语非限定动词结构通常对反映相关语义命题的语义投射进行句法处理,进而形成规约的句法范畴化结构。无论是充当论元还是附加成分,英语非限定动词遵循这种规约的句法范畴化原理在句法层面作为某一相应的句法范畴构造而成。这种概念化和范畴化遵循语言认知规律,反映了句法形式是由语言使用者对命题进行适当的语义估算后的实现语义映射的句法顺应。英语非限定动词结构遵循“语义为主”的原则镜像出语义模块之间的逻辑关系演算。动词的语义框架生成出或激发出与其相应的句法结构。英语非限定动词的句法结构并非凭空而成,而是受到其相关的语义框架映射而产生的。英语非限定动词结构镜像似地反映着投射在其句法结构上的语义框架的语义关系演算。英语英语非限定动词结构的根基是表述命题的述谓结构。语义映射相应地把语义框架中次命题的从属性归约化成句法形式的动词非限定性。这种从属性并不破坏述谓结构的语义框架完整性：英语非限定动词结构的时段体现了与主命题述谓结构的关系,而且非限定动词的语态选择体现了述谓结构中与谓词相关的论元之间关系的句法呈现之竞争。论元与谓词的关系提供了语态的语义认知基础。非限定动词的语态句法呈现不与语义意义相冲突：主动语态句法形式表达施事的主动意义,而不是表达与之矛盾的被动意义。这种句法形式与语义意义一致的认知理据来自语义框架对句法结构的映射。人们认知世界的概念在句法结构中反映语义结构。
时间关系是动词的本质特征。其实,如同动词的限定形式一样,英语非限定动词也具备与参照点相关的时间概念,并以非限定动词的句法标记为基础构建含时间概念意义的规约句法形式。基于非限定动词时段原型意义进化来的时段强调型体现语言使用者为了有效避免同一时段标记歧义而着意凸显其中某一规约时段的语用性。非限定动词时段基本型意义是其强调型意义的认知基础。在此意义上,非限定动词的时段基本型具有原型性,提供了时段意义扩展的可能性。非限定动词时段的显著特征就是拥有相关的时间参照性。非限定动词的时段参照性显示：非限定动词的时间性是关联的,不是孤立的。在一定程度上,句法存在认知惯性。非限定动词形式生成出可能与时段基本型一致的强调型,也可能产生相异于时段基本型的固定型。如果规约的某一基本型时段意义在句法层面得到强化,就形成反映语言使用者强调的强调型,自然可简化地还原成基本型。与此相反,如果规约的某一基本型时段意义被命题语义预设零化,随即丧失基本型的时段意义,那么体现语义框架强势映射的时段固定型意义明显区分于时段的强调型意义。
英语非限定动词结构体现某些重要概念的映射。一旦某一非限定句法结构规约地形成,其某些抽象特征在语义框架的呈现和解释中起着不可忽视的认知作用。体现在非限定动词结构中的句法意义主要有从属性、论元性或附加性、原型性、完型性和隐喻性。这些句法意义在非限定动词结构中也许单独起作用,也可能联合起作用。英语非限定动词句法形式是反映相关语义框架关系的规约结构。一方面,次命题谓词时间的参照性概念在很大程度上决定着其非限定动词形式的时段意义,使得其基本的时段意义具有原型性,可以映射到非限定动词时段的句法呈现上。另一方面,基于谓词的行为性,语义框架关系可以衍生出次命题述谓结构的施事性概念,影响到诸如事件型、功能型的非限定动词结构的语态选择偏向。非限定动词结构的规约性可以有机地凸显或背景化语义框架关系中的某些因素,体现语言使用者的语用意识。习语性英语非限定动词结构不但没有背弃非限定动词构建的重要概念,反而凸显概念的规约作用。具有习语特征的英语非限定动词结构并非随意构建的,而是在非限定动词结构中体现诸如语态演算机制和时段参照性的相关概念。非限定动词结构的基本概念不是孤立的,而是关联的,有时是互动的。非限定动词基本概念的强大体现力表明：正是概念的原型意义赋予习语性非限定动词结构存在的合理性和其构建所依赖的语义基石。
本研究认为：英语非限定动词是体现从属性特征的句法呈现顺应语义框架关系演算的结构。换言之,非限定动词结构中的语义框架是其句法呈现的基石,反映语言使用者的认知能力和运用习惯,其中对非限定动词的概念化和范畴化等认知意识在非限定动词构建中起着重要的认知作用。非限定动词结构不是随意而生的,而是遵循语义关系作用于句法表征的语言构建原则生成的规约结构。英语非限定动词结构的句法多样性源自其语义框架关系演算中的选择性,这反映出语言结构构建的广泛性：在句法上呈现多样性,但万变不离其宗的语义框架的惟一性。英语非限定动词结构中,语义框架关系决定句法呈现形式。
The study of verb in English is indispensable to the research on grammar. The non-finite form, which is distinct from its counterpart finite form, of the verb is a common optional syntactic representation of the verb in English. Whether the verb is represented in the non-finite form or in the finite form depends on the syntactic option and preference. In this respect, the syntactically opted non-finite verb mirrors the semantic relationship from the base semantic framework onto the syntactic representation. The semantic framework that is multi-propositional rather than mono-propositional generates the potentiality for the non-finiteness in the verb. The complex multi-propositional representation calls for a systematic study, for some linguistic regularity is embodied in the non-finiteness in the verb. The aim of this study is to systematically delve into the linguistic regularities characteristic of the non-finite verb structure in English from the cognitive perspective. Due to the different perspectives, the research that has been conducted on the English non-finite verb seems unsystematic and rather skin-deep. Even some research is anything but cognition-oriented. Based on the previous research, this study aims to systematically look into the structure of the English non-finite verb in order to scrutinize the linguistic rules underlying the English non-finite verb. This study is mainly concerned with the characteristics of the syntactic representation in the non-finite verb structure, the semantic relationship, the mechanism of the logical subject, the phase construction and some essential conceptions that are conventionally constructed in the non-finite verb in English.
In English, the non-finite verb structure, which is a conventionalized syntactic construction, reflects the related semantic mapping onto the syntactic representation from the semantic proposition. The non-finite verb is syntactically structured as a syntactic category, be it an argument of a clause or an adjunct to the clause, according to the conventionalized categorization in the syntactic structure which filters the relevant semantic mapping projected from the related semantic framework in question. The conceptualization and categorization, which symbolizes the syntactic adaptation in the non-finite verb structure via the semantic mapping from the language user's calculation of the base proposition, in the English non-finite verb structure are closely connected with linguistic cognition. In terms of the semantic-based principle, the English non-finite verb structure reflects the logical computation of the semantic framework. The syntactic representation reflects the related semantic framework though it, to a certain extent, does not necessarily duplicate its semantic source. The syntactic structure of the non-finite verb in English does not exist in a vacuum. The non-finite verb structure iconically mirrors the semantic framework from which the semantic relationship is mapped. The English non-finite verb structure is based on its relevant predication in the form of the proposition. The subordination in the minor predication is embodied in the non-finite verb structure. The semantic mapping symbolizes the non-finiteness by virtue of the conventionalization of its syntactic structure in light of subordination, which keeps the semantic relationship intact. The relationship between the predicate and its arguments provides the semantically cognitive foundation for the syntactic representation of the voice. As the core of the propositional representation in language, the verb has the most salient argument opted for its syntactical subject in the finite form or its logical subject in the non-finite form. As far as the non-finite verb in English is concerned, it is the option for the logical subject among the arguments related to the predicate that launches a cognitive ranking of subjectivity. The potentiality or nullification of the passive voice in the non-finite verb structure lies in the syntactical mechanism of the logical subject. In this sense, the semantic ranking of the multi-propositional framework is correspondently embodied in the syntactic categorization of the predicates and their respective arguments. In brief, the logical subject belongs to the scope of the non-finiteness. The configuration of the logical subject in the non-finite verb structure finds the semantic calculation as the core of the structure. The linguistic phenomenon that the syntactic representation of the non-finite verb structure does not conflict with its semantic relationship in the predication indicates that the voice system at the syntactical level conforms with its semantic relationship between the predicate and its arguments. In other words, the active voice of the non-finite verb structure is deeply rooted in the agent argument instead of the patient argument. The iconicity in the syntactic representation, which does not stray away from the semantic framework, descends from the semantic mapping onto the syntactic structure. It is self-evident that the conceptualization from our cognition of the world around us maps the correspondent semantic framework onto the syntactic representation.
The temporal relationship is an indispensable ingredient to the verb in language. Although the tense is lost in the non-finite verb, temporality is not ruled out but represented in a different way. The semantic feature of temporality in the predicate is syntactically represented or symbolized in the non-finite verb structure in a variety of ways in which the cognitive conventionalization takes root. A variety of temporality in the non-finite verb is embodied in the limited non-finite forms so that the identical morphologically inflectionalized non-finite forms may extend the scope of temporality or beyond. The emphasis version based on its relevant base version pragmatically highlights a certain temporal relationship by means of ruling out the ambiguity in the same non-finite form. In this sense, the base version of phase serves as the cognititve foundation for the emphasis version, which makes possible the extension of the temporal sense that is characteristic of the temporal prototypicality. The temporal referentiality is characterstic of the temporal relationship in the non-finite verb structure. In terms of the temporal referentiality, the temporal relationship is related rather than isolated. To some extent, there is a certain cogntitive inertia in syntactic representation:the convergence between the emphasis version and the base version versus the divergence of the fossilized version from the base version. The emphasis version of the temporal relationship highlights its base version while the fossilized version is deviant from the base version. In this respect, there is a great difference between the emphasis version and the fossilized version in the course of the syntactic evolution of the temporal relationship.
There are some conceptualized senses underlying the English non-finite verb structure. Once some structure of the English non-finite verb is conventionalized, the abstract characteristics that are embodied in the English non-finite verb play a vital role in linguistic cognition. In addition to subordination, there exists argumentation, adjunction, prototypicality, and metaphoricality in the English non-finite verb. The syntactic senses may act respectively or interact jointly. For one thing, the time referentiality in the minor predication greatly determines the phase conceptualization in the non-finite verb. For another, the semantic framework characteristic of action generates the concept of agentivity that has a cognitive effect on the voice option in event-oriented and fuction-oriented non-finite verb structures. Even the idiomaticity does not rule out the conventionalization in the English non-finite verb. In this sense, the basic concepts in the English non-finite verb are not isolated but associated as well as interactive. The powerful conceptualized representation in the English non-finite verb structure illustrates that the protptypicality in conceptualization of the non-finiteness lays a solid semantic foundation for the idiomatic non-finite verb structure and leads to the plausibility in the idiomatic non-finite verb structure.
This study has accordingly come to the conclusion that the non-finite verb structure in English is characteristic of the syntactic adaptation to represent the dependency in the predicate that is semantically projected from the correlated semantic framework. In other words, the non-finite verb structure in English, which reflects the cognitive competence and performance in the language user, has the semantic framework as its cornerstone laid for the syntactic representation. It goes without saying that the non-finite verb structure, which is not borne at random but conventionally structured via the syntactic adaptation to the semantic computation, is deeply rooted in conceptualization and categorization in terms of the non-finiteness in the verb. To some extent, the non-finite verb structure in English exemplifies the universality that language structure is syntactically diverse but semantically unique. The non-finite verb structure in English is semantically framed and syntactically mirrored. The semantic relationship in the predication determines the relevant syntactic representation of the English non-finite verb structure.
引文
Aitchison, Jean.1987. Words in the Mind-An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Alexander, L. G.1988. Longman English Grammar[M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limted.
Anderson, John M.2011. The Substance of Language:The Domain of Syntax[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Avramides, Anita.1997. Intention and Convention[C]. In BOB HALE and CRISPIN WRIGHT(eds).1997. A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Biber, D., Stig Johnsson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan.1999. LONGMAN GRAMMAR OF SPOKEN AND WRITTEN ENGLISH[M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited.
Binnick, Robert Ⅰ.1991. Time and the Verb:A Guide to Tense and Aspect[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Blake, B.J.2001. Case[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, Paul.1999. THEORIES OF WORD LEARNING: RATIOINALIST ALTERNATIVES TO ASSOCIATIONISM[C]. In Ritchie, W. C.& Bhatia, T. K.(ed.). Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. San Diego:Academic Press.
Bloom, Paul.2002. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Bolinger, Dwight & Sears, Donald A.1981. ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE[M]. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Bornkessel, Ina.2006. Semantic Role Universals And Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, And Psycholinguistic Perspectives[M]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Bouchard, Denis. THE SEMANTICS OF SYNTAX: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995
Bowers, John.2001. Predication[A]. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (ed.). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory [C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Brazil, David.1995. A Grammar of Speech[M]. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Brown, Keith & Miller, Jim.1980. Syntax:A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure[M]. London:Routledge.
Brown, K., Clark, E. V., McMahon, A., Miller, J.& Milroy, L.2004. Meaning in Language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Brugman, Claudia.1996. Mental Spaces, Structural Meaning, and Pragmatic Ambiguity[C]. In G. Fauconnier (eds). SPACES, WORLDS, AND GRAMMAR[C]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Burton-Roberts, Noel.1986. Analyzing Sentences:An Introduction to English Syntax[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Burton-Roberts, Noel.1989. THE LIMITS TO DEBATE: A REVISED THEORY OF SEMANTIC PRESUPPOSITION[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Christopher.2003. Structure and Function:From clause to discourse and beyond[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Bussmann, Hadumod.2000. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Bybee, Joan.2006. FROM USAGE TO GRAMMAR:THE IND'S RESPONSE TO REPETITION[J]. In LANGUAGE VOLUME 82, NUMBER 4.
Carnie, Andrew.2002. Syntax:A Generative Introduction[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Carnie, Andrew.2011. Modern Syntax: A Coursebook[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chao, Yuen Ren.1968. LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chiat, Shula.2000. Understanding Children with Language Problems[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Carol.1971. The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1985. Knowledge of Language:Its Nature, Origin, and Use[M]. Westport:Praeger Publishers.
Collin, Finn & Guldmann, Finn.2005. Meaning, use, and truth: introducing the philosophy of language[M]. Farnham:Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Comrie, Bernard.1976. ASPECT[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard.1983. MARKEDNESS, GRAMMAR, PEOPLE, AND THE WORLD[C]. In Eckman, F. R., Moravcsik, E. A.& J. R. Wirth(eds).1983. Markedness. New York:Plenum Press
Comrie, Bernard.1985. Tense[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard.1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. SYNTAX AND MORPHOLOGY[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Cook, Walter Anthony.1989. Case Grammar Theory[M]. Washington, D.D.:Georgetown University Press.
Coulson, Seana.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Structure[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cowper, Elizabeth.2005. The Geometry of Interpretable Features:INFL in English and Spanish[J]. Language 81.10-46.
Croft, W.& Cruse, D. A.2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cruse, D. A.1986. Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, Alan.2004. Meaning in Language:An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Culicover, Peter W.1982. Syntax[M]. New York:ACADEMIC PRESS.
Crystal, David.2000. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.沈家煊(译).北京：商务印书馆.
Dahl, Osten.1985. Tense and Aspect Systems[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Inc.
Dalrymple, Mary.2001. SYNTAX and SEMANTICS[M]. San Diego: ACADEMIC PRESS.
Denison, David.1993. English Historical Syntax:Verbal Structures[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Dik, Simon C.&Hengeveld, Kees.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar:Complex and derived constructions[M]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Dixon, R.M.W.1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Downing, Angela & Locke, Philip.2006. English Grammar: A University Course[M]. Abington:Routledge.
Eastwood, John.2002. OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Egan, Thomas.2008. Non-Finite Complementation:A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and-ing Clauses in English[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi Publishers.
Enfield, N. J.2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia[M]. London: Routledge.
Ernst, Thomas.2003. The Syntax of Adjuncts[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan.2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction[J]. in Cognitive Linguistics 17-4:p491-534.
Eythorsson, Thorhallur & Barddal, Johanna.2005. OBLIQUE SUBJECTS: A COMMON GERMANIC INHERITANCE[J]. LANGUAGE, VOLUME 81, NUMBER 4:p824-881.
Fauconnier, Gilles.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Felser, Claudia.1999. Verbal Complement Clauses:A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Fillmore, C.J.1982. Frame Semantics[C]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society ofKorea (ed.),111-137. Seoul:Hanshin Publishing Company.
FODOR, JERRY A.1998. CONCEPTS: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Frankis, John.1991. Language Usage and Description:Studies Presented to N.E. Osselton on the Occasion of His Retirement[C]. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
Freudenthal, D, Pine, J M & Gobet, F.2004. Simulating the temporal reference of Dutch and English Root Infinitives [C], In K. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman&Nina Hyams.2010. An Introduction to Language[M]. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing.
Gauker, Christopher.1994. THINKING OUT LOUD: AN ESSAY ON THE RELATION BETWEEN THOUGH AND LANGUAGE[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk.1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics:A Contribution to Historical Lexicology[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory[C]. In Dirk Geeraerts(ed). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giorgi, Alessandra & Longobardi, Giuseppe.1991. THE SYNTAX OF NOUN PHRASES: Configuration, parameters and empty categories[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Givon, T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction[M]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldberg, Adele E.1995. Structures:A Structure Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E.2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E.2006. Construction Grammar[C]. In Dirk Geeraerts(ed). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grimshaw, Jane.1994. Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Gumpel, Liselotte.1984. Metaphor Reexamined:A Non-Aristotelian Perspective[M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.????
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Heine, B., Claudi, U.& H U nnemeyer, Friederike.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Hoekstra, Teun & Hyams, Nina.1998. Aspects of root infinitives[J]. Lingua 106.81-112.
Hoffmann, Thomas.2011. Preposition Placement in English:A Usage-based Approach[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Holdcroft, David.1998. Words and Deeds[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics:Critical Concepts (Volume II). London:Routledge
Hopper, Paul J.& Traugott, Elizabeth Closs.2003. Grammatical ization[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Horman, Hans&Innis, Robert E.1986. Meaning and Context: An Introduction to the Psychology of Language[M]. New York: Plenum Press.
Hunston, S.& Francis, G.2000. Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English[M\. Amsterdam & New York:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Isac, Daniela& Reiss, Charles.2008. I-Language An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray.2001. Semantics and Cognition[A]. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Jespersen, Otto.1925. The Philosophy of Grammar[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Jespersen, Otto.1933. ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR[M]. London:GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.
Jespersen, Otto.1954. A MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR: ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES[M]. London: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.
Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Katz, Jerrold J.& Langendoen, D. Terrence.1998. Pragmatics and Presupposition[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics:Critical Concepts (Volume IV). London:Routledge.
KEES HENGEVELD AND J. LACHLAN MACKENZIE.2008. A typologically-based theory of language structure[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Klein, Wolfgang&Stephen Levinson(eds).2009. The Expression of Time[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Koffka, K.1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology[M]. London:Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner& CO., LTD.
Kolln, Martha.1986. Understanding English Grammar[M]. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Kravchenko, Alexander V.2008. Biology of Cognition and Linguistic Analysis:From Non-Realist Linguistics to a Realistic Language Science[M]. Berlin:Peter Lang Pub Inc.
Kuno, Susumu & Takami, Ken-ichi.1993. Grammar and Discourse Principles:Functional Syntax and GB Theory[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George.2007. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Linguistics[A]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor[M]. Chicago::The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George.1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knud.1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: (Volume I) Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol[M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: (Volume II) Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
LaPalombara, L.E.1975. An Introduction to Grammar: Traditional, Structural, Transformational[M]. Cambridge:Winthrop Publishers, Inc.
Larson, R.& Segal, G.1995. Knowledge of Meaning[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan.1978. A Communicative Grammar of English[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Leech, Geoffrey.1983. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. Harlow:Longman Group UK Limited.
Leezenberg, Michel.2001. CONTEXTS OF METAPHOR[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Levinson, Stephen C.1983. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C.2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle.2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lust, Barbara, Flyn, S., Foley, C.& Chien, Yu-Chin.1999. HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT CHILDREN KNOW[C]. In Ritchie, W. C.& Bhatia, T. K.(ed.). Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
McShane, John.1980. Learning to Talk[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Miller, George A.1978. Practical and Lexical Knowledge.
Moravcsik, Edith & Wirth, Jessica.1983. Markedness:An Overview[C]. In Eckman, F. R., Moravcsik, E. A.& J. R. Wirth(eds).1983. Markedness. New York:Plenum Press
Nordstrom, Jackie.2010. Modality and Subordinators[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Miller, George A.1978. Practical and Lexical Knowledge.
Panther, Klause-Uwe& Thornburg, Linda L..2001.A conceptual analysis of English -er nominal[C]. In Piitz, M., Niemeier, S.& Dirven, R.(Ed.) 2001. Applied Cognitive Linguistics Ⅱ:Language Pedagogy. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Pavey, Emma L.2010. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Payne, Thomas Edward.2010. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Peirsman, Yves & Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category[J]. In Cognitive Linguistics 17-3:p269-316.
Ping, Alvin Leong.2004. Theme And Rheme: An Alternative Account[M]. Berlin:Peter Lang.
Pinker, Steven.1989. Learnability and Cognition:The Acquisition of Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Plag, Ingo.2002. Word-formation in English[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.& Svartvik, J.1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Quirk, R., Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik.1985. A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE[M]. Harlow:Longman Group Limited.
Radden, Gunter, Klaus-Michael Kopcke, Thomas Berg &Peter Siemund(Eds).2007. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radford, Andrew.2004. English Syntax: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, Mark.1997. Propositional attitudes[C]. In BOB HALE and CRISPIN WRIGHT(eds).1997. A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Roberts, I.& Roussou, A.2003. Syntactic Change:A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rooij, Robert Van.2005. A Modal Analysis of Presupposition and Modal Subordination[J]. Oxford:Oxford University Press. JOURNAL OF SEMATNICS:Volume 22 Number 3:p281-306.
Rosch, E.& Lloyd, B. B.1978. Cognition and Categorization[M]. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rosenbach, Anette.2005. ANIMACY VERSUS WEIGHT AS DETERMINANTS OF GRAMMATICAL VARIATION IN ENGLISH[J]. LANGUAGE:VOLUME 81, NUMBER 3:p613-644.
Rozakis, Laurie.2003. English Grammar for the Utterly Confused[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Schlesinger, Izchak M.1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten.2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Siloni, Tal.1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalization[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Soames, Scott.1998. How Presuppositions are Inherited:A Solution to the Projection Problem[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (Volume Ⅳ). London:Routledge
Song, Jae Jung.2001.Linguistic Typology:Morphology and Syntax[M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited.
Stalnaker, Robert C.1998. Pragmatic Presupposition[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics:Critical Concepts (Volume Ⅳ). London: Routledge.
Stamenov, Maksim & Vittorio Gallese(eds.).2002. Mirror Neurons and the Eevolution of Brain and Language (Advances in Consciousness Research) [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Pub Co.
Stefanie Wulff.2009. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach[M]. London:Continuum.
Stubbs, Michael.1983. Discourse Analysis[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Sweetser, Eve.2002. From Etymology to Pragmatics:Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure[M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Swick, Ed.2010. Verbs & Essentials of Grammar for ESL Learners[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Talmy, Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics:Volime Ⅰ:Concept Structure Systems[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics:Volume Ⅱ: Typology and Process in Concept Structure Systems[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard.2006. The relation of grammar to cognition[C]. In Dirk Geeraerts(ed). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, Leonard.2007. Foreword. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica & Seana Coulson, Michael J. Spivey &Irene Mittelberg (Eds). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub Co.
Taylor, John R.1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Taylor, John R.2003. Linguistic Categorization[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R.2002. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Jenny.1995. Meaning in Interaction:an Introduction to Pragmatics[M]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Thompson, A. J. and A. V. Martinet.1969. A Practical English Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Geoff.1996. Introducing Functional Grammar[M]. London: Hudder Education Group.
Tomasello, Michael.2003. Constructing a Language:a Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Trotta, Joe.2000. Wh-Clauses in English:Aspects of Theory and Description[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Tyler, Andrew & Evans, Vyvyan.2001. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning:non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Piity, M., Niemeier, S.& Dirven, R.(Ed.) 2001. Applied Cognitive Linguistics Ⅰ:Theory and Language Acquisition[C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ullmann, Stephen.1957. The Principles of Semantics[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd.
Valin, R.D.V.&Lapolla, R.J.1997. SYNTAX:STRUCTURE, MEANING AND FUNCTION[m]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Edwin.1995. Thematic Structure in Syntax[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Wurmbrand,Susi.2006. Infinitives:A future without tense[A]. Jersey Syntax Circle, April 2006.
Yule, George.2006. The Study of Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
常润芳.1996.简析“Too+形容词+不定式”结构及其含义[J].洛阳师范学院学报(4)：97-100.
陈定安.1998.英汉比较与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
陈庆良.1993.英语动词不定式的逻辑主语[J].佛山大学学报(5)：57-61.
陈蕾,朱军平.2006."V+to infinitive"与‘'V+Ving"的认知阐释[J].江西教育学院学报(4)：68-70.
陈慕泽.2002.数理逻辑教程[M].上海：上海人民出版社.
陈振宇.2007.事件系统的认知模型与运算[M].上海：学林出版社.
段钨金；张畔枫.1992.类推法分析be+adj+to do句式[J].现代外语(2)：48-50+72.
段照炜.2003.分裂不定式新说[J].西安外国语学院学报(1)：3-6.
郭绥龙.1995.不定式(短语)作形容词补足语的语用和语义关系[J].外国语言文学(Z1)：29-31+39.
韩武微.2005.被动不定式用法探讨[J].巢湖学院学报(4)：135-138.
何斌,莫国辉.2004.分裂不定式的多维透视研究[J].天津外国语学院学报(4)：32-35.
何历蓉.2011.论不定式分句逻辑主语的构成[J].铜仁学院学报(6)：117-122.
何声钟.1999.英语不定式作形容词补足语时的语义分类[J].国外外语教学(3)：42-44.
侯维瑞.1979.动名词作宾语与动词不定式作宾语的比较[J].外国语(3)：21-26.
黄和斌.1998."for...to…"不定式分句的深层次分析[J].外国语(6)：39-45.
嵇周.1985.选择动名词和不定式的修辞原则[J].大学英语(3)：34-36.
焦同梅.2008.悬垂修饰语及其失与得[J].三门峡职业技术学院学报(3)：72-75+101.
靳光谨.2001.现代汉语动词语义计算理论[M].北京：北京大学社版社.
金松庚.1994.动词后的不定式和动名词[J].浙江丝绸工学院学报(4)：49-54.
李荣田.2007.谈谈"too…to…"结构及其用法[J].大学英语(学术版)(1)：22-24.
李小英.2009.不定式与形容词搭配的及物性分析[J].科技信息(3)：267-268+317.
李政枝.1995.单及物动词后接不定式或动名词问题研究[J].外国语言文学(Z1)：85：88.
刘学明.1998.实用分类英语惯用法[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
刘艳秋1996.英语形容词后不定式的句法及语义功能[J].中华女子学院学报(1)：61-65.
吕艳梅.1997.SVC结构中形容词与不定式的搭配[J].周口师范学院学报(S2)：75-76.
彭艳虹.1999.论“主动不定式表被动意义”[J].武陵学刊(1)：81-82.
祁世明、陈德彰.2005.语言学分析英语非限定动词V-ing形式的实用性—由《新编英语语法教程》所引发的思考[J].巢湖学院学报(3)：27-29.
秦裕祥.1997.不定式与-ing分词作主语和主语补语时的比较[J].湖南教育学院学报(6)：34-39.
秦裕祥.1998.不定式与-ing分词作宾语和宾语补语时的比较[J].湖南教育学院学报(3)：46-51.
秦裕祥.1999.不定式与-ing分词作状语和定语时的比较[J].湖南教育学院学报(1)：55-60.
屈春芳.2005.隐性不定式逻辑主语探究[J].四川理工学院学报(2)：85-87.
尚新.2007.英汉体范畴对比研究—语法体的内部对立与中立化[M].上海：上海人民出版社.
石毓智.2004.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌：江西教育出版社.
石毓智.2006.语法的概念基础[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
石毓智.2008.认知能力与语言学理论[M].上海：学林出版社.
涂云杰.2000.谈非限定动词在科技英语中的使用[J].呼伦贝尔学院学报(1)：56-58.
王岚.1995.英语—ing分词与不定式用作动词宾语时的比较[J].大理学院学报(2)：38-42.
王兰福.1997.英语非限定动词作定语的研究[J].临沂师专学报(4)：74-76.
汪琦.1994.“形容词+不定式”结构浅析[J].上海金融学报(2)：46-47+29.
王振中.1987.英语动词不定式和动名词作宾语的比较[J].江西师范 大学学报(4)：140-144.
王寅.2002.认知语义学[J].四川外语学院学报2.
维果茨基.1999.思维与语言[M].李维(译).杭州：浙江教育出版社.
吴依俤.1992.高位动词及其非限定宾语动词理论浅析[J].外国语言文学(Z1)：14-18+59.
向明友.2008.论英语非限定动词的选择问题[J].外语教学与研究(6)：423-426.
肖音.2001.浅析非谓语动词作定语时的区别[J].江汉石油职工大学学报(1)：29-30+66.
谢少万.2001.英语非限定动词作定语的语法关系与语用特征[J].广西梧州师范高等专科学校学报(2)：42-46.
熊学亮.1999.认知语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
徐嘉.2006.浅谈分词、不定式和动名词用法区别[J].攀枝花学院学报(2)：50-52.
易仲良.1999.英语动词语义语法学[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社.
余国良.2000.论不定式在科技英语中的使用特点[J].宁波高等专科学校学报(1)：103-106.
于丽云.1998.浅析不定式中主动语态与被动语态的差异[J].丹东师专学报(2)：45-46.
张诚.2000.不定式与动名词在意义和结构上的差异[J].嘉兴高等专科学校学报(4)：54-57.
张鸣.1985.IT'S+ADJ+FOR/OF SB+TO DO STH结构中形容词分类初探[J].外语与外语教学(1)：29-30.
章振邦.1997.新编英语语法[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
赵东升.2003.英语双宾结构后接不定式短语的句法和语义解释[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4)：18-22.
赵戈屏.2004.现在分词在科技英语中作状语的翻译方法[J].南平师专学报(1)：85-88.
赵艳芳.2000.认知语言学研究综述(一)[J].解放军外国语学院学报(5)：22-26.
赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生,严世清.2001.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海：上海外语出版社.
邹琼.2001.论英语非限定动词作定语的句法功能[J].零陵师范高等专科学校学报(1)：88-89.
Alexander, L. G.1988. Longman English Grammar[M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limted.
Anderson, John M.2011. The Substance of Language:The Domain of Syntax[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Avramides, Anita.1997. Intention and Convention[C]. In BOB HALE and CRISPIN WRIGHT(eds).1997. A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Biber, D., Stig Johnsson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan.1999. LONGMAN GRAMMAR OF SPOKEN AND WRITTEN ENGLISH[M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited.
Binnick, Robert Ⅰ.1991. Time and the Verb:A Guide to Tense and Aspect[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Blake, B.J.2001. Case[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, Paul.1999. THEORIES OF WORD LEARNING: RATIOINALIST ALTERNATIVES TO ASSOCIATIONISM[C]. In Ritchie, W. C.& Bhatia, T. K.(ed.). Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. San Diego:Academic Press.
Bloom, Paul.2002. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Bolinger, Dwight & Sears, Donald A.1981. ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE[M]. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Bornkessel, Ina.2006. Semantic Role Universals And Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, And Psycholinguistic Perspectives[M]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Bouchard, Denis. THE SEMANTICS OF SYNTAX: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995
Bowers, John.2001. Predication[A]. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (ed.). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory [C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Brazil, David.1995. A Grammar of Speech[M]. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Brown, Keith & Miller, Jim.1980. Syntax:A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure[M]. London:Routledge.
Brown, K., Clark, E. V., McMahon, A., Miller, J.& Milroy, L.2004. Meaning in Language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Brugman, Claudia.1996. Mental Spaces, Structural Meaning, and Pragmatic Ambiguity[C]. In G. Fauconnier (eds). SPACES, WORLDS, AND GRAMMAR[C]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Burton-Roberts, Noel.1986. Analyzing Sentences:An Introduction to English Syntax[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Burton-Roberts, Noel.1989. THE LIMITS TO DEBATE: A REVISED THEORY OF SEMANTIC PRESUPPOSITION[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Christopher.2003. Structure and Function:From clause to discourse and beyond[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Bussmann, Hadumod.2000. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Bybee, Joan.2006. FROM USAGE TO GRAMMAR:THE IND'S RESPONSE TO REPETITION[J]. In LANGUAGE VOLUME 82, NUMBER 4.
Carnie, Andrew.2002. Syntax:A Generative Introduction[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Carnie, Andrew.2011. Modern Syntax: A Coursebook[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chao, Yuen Ren.1968. LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chiat, Shula.2000. Understanding Children with Language Problems[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Carol.1971. The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1985. Knowledge of Language:Its Nature, Origin, and Use[M]. Westport:Praeger Publishers.
Collin, Finn & Guldmann, Finn.2005. Meaning, use, and truth: introducing the philosophy of language[M]. Farnham:Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Comrie, Bernard.1976. ASPECT[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard.1983. MARKEDNESS, GRAMMAR, PEOPLE, AND THE WORLD[C]. In Eckman, F. R., Moravcsik, E. A.& J. R. Wirth(eds).1983. Markedness. New York:Plenum Press
Comrie, Bernard.1985. Tense[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard.1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. SYNTAX AND MORPHOLOGY[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Cook, Walter Anthony.1989. Case Grammar Theory[M]. Washington, D.D.:Georgetown University Press.
Coulson, Seana.2001. Semantic Leaps:Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Structure[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cowper, Elizabeth.2005. The Geometry of Interpretable Features:INFL in English and Spanish[J]. Language 81.10-46.
Croft, W.& Cruse, D. A.2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cruse, D. A.1986. Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, Alan.2004. Meaning in Language:An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Culicover, Peter W.1982. Syntax[M]. New York:ACADEMIC PRESS.
Crystal, David.2000. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.沈家煊(译).北京：商务印书馆.
Dahl, Osten.1985. Tense and Aspect Systems[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Inc.
Dalrymple, Mary.2001. SYNTAX and SEMANTICS[M]. San Diego: ACADEMIC PRESS.
Denison, David.1993. English Historical Syntax:Verbal Structures[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Dik, Simon C.&Hengeveld, Kees.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar:Complex and derived constructions[M]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Dixon, R.M.W.1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Downing, Angela & Locke, Philip.2006. English Grammar: A University Course[M]. Abington:Routledge.
Eastwood, John.2002. OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Egan, Thomas.2008. Non-Finite Complementation:A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and-ing Clauses in English[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi Publishers.
Enfield, N. J.2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia[M]. London: Routledge.
Ernst, Thomas.2003. The Syntax of Adjuncts[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan.2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction[J]. in Cognitive Linguistics 17-4:p491-534.
Eythorsson, Thorhallur & Barddal, Johanna.2005. OBLIQUE SUBJECTS: A COMMON GERMANIC INHERITANCE[J]. LANGUAGE, VOLUME 81, NUMBER 4:p824-881.
Fauconnier, Gilles.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Felser, Claudia.1999. Verbal Complement Clauses:A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Fillmore, C.J.1982. Frame Semantics[C]. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society ofKorea (ed.),111-137. Seoul:Hanshin Publishing Company.
FODOR, JERRY A.1998. CONCEPTS: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Frankis, John.1991. Language Usage and Description:Studies Presented to N.E. Osselton on the Occasion of His Retirement[C]. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
Freudenthal, D, Pine, J M & Gobet, F.2004. Simulating the temporal reference of Dutch and English Root Infinitives [C], In K. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman&Nina Hyams.2010. An Introduction to Language[M]. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing.
Gauker, Christopher.1994. THINKING OUT LOUD: AN ESSAY ON THE RELATION BETWEEN THOUGH AND LANGUAGE[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk.1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics:A Contribution to Historical Lexicology[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory[C]. In Dirk Geeraerts(ed). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giorgi, Alessandra & Longobardi, Giuseppe.1991. THE SYNTAX OF NOUN PHRASES: Configuration, parameters and empty categories[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Givon, T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction[M]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldberg, Adele E.1995. Structures:A Structure Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E.2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E.2006. Construction Grammar[C]. In Dirk Geeraerts(ed). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grimshaw, Jane.1994. Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Gumpel, Liselotte.1984. Metaphor Reexamined:A Non-Aristotelian Perspective[M]. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.????
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Heine, B., Claudi, U.& H U nnemeyer, Friederike.1991. Grammaticalization:A Conceptual Framework[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Hoekstra, Teun & Hyams, Nina.1998. Aspects of root infinitives[J]. Lingua 106.81-112.
Hoffmann, Thomas.2011. Preposition Placement in English:A Usage-based Approach[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Holdcroft, David.1998. Words and Deeds[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics:Critical Concepts (Volume II). London:Routledge
Hopper, Paul J.& Traugott, Elizabeth Closs.2003. Grammatical ization[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Horman, Hans&Innis, Robert E.1986. Meaning and Context: An Introduction to the Psychology of Language[M]. New York: Plenum Press.
Hunston, S.& Francis, G.2000. Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English[M\. Amsterdam & New York:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Isac, Daniela& Reiss, Charles.2008. I-Language An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray.2001. Semantics and Cognition[A]. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
Jespersen, Otto.1925. The Philosophy of Grammar[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Jespersen, Otto.1933. ESSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR[M]. London:GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.
Jespersen, Otto.1954. A MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR: ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES[M]. London: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.
Johnson, Mark.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Katz, Jerrold J.& Langendoen, D. Terrence.1998. Pragmatics and Presupposition[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics:Critical Concepts (Volume IV). London:Routledge.
KEES HENGEVELD AND J. LACHLAN MACKENZIE.2008. A typologically-based theory of language structure[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Klein, Wolfgang&Stephen Levinson(eds).2009. The Expression of Time[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Koffka, K.1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology[M]. London:Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner& CO., LTD.
Kolln, Martha.1986. Understanding English Grammar[M]. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Kravchenko, Alexander V.2008. Biology of Cognition and Linguistic Analysis:From Non-Realist Linguistics to a Realistic Language Science[M]. Berlin:Peter Lang Pub Inc.
Kuno, Susumu & Takami, Ken-ichi.1993. Grammar and Discourse Principles:Functional Syntax and GB Theory[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George.2007. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Linguistics[A]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor[M]. Chicago::The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George.1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knud.1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: (Volume I) Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol[M]. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: (Volume II) Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.1999. Grammar and Conceptualization[M]. New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
LaPalombara, L.E.1975. An Introduction to Grammar: Traditional, Structural, Transformational[M]. Cambridge:Winthrop Publishers, Inc.
Larson, R.& Segal, G.1995. Knowledge of Meaning[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan.1978. A Communicative Grammar of English[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Leech, Geoffrey.1983. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. Harlow:Longman Group UK Limited.
Leezenberg, Michel.2001. CONTEXTS OF METAPHOR[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Levinson, Stephen C.1983. Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C.2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle.2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lust, Barbara, Flyn, S., Foley, C.& Chien, Yu-Chin.1999. HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT CHILDREN KNOW[C]. In Ritchie, W. C.& Bhatia, T. K.(ed.). Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
McShane, John.1980. Learning to Talk[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Miller, George A.1978. Practical and Lexical Knowledge.
Moravcsik, Edith & Wirth, Jessica.1983. Markedness:An Overview[C]. In Eckman, F. R., Moravcsik, E. A.& J. R. Wirth(eds).1983. Markedness. New York:Plenum Press
Nordstrom, Jackie.2010. Modality and Subordinators[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Miller, George A.1978. Practical and Lexical Knowledge.
Panther, Klause-Uwe& Thornburg, Linda L..2001.A conceptual analysis of English -er nominal[C]. In Piitz, M., Niemeier, S.& Dirven, R.(Ed.) 2001. Applied Cognitive Linguistics Ⅱ:Language Pedagogy. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Pavey, Emma L.2010. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Payne, Thomas Edward.2010. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Peirsman, Yves & Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category[J]. In Cognitive Linguistics 17-3:p269-316.
Ping, Alvin Leong.2004. Theme And Rheme: An Alternative Account[M]. Berlin:Peter Lang.
Pinker, Steven.1989. Learnability and Cognition:The Acquisition of Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Plag, Ingo.2002. Word-formation in English[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.& Svartvik, J.1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English[M]. London:Longman Group Limited.
Quirk, R., Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik.1985. A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE[M]. Harlow:Longman Group Limited.
Radden, Gunter, Klaus-Michael Kopcke, Thomas Berg &Peter Siemund(Eds).2007. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radford, Andrew.2004. English Syntax: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, Mark.1997. Propositional attitudes[C]. In BOB HALE and CRISPIN WRIGHT(eds).1997. A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Roberts, I.& Roussou, A.2003. Syntactic Change:A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rooij, Robert Van.2005. A Modal Analysis of Presupposition and Modal Subordination[J]. Oxford:Oxford University Press. JOURNAL OF SEMATNICS:Volume 22 Number 3:p281-306.
Rosch, E.& Lloyd, B. B.1978. Cognition and Categorization[M]. Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rosenbach, Anette.2005. ANIMACY VERSUS WEIGHT AS DETERMINANTS OF GRAMMATICAL VARIATION IN ENGLISH[J]. LANGUAGE:VOLUME 81, NUMBER 3:p613-644.
Rozakis, Laurie.2003. English Grammar for the Utterly Confused[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Schlesinger, Izchak M.1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten.2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing.
Siloni, Tal.1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalization[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Soames, Scott.1998. How Presuppositions are Inherited:A Solution to the Projection Problem[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (Volume Ⅳ). London:Routledge
Song, Jae Jung.2001.Linguistic Typology:Morphology and Syntax[M]. Harlow:Pearson Education Limited.
Stalnaker, Robert C.1998. Pragmatic Presupposition[C]. In Ksaher, Asa (ed).1998. Pragmatics:Critical Concepts (Volume Ⅳ). London: Routledge.
Stamenov, Maksim & Vittorio Gallese(eds.).2002. Mirror Neurons and the Eevolution of Brain and Language (Advances in Consciousness Research) [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Pub Co.
Stefanie Wulff.2009. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach[M]. London:Continuum.
Stubbs, Michael.1983. Discourse Analysis[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Sweetser, Eve.2002. From Etymology to Pragmatics:Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure[M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Swick, Ed.2010. Verbs & Essentials of Grammar for ESL Learners[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Talmy, Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics:Volime Ⅰ:Concept Structure Systems[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics:Volume Ⅱ: Typology and Process in Concept Structure Systems[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard.2006. The relation of grammar to cognition[C]. In Dirk Geeraerts(ed). Cognitive Linguistics:Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, Leonard.2007. Foreword. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica & Seana Coulson, Michael J. Spivey &Irene Mittelberg (Eds). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub Co.
Taylor, John R.1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Taylor, John R.2003. Linguistic Categorization[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R.2002. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Jenny.1995. Meaning in Interaction:an Introduction to Pragmatics[M]. London:Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Thompson, A. J. and A. V. Martinet.1969. A Practical English Grammar[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Geoff.1996. Introducing Functional Grammar[M]. London: Hudder Education Group.
Tomasello, Michael.2003. Constructing a Language:a Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Trotta, Joe.2000. Wh-Clauses in English:Aspects of Theory and Description[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Tyler, Andrew & Evans, Vyvyan.2001. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning:non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Piity, M., Niemeier, S.& Dirven, R.(Ed.) 2001. Applied Cognitive Linguistics Ⅰ:Theory and Language Acquisition[C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ullmann, Stephen.1957. The Principles of Semantics[M]. Oxford:Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd.
Valin, R.D.V.&Lapolla, R.J.1997. SYNTAX:STRUCTURE, MEANING AND FUNCTION[m]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Edwin.1995. Thematic Structure in Syntax[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Wurmbrand,Susi.2006. Infinitives:A future without tense[A]. Jersey Syntax Circle, April 2006.
Yule, George.2006. The Study of Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
常润芳.1996.简析“Too+形容词+不定式”结构及其含义[J].洛阳师范学院学报(4)：97-100.
陈定安.1998.英汉比较与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
陈庆良.1993.英语动词不定式的逻辑主语[J].佛山大学学报(5)：57-61.
陈蕾,朱军平.2006."V+to infinitive"与‘'V+Ving"的认知阐释[J].江西教育学院学报(4)：68-70.
陈慕泽.2002.数理逻辑教程[M].上海：上海人民出版社.
陈振宇.2007.事件系统的认知模型与运算[M].上海：学林出版社.
段钨金；张畔枫.1992.类推法分析be+adj+to do句式[J].现代外语(2)：48-50+72.
段照炜.2003.分裂不定式新说[J].西安外国语学院学报(1)：3-6.
郭绥龙.1995.不定式(短语)作形容词补足语的语用和语义关系[J].外国语言文学(Z1)：29-31+39.
韩武微.2005.被动不定式用法探讨[J].巢湖学院学报(4)：135-138.
何斌,莫国辉.2004.分裂不定式的多维透视研究[J].天津外国语学院学报(4)：32-35.
何历蓉.2011.论不定式分句逻辑主语的构成[J].铜仁学院学报(6)：117-122.
何声钟.1999.英语不定式作形容词补足语时的语义分类[J].国外外语教学(3)：42-44.
侯维瑞.1979.动名词作宾语与动词不定式作宾语的比较[J].外国语(3)：21-26.
黄和斌.1998."for...to…"不定式分句的深层次分析[J].外国语(6)：39-45.
嵇周.1985.选择动名词和不定式的修辞原则[J].大学英语(3)：34-36.
焦同梅.2008.悬垂修饰语及其失与得[J].三门峡职业技术学院学报(3)：72-75+101.
靳光谨.2001.现代汉语动词语义计算理论[M].北京：北京大学社版社.
金松庚.1994.动词后的不定式和动名词[J].浙江丝绸工学院学报(4)：49-54.
李荣田.2007.谈谈"too…to…"结构及其用法[J].大学英语(学术版)(1)：22-24.
李小英.2009.不定式与形容词搭配的及物性分析[J].科技信息(3)：267-268+317.
李政枝.1995.单及物动词后接不定式或动名词问题研究[J].外国语言文学(Z1)：85：88.
刘学明.1998.实用分类英语惯用法[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社.
刘艳秋1996.英语形容词后不定式的句法及语义功能[J].中华女子学院学报(1)：61-65.
吕艳梅.1997.SVC结构中形容词与不定式的搭配[J].周口师范学院学报(S2)：75-76.
彭艳虹.1999.论“主动不定式表被动意义”[J].武陵学刊(1)：81-82.
祁世明、陈德彰.2005.语言学分析英语非限定动词V-ing形式的实用性—由《新编英语语法教程》所引发的思考[J].巢湖学院学报(3)：27-29.
秦裕祥.1997.不定式与-ing分词作主语和主语补语时的比较[J].湖南教育学院学报(6)：34-39.
秦裕祥.1998.不定式与-ing分词作宾语和宾语补语时的比较[J].湖南教育学院学报(3)：46-51.
秦裕祥.1999.不定式与-ing分词作状语和定语时的比较[J].湖南教育学院学报(1)：55-60.
屈春芳.2005.隐性不定式逻辑主语探究[J].四川理工学院学报(2)：85-87.
尚新.2007.英汉体范畴对比研究—语法体的内部对立与中立化[M].上海：上海人民出版社.
石毓智.2004.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌：江西教育出版社.
石毓智.2006.语法的概念基础[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
石毓智.2008.认知能力与语言学理论[M].上海：学林出版社.
涂云杰.2000.谈非限定动词在科技英语中的使用[J].呼伦贝尔学院学报(1)：56-58.
王岚.1995.英语—ing分词与不定式用作动词宾语时的比较[J].大理学院学报(2)：38-42.
王兰福.1997.英语非限定动词作定语的研究[J].临沂师专学报(4)：74-76.
汪琦.1994.“形容词+不定式”结构浅析[J].上海金融学报(2)：46-47+29.
王振中.1987.英语动词不定式和动名词作宾语的比较[J].江西师范 大学学报(4)：140-144.
王寅.2002.认知语义学[J].四川外语学院学报2.
维果茨基.1999.思维与语言[M].李维(译).杭州：浙江教育出版社.
吴依俤.1992.高位动词及其非限定宾语动词理论浅析[J].外国语言文学(Z1)：14-18+59.
向明友.2008.论英语非限定动词的选择问题[J].外语教学与研究(6)：423-426.
肖音.2001.浅析非谓语动词作定语时的区别[J].江汉石油职工大学学报(1)：29-30+66.
谢少万.2001.英语非限定动词作定语的语法关系与语用特征[J].广西梧州师范高等专科学校学报(2)：42-46.
熊学亮.1999.认知语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
徐嘉.2006.浅谈分词、不定式和动名词用法区别[J].攀枝花学院学报(2)：50-52.
易仲良.1999.英语动词语义语法学[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社.
余国良.2000.论不定式在科技英语中的使用特点[J].宁波高等专科学校学报(1)：103-106.
于丽云.1998.浅析不定式中主动语态与被动语态的差异[J].丹东师专学报(2)：45-46.
张诚.2000.不定式与动名词在意义和结构上的差异[J].嘉兴高等专科学校学报(4)：54-57.
张鸣.1985.IT'S+ADJ+FOR/OF SB+TO DO STH结构中形容词分类初探[J].外语与外语教学(1)：29-30.
章振邦.1997.新编英语语法[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
赵东升.2003.英语双宾结构后接不定式短语的句法和语义解释[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4)：18-22.
赵戈屏.2004.现在分词在科技英语中作状语的翻译方法[J].南平师专学报(1)：85-88.
赵艳芳.2000.认知语言学研究综述(一)[J].解放军外国语学院学报(5)：22-26.
赵艳芳.2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生,严世清.2001.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海：上海外语出版社.
邹琼.2001.论英语非限定动词作定语的句法功能[J].零陵师范高等专科学校学报(1)：88-89.