题元角色：句法—语义接口研究
|
摘要
题元角色是谓词所描述的事件或状态中的参与者角色。若对题元角色追根寻源,可以追溯到公元前4-6世纪之间著名的印度语言学家Pānini的kārakas(语义角色),但对题元关系进行较系统的研究的是Gruber。Gruber(1965)的题元关系与Fillmore(1968)的格语法中的深层格相对应;Jackendoff(1972)将其处理为语义范畴。后来Chomsky(1981)则将θ-角色引进GB理论以揭示句法结构的语义基础,并以此将自然语言谓词的论元分类而形成一组封闭的参与者类型,这些参与者类型在句法中具有特定的位置。常见的题元角色包括施事、受事、客体、感事、受益者、工具、处所、目标、来源等。
题元角色的研究自然离不开对论元的关注,因为论元是题元角色的载体,因此题元角色与论元关系密切。题元准则(θ-criterion)规定每个题元角色分派给一个且只一个论元,每个论元承担一个且只一个题元角色。许多研究者对题元角色和题元关系不加区别,而Carnie(2002)认为题元角色是题元关系的集合,其中最突出的题元关系表示题元角色。
由于传统题元角色的离散性导致数量不确定,给题元角色向句法论元的映射带来不便,Dowty(1991)提出了题元原型角色概念(Thematic Proto-Roles):原型施事(Proto-Agent)和原型受事(Proto-Patient)。Van Valin Jr. & Lappola(1997)提出了类似于题元原型角色的“抽象语义宏观角色”(Abstract Semantic Macrorole):行动元(Actor)和受动元(Undergoer)。
当前对题元角色的研究存在的主要问题有:划分的精密度不同;题元角色的数量不确定,名称不统一;有些动词(如resemble/lack)和表示天气的动词(如rain/wind/snow)的题元角色也尚未确定。在研究中我们对这些动词的题元角色进行了分析和界定。
题元角色具有元语言的功能,因此可用以描写词汇(主要是动词)语义。在语言的使用中,题元栅也会发生变化,及物动词的不及物用法和不及物动词的及物用法正是题元栅发生变化的结果。传统语法将及物和不及物绝对分开,认为及物动词带宾语,不及物动词不能带宾语;但语言事实并非如此,随着语言的演变,及物动词和不及物动词会互相转化。因此,及物性和不及物性不是绝对的非此即彼,它们之间存在一个连续体,及物性和不及物性都是就程度上而言的。动词题元栅变化的主要表现是题元栅的扩大和缩小,不及物动词带宾语或单及物动词变为双及物动词就是题元栅的扩大;及物动词不带宾语就是题元栅的缩小。引起题元栅变化的原因也有外部原因和内部原因,外部原因是使用者追求经济原则,内部原因是动词和名词之间的相互作用,使得动词吸宾语名词的意义,导致及物动词变为不及物动词,即题元栅的缩小;另一个内部原因是搭配的影响,如不及物动词带宾语,就是超常搭配,导致题元栅的扩大。
关于映射问题,自Gruber(1965)和Fillmore(1968)分别对词汇关系和深层的语义格研究以来,人们发现动词语义角色和句法位置有着对应的关系,并开始探索二者之间的联接机制和联接制约条件,即映射理论。映射理论是关于语义和句法对应关系的语法理论。本研究认为题元角色向句法论元的映射可以分为“无标记映射”和“有标记的映射”。无标记映射是指一般的、常见的、习惯的、常规的映射。我们发现无标记映射所遵循的是等值类保存限制、显著性保存限制以及绝对映射规则和相对映射规则。一方面它强调的是题元角色和句法论元之间的常规对应;另一方面,它要求题元层级中的题元角色的显著性反映在句法结构中。例如,施事角色映射为主语,受事/客体映射为宾语,目标/处所映射为间接宾语,工具/来源映射为旁格(oblique)。而标记映射是指不常见的、特殊的、超常的映射,是在题元角色向句法论元映射的过程中在修辞创新驱动下所发生的偏离现象。在本研究中我们对“对称映射”、“象似映射”等无标记映射,以及“缺位映射”、“颠倒映射”、“构式中的非对称映射”等标记映射进行了分析和探索,并增补了“蒙受损失构式”。
尽管许多研究者分别从不同的角度对语义-句法映射进行了研究,形成不同的映射理论及映射模式,但都有其不足之处。本研究在分析各种映射模式(“依据题元层级的映射模式”、“依据原型角色映射模式”、“语义分解映射模式”、“LMT映射模式”和“Wechsler的映射模式”)不足的基础上,建立较为全面的整合映射模式(Integrated Mapping Model)。整合映射模式是将题元层级和体层级相结合而形成的映射模式,该映射模式是在四种驱动机制(题元驱动、体驱动、象似驱动和修辞创新驱动)共同作用下而进行映射运作的。
整合映射模式首先涉及的是语义层。语义层向论元结构的映射要接受“题元驱动”和“体驱动”的作用。题元驱动将语义层分解为事件或活动的参与者角色(题元角色),形成题元层级(如,施事>感事>客体/受事>目标/来源/处所);而体驱动则是将语义层分解为从事件内部的时间特征(持续性、反复性等)来量度事件的体角色(如,量度、路径、终点),形成体层级;其次,题元层级和体层级中的角色分别向论元结构映射时,受到各层级中角色的特征(数量、语义功能、显著性和量度等)限制,这些特征也随之被赋予论元结构的论元。然后论元向语法角色的映射分两个路向进行(语法角色所遵循的语法层级一般是:subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique):一是论元结构在“象似驱动”(象似驱动要求论元结构中的论元与句法结构中语法角色在数量、语义功能、显著性和量度方面象似)下映射为无标记句法结构;二是在修辞创新驱动(修辞创新驱动指语言使用者出于修辞的目的而使映射出现超常现象,产生零度偏离,是对语义的常规句法表征所进行的干预。)的作用下映射为有标记句法结构,该整合模式如下图所示。
总之,本研究对题元角色理论进行了评析和补充,在总结各映射理论的基础上创立了整合映射模式。研究的价值体现在:便于语言学习者更好地掌握动词的语义角色、论元结构、以及语义和句法的接口;有助于自然语言的计算机处理。
Thematic roles (θ-roles) are semantic roles, which refer to the participant roles in the events or states that predicates describe. The earliest source ofθ-roles can be traced back to kārakas (semantic roles) proposed by the world-famous linguist Pānini in about the 4-6th century B.C.. But it was Gruber who made a systematic research into thematic relations, which are in accordance with semantic deep cases of Fillmore’Case Grammar (1968), and Jackendoff (1972) termed them semantic categories. Years later Chomsky introducedθ-roles into GB theory to reveal the semantic basis of syntactic structures and classified inθ-role the arguments of predicates of natural language to form a group of closed types of participants, which had specific locations in the syntax. Conventionally,θ-roles refer to agent, patient, theme, experiencer, beneficiary, instrument, locations, goal, source, etc.
We could not conduct any research intoθ-roles without any concern with arguments that are actually the carriers ofθ-roles, and the close relation between the two is manifested inθ-criterion which requires each argument to bear one and only oneθ-role, and eachθ-role to be assigned to one and only one argument (Chomsky1981:36). Generallyθ-roles and thematic relations are confusing and used interchangeably, and it is Carnie (2002) that made a clear distinction between the two:θ-role is a set of thematic relations of which the most prominent one indicates theθ-role.
Considering the discreteness and the uncertainty in number of conventional thematic roles give rise to much inconvenience in the mapping between thematic roles and syntactic arguments, Dowty (1991) proposed Thematic Proto-Roles (i.e. Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient), which are similar to Abstract Semantic Macroroles: Actor and Undergoer suggested by Van Valin Jr. & Lappola (1997).
Yet in the current research intoθ-roles still exist some problems, which are respectively the differences in the delicacy of the distinctions ofθ-roles, uncertainty in number, and non-uniformity in terminology; what’s more, there is still much necessity in definingθ-roles of some verbs (as resemble, lack, etc.) and the verbs involving weather (as rain, wind, snow, etc.), hence the exploration made into theθ-roles of such verbs in this dissertation.
The author of this dissertation holds the belief thatθ-roles are characteristic of meta-language and can be employed for the description of lexical semantics. However, theθ-grid of a verb is changeable in alternation between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs with meaning unchanged. There is a clear cut between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs in traditional grammar following transitivity and intransitivity, namely, transitive verbs with objects and intransitive verbs without any objects. But it is not the case in natural language. With the evolution of language, both transitive verbs and intransitive verbs are changeable, which indicates transitivity is relative to intransitivity and vice versa, and there exists a continuum between them. The change ofθ-grid includes augmentation and minification. The change ofθ-grid results in external and internal motivations: the external one is the language user’s pursuit of the simplicity under the economic principles of language, and the internal one is the interaction between verbs and nouns, which makes transitive verbs intransitive because of verbs’absorption of the meaning of nouns, hence the minification ofθ-grid. Another internal motivation, relating to abnormal collocation, say, intransitive verbs with objects leads to the augmentation ofθ-grid.
With regard to mapping issues, from the research into lexical relations and semantic cases respectively made by Gruber(1965)and Fillmore(1968),it is found that there exists a correspondence between lexical semantic roles and syntactic locations, therefore number of explorations from different researchers are made into the linking mechanism and the constraints on linking between them, i.e. the mapping theories. Mapping theory is essentially a grammar theory on the corresponding relationship between semantics and syntax. Mappings between semantics and syntax fall into two categories in this dissertation: unmarked mapping and marked mapping. Unmarked mappings refer to general, common, and conventional mapping which follows equivalence class preservation constraints, prominence preservation constraints, absolute mapping algorithm and relative mapping algorithm. On the one hand, unmarked mappings lay much stress on the normal correspondence betweenθ-roles and syntactic arguments; on the other hand, it requires the prominence relations amongθ-roles in the thematic hierarchy to be manifested in syntax. For instance, agent is usually realized as subject, patient/theme realized as object, goal/location as indirect object, and instrument/source as oblique. Marked mappings refers to the unusual, special and abnormal mappings, which are deviated ones occurring in the mapping ofθ-roles and syntactic arguments under rhetorical innovation motivation. In this research, analysis and explorations are made into unmarked mappings including argument-absent mapping, inversed mapping, and asymmetric mapping in construction. Furthermore, the author proposed Suffer-Lose construction.
Although many linguists have conducted research into the mapping between semantics and syntax from different perspectives and established different mapping theories and mapping models, each has still something to be desired. Based on the analysis of the defectives of such mapping theories (mapping based on thematic hierarchy, mapping based on thematic proto-roles, mapping based on semantic decomposition, lexical mapping theory, and Wechsler’s mapping model), this research has established Integrated Mapping Model which exerts its mapping operations under four driven mechanisms (thematic-driven mechanism, aspectual-driven mechanism, iconicity-driven mechanism, and rhetorical-innovation-driven mechanism).
Integrated Mapping Model gives top priority to semantics level. The mapping from semantics to argument structure is subject to thematic driven-mechanism and aspectual driven-mechanism. Thematic driven-mechanism decomposes semantics into different participant roles in the events or activities described by verbs, namely, thematic roles, which are ordered into a thematic hierarchy. Aspectual driven-mechanism decomposes semantics into the aspectual roles measuring an event, such as MEASURE, PATH and TERMINUS, measuring the event from its temporal attributes (duration, recurrence), which are ordered into an aspectual hierarchy. Secondly, the mapping from both thematic roles in thematic hierarchy and aspectual roles in aspectual hierarchy onto arguments in the argument structure is subject to the feature constraint (feature constraint refers to number feature constraint, semantic-function feature constraint, prominence feature constraint and measure feature constraint imposed by both thematic roles and aspectual roles on arguments.).Then the mapping from arguments onto grammatical roles follows two directions (grammatical roles are conventionally ordered into the hierarchy: subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique): one is that arguments are mapped onto the corresponding grammatical roles under the iconicity driven-mechanism (iconicity driven-mechanism requires the arguments in the argument structure (Arguments have already been assigned the features from both thematic and aspectual roles under the feature constraint.) to have iconicity in feature (number feature, semantic function feature, prominence feature and measure feature) with the grammatical roles) realized as unmarked syntactic structure; the other is that arguments are mapped onto the corresponding grammatical roles under rhetorical innovation driven-mechanism (Rhetorical innovation driven-mechanism usually leads to unusual mapping deviated from the normal mapping, which is aroused by language users in pursuit of rhetorical innovation and interference in normal syntactic representation of semantics.) realized as marked syntactic structure. Integrated Mapping Model is as follows:
In a word, in this research, except the analysis and comment ofθ-role theory, some supplementation ofθ-role theory is also made. Based on summarizing the current mapping theories, Integrated Mapping Model is established. The findings in the research are conducive to language learner in mastery of lexical semantics, argument structure and the interface between semantics and syntax. On the other hand, it is helpful to the computer-assisted processing of natural language.
题元角色的研究自然离不开对论元的关注,因为论元是题元角色的载体,因此题元角色与论元关系密切。题元准则(θ-criterion)规定每个题元角色分派给一个且只一个论元,每个论元承担一个且只一个题元角色。许多研究者对题元角色和题元关系不加区别,而Carnie(2002)认为题元角色是题元关系的集合,其中最突出的题元关系表示题元角色。
由于传统题元角色的离散性导致数量不确定,给题元角色向句法论元的映射带来不便,Dowty(1991)提出了题元原型角色概念(Thematic Proto-Roles):原型施事(Proto-Agent)和原型受事(Proto-Patient)。Van Valin Jr. & Lappola(1997)提出了类似于题元原型角色的“抽象语义宏观角色”(Abstract Semantic Macrorole):行动元(Actor)和受动元(Undergoer)。
当前对题元角色的研究存在的主要问题有:划分的精密度不同;题元角色的数量不确定,名称不统一;有些动词(如resemble/lack)和表示天气的动词(如rain/wind/snow)的题元角色也尚未确定。在研究中我们对这些动词的题元角色进行了分析和界定。
题元角色具有元语言的功能,因此可用以描写词汇(主要是动词)语义。在语言的使用中,题元栅也会发生变化,及物动词的不及物用法和不及物动词的及物用法正是题元栅发生变化的结果。传统语法将及物和不及物绝对分开,认为及物动词带宾语,不及物动词不能带宾语;但语言事实并非如此,随着语言的演变,及物动词和不及物动词会互相转化。因此,及物性和不及物性不是绝对的非此即彼,它们之间存在一个连续体,及物性和不及物性都是就程度上而言的。动词题元栅变化的主要表现是题元栅的扩大和缩小,不及物动词带宾语或单及物动词变为双及物动词就是题元栅的扩大;及物动词不带宾语就是题元栅的缩小。引起题元栅变化的原因也有外部原因和内部原因,外部原因是使用者追求经济原则,内部原因是动词和名词之间的相互作用,使得动词吸宾语名词的意义,导致及物动词变为不及物动词,即题元栅的缩小;另一个内部原因是搭配的影响,如不及物动词带宾语,就是超常搭配,导致题元栅的扩大。
关于映射问题,自Gruber(1965)和Fillmore(1968)分别对词汇关系和深层的语义格研究以来,人们发现动词语义角色和句法位置有着对应的关系,并开始探索二者之间的联接机制和联接制约条件,即映射理论。映射理论是关于语义和句法对应关系的语法理论。本研究认为题元角色向句法论元的映射可以分为“无标记映射”和“有标记的映射”。无标记映射是指一般的、常见的、习惯的、常规的映射。我们发现无标记映射所遵循的是等值类保存限制、显著性保存限制以及绝对映射规则和相对映射规则。一方面它强调的是题元角色和句法论元之间的常规对应;另一方面,它要求题元层级中的题元角色的显著性反映在句法结构中。例如,施事角色映射为主语,受事/客体映射为宾语,目标/处所映射为间接宾语,工具/来源映射为旁格(oblique)。而标记映射是指不常见的、特殊的、超常的映射,是在题元角色向句法论元映射的过程中在修辞创新驱动下所发生的偏离现象。在本研究中我们对“对称映射”、“象似映射”等无标记映射,以及“缺位映射”、“颠倒映射”、“构式中的非对称映射”等标记映射进行了分析和探索,并增补了“蒙受损失构式”。
尽管许多研究者分别从不同的角度对语义-句法映射进行了研究,形成不同的映射理论及映射模式,但都有其不足之处。本研究在分析各种映射模式(“依据题元层级的映射模式”、“依据原型角色映射模式”、“语义分解映射模式”、“LMT映射模式”和“Wechsler的映射模式”)不足的基础上,建立较为全面的整合映射模式(Integrated Mapping Model)。整合映射模式是将题元层级和体层级相结合而形成的映射模式,该映射模式是在四种驱动机制(题元驱动、体驱动、象似驱动和修辞创新驱动)共同作用下而进行映射运作的。
整合映射模式首先涉及的是语义层。语义层向论元结构的映射要接受“题元驱动”和“体驱动”的作用。题元驱动将语义层分解为事件或活动的参与者角色(题元角色),形成题元层级(如,施事>感事>客体/受事>目标/来源/处所);而体驱动则是将语义层分解为从事件内部的时间特征(持续性、反复性等)来量度事件的体角色(如,量度、路径、终点),形成体层级;其次,题元层级和体层级中的角色分别向论元结构映射时,受到各层级中角色的特征(数量、语义功能、显著性和量度等)限制,这些特征也随之被赋予论元结构的论元。然后论元向语法角色的映射分两个路向进行(语法角色所遵循的语法层级一般是:subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique):一是论元结构在“象似驱动”(象似驱动要求论元结构中的论元与句法结构中语法角色在数量、语义功能、显著性和量度方面象似)下映射为无标记句法结构;二是在修辞创新驱动(修辞创新驱动指语言使用者出于修辞的目的而使映射出现超常现象,产生零度偏离,是对语义的常规句法表征所进行的干预。)的作用下映射为有标记句法结构,该整合模式如下图所示。
总之,本研究对题元角色理论进行了评析和补充,在总结各映射理论的基础上创立了整合映射模式。研究的价值体现在:便于语言学习者更好地掌握动词的语义角色、论元结构、以及语义和句法的接口;有助于自然语言的计算机处理。
Thematic roles (θ-roles) are semantic roles, which refer to the participant roles in the events or states that predicates describe. The earliest source ofθ-roles can be traced back to kārakas (semantic roles) proposed by the world-famous linguist Pānini in about the 4-6th century B.C.. But it was Gruber who made a systematic research into thematic relations, which are in accordance with semantic deep cases of Fillmore’Case Grammar (1968), and Jackendoff (1972) termed them semantic categories. Years later Chomsky introducedθ-roles into GB theory to reveal the semantic basis of syntactic structures and classified inθ-role the arguments of predicates of natural language to form a group of closed types of participants, which had specific locations in the syntax. Conventionally,θ-roles refer to agent, patient, theme, experiencer, beneficiary, instrument, locations, goal, source, etc.
We could not conduct any research intoθ-roles without any concern with arguments that are actually the carriers ofθ-roles, and the close relation between the two is manifested inθ-criterion which requires each argument to bear one and only oneθ-role, and eachθ-role to be assigned to one and only one argument (Chomsky1981:36). Generallyθ-roles and thematic relations are confusing and used interchangeably, and it is Carnie (2002) that made a clear distinction between the two:θ-role is a set of thematic relations of which the most prominent one indicates theθ-role.
Considering the discreteness and the uncertainty in number of conventional thematic roles give rise to much inconvenience in the mapping between thematic roles and syntactic arguments, Dowty (1991) proposed Thematic Proto-Roles (i.e. Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient), which are similar to Abstract Semantic Macroroles: Actor and Undergoer suggested by Van Valin Jr. & Lappola (1997).
Yet in the current research intoθ-roles still exist some problems, which are respectively the differences in the delicacy of the distinctions ofθ-roles, uncertainty in number, and non-uniformity in terminology; what’s more, there is still much necessity in definingθ-roles of some verbs (as resemble, lack, etc.) and the verbs involving weather (as rain, wind, snow, etc.), hence the exploration made into theθ-roles of such verbs in this dissertation.
The author of this dissertation holds the belief thatθ-roles are characteristic of meta-language and can be employed for the description of lexical semantics. However, theθ-grid of a verb is changeable in alternation between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs with meaning unchanged. There is a clear cut between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs in traditional grammar following transitivity and intransitivity, namely, transitive verbs with objects and intransitive verbs without any objects. But it is not the case in natural language. With the evolution of language, both transitive verbs and intransitive verbs are changeable, which indicates transitivity is relative to intransitivity and vice versa, and there exists a continuum between them. The change ofθ-grid includes augmentation and minification. The change ofθ-grid results in external and internal motivations: the external one is the language user’s pursuit of the simplicity under the economic principles of language, and the internal one is the interaction between verbs and nouns, which makes transitive verbs intransitive because of verbs’absorption of the meaning of nouns, hence the minification ofθ-grid. Another internal motivation, relating to abnormal collocation, say, intransitive verbs with objects leads to the augmentation ofθ-grid.
With regard to mapping issues, from the research into lexical relations and semantic cases respectively made by Gruber(1965)and Fillmore(1968),it is found that there exists a correspondence between lexical semantic roles and syntactic locations, therefore number of explorations from different researchers are made into the linking mechanism and the constraints on linking between them, i.e. the mapping theories. Mapping theory is essentially a grammar theory on the corresponding relationship between semantics and syntax. Mappings between semantics and syntax fall into two categories in this dissertation: unmarked mapping and marked mapping. Unmarked mappings refer to general, common, and conventional mapping which follows equivalence class preservation constraints, prominence preservation constraints, absolute mapping algorithm and relative mapping algorithm. On the one hand, unmarked mappings lay much stress on the normal correspondence betweenθ-roles and syntactic arguments; on the other hand, it requires the prominence relations amongθ-roles in the thematic hierarchy to be manifested in syntax. For instance, agent is usually realized as subject, patient/theme realized as object, goal/location as indirect object, and instrument/source as oblique. Marked mappings refers to the unusual, special and abnormal mappings, which are deviated ones occurring in the mapping ofθ-roles and syntactic arguments under rhetorical innovation motivation. In this research, analysis and explorations are made into unmarked mappings including argument-absent mapping, inversed mapping, and asymmetric mapping in construction. Furthermore, the author proposed Suffer-Lose construction.
Although many linguists have conducted research into the mapping between semantics and syntax from different perspectives and established different mapping theories and mapping models, each has still something to be desired. Based on the analysis of the defectives of such mapping theories (mapping based on thematic hierarchy, mapping based on thematic proto-roles, mapping based on semantic decomposition, lexical mapping theory, and Wechsler’s mapping model), this research has established Integrated Mapping Model which exerts its mapping operations under four driven mechanisms (thematic-driven mechanism, aspectual-driven mechanism, iconicity-driven mechanism, and rhetorical-innovation-driven mechanism).
Integrated Mapping Model gives top priority to semantics level. The mapping from semantics to argument structure is subject to thematic driven-mechanism and aspectual driven-mechanism. Thematic driven-mechanism decomposes semantics into different participant roles in the events or activities described by verbs, namely, thematic roles, which are ordered into a thematic hierarchy. Aspectual driven-mechanism decomposes semantics into the aspectual roles measuring an event, such as MEASURE, PATH and TERMINUS, measuring the event from its temporal attributes (duration, recurrence), which are ordered into an aspectual hierarchy. Secondly, the mapping from both thematic roles in thematic hierarchy and aspectual roles in aspectual hierarchy onto arguments in the argument structure is subject to the feature constraint (feature constraint refers to number feature constraint, semantic-function feature constraint, prominence feature constraint and measure feature constraint imposed by both thematic roles and aspectual roles on arguments.).Then the mapping from arguments onto grammatical roles follows two directions (grammatical roles are conventionally ordered into the hierarchy: subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique): one is that arguments are mapped onto the corresponding grammatical roles under the iconicity driven-mechanism (iconicity driven-mechanism requires the arguments in the argument structure (Arguments have already been assigned the features from both thematic and aspectual roles under the feature constraint.) to have iconicity in feature (number feature, semantic function feature, prominence feature and measure feature) with the grammatical roles) realized as unmarked syntactic structure; the other is that arguments are mapped onto the corresponding grammatical roles under rhetorical innovation driven-mechanism (Rhetorical innovation driven-mechanism usually leads to unusual mapping deviated from the normal mapping, which is aroused by language users in pursuit of rhetorical innovation and interference in normal syntactic representation of semantics.) realized as marked syntactic structure. Integrated Mapping Model is as follows:
In a word, in this research, except the analysis and comment ofθ-role theory, some supplementation ofθ-role theory is also made. Based on summarizing the current mapping theories, Integrated Mapping Model is established. The findings in the research are conducive to language learner in mastery of lexical semantics, argument structure and the interface between semantics and syntax. On the other hand, it is helpful to the computer-assisted processing of natural language.
引文
[1] Alford, J. A. The Grammatical Metaphor: A Survey of Its Use in the Middle Ages[J]. Speculum, 1982(4): 728-760.
[2] Alsina, Alex. On the argument structure of Causatives[J].Linguistic Inquiry, 1992(4):517-555.
[3] Arad, M. A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics,1996 (8): 215-242.
[4] Baker, M. C. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[5] Baker, M. C. On the structural positions of themes and goals[A]. In J.Rooryck and L.Zaring (eds.), 1996: 7-34.
[6] Baker, M.C. Thematic roles and syntactic structure[A].In L.Haegeman,ed., Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1997:73-137.
[7] Baltin, M. R. A-movements[A]. In Baltin, M. and C. Collins(eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory[C]. Cambridge (Mass.): Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000: 226-251.
[8] Belletti, A and L Rizzi. Psych-verbs andθ-theory[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1988(6): 291-352.
[9] Belletti, Adriana. The Case of Unaccusatives[J]. Linguistic Inquiry19, 1988: 1-34.
[10] Bhat, D. N. S. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
[11] Blutner, R. Lexical pragmatics[J]. Journal of Semantics, 1998(15):115-162.
[12] Blutner, R. Lexical semantics and pragmatics[A]. In Hamm, F. & T. Zimmermann(eds.). Semantik[C].Hamburg, 2002: 27-58.of Pragmatics[C].Oxford: Blackwell, 2004: 488-514.
[14] Borer, H. The Projection of Arguments[A].In E.Benedicto and J. Runner (eds.).Functional Projections [C].Massachusetts: Umass, Amherst,1994.
[15] Bouchard, D. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar[M]. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
[16] Bresnan, J. Lexicality and argument structure[Z]. In: Paris Syntax and Semantics Conference, 1995:1-27.
[17] Bresnan, J. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar[J]. Language, 1994(1): 72-131.
[18] Bresnan, J.& J. Kanerva. Locative inversion in Chiche?a: a case study of factorization in grammar[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1989 (20): 1-50.
[19] Bresnan, J. Lexical Functional Syntax[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
[20] Bresnan, J. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1982.
[21] Brinton, L. & E. C. Traugott. Lexicalization and Language Change[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[22] Burzio, L. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
[23] Butt, M. and T. H. King. Argument Realization[C]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[24] Cabrera, J. C. M. On the Relations between Grammaticalization and Lexicalization[A]. In Ramat, A. G.. and Paul J. Hopper(eds), The Limits of Grammaticalization[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998: 211-227.
[25] Cann, R., C. Grover. and P. Miller(eds). Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG[C]. Leland Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[26] Carnie, A. Syntax: A General Introductuion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002.
[27] Carrol, J. Linguistic Relativity and Language Learning[A]. In Allen. J. andCorder. S(eds). Readings for Applied Linguistics[C]. London: OUP, 1977.
[28] Chafe, W. L. Meaning and the Structure of Language[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
[29] Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Dordrecht: Foris, 1981.
[30] Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program[M]. Mass: The MIT Press, 1995.
[31] Chomsky, N. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory[A]. In Hale, K. and J. Keyser(eds), The View from Building 20[C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1993.
[32] Croft, W. Typology and Universals[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[33] Croft, W. Event structure in argument linking[A]. In Miaiam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder(eds.), The Projection of Arguments[C]. Stanford,California: CSLI Publications, 1998:21-57.
[34] Cruse, D. A. Some thoughts on agentivity[J].Journal of Linguistics, 1973 (9): 1-204.
[35] Davis, A. R. Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon[M].Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, 2001.
[36] Davis. A. R. Lexical Semantics and Linking in the Hierarchical Lexicon[D]. dissertation, Stanford University. 1996.
[37] Dik, S. C. Functional Grammar[M]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1981.
[38] Dik, S. C. Functional Grammar[M].Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978.
[39] Dik, S. C. Studies in Functional Grammar[M]. London: Academic Press INC. LTD., 1978.
[40] Dik. S. C. The Theory of Functional Grammar(I)[M]. Dordrecht: Foris, 1989: 226.
[41] Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity[J]. Language 55, 1979: 59-138.
[42] Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[43] Dowty, D. Thematic Proto - Roles and Argument Selection[J] . Language67. 1991(3): 547 - 619.
[44] Dowty, D. On the semantic content of the notion of thematic role. In Chierchia, Partee, and Turner(eds.): Properties, Types and Meaning(Vol. 2), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989: 69-130.
[45] Dowty, D. On the syntax and semantics of the atomic predicate CAUSE[Z]. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1972(8): 62-74.
[46] Dowty, D. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M], Reidel: Dordrecht, 1979.
[47] Falk, Y N. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax[M]. CSLI. 2001.
[48] Fauconnier,G. Mapping in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997.
[49] Fillmore, C. J. The case for case reopened[A]. In P.Cole and J.Sadock(eds), Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations[C].New York: Academic Press, 1977: 59-81.
[50] Fillmore, C. J. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. BLS 12, 1986: 95-107.
[51] Fillmore, C J. Some Problems for Case Grammar[A]. In R. O’Brain(ed.), Report on the Twenty-Second Annual Round Table Meeting on Languages and Linguistics[C]. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1971: 35-36.
[52] Fillmore, Charles J. The Case for Case. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory[M].New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968: 1-88.
[53] Fillmore, C. J. Frame Semantics[A]. In Linguistic Society of Korea(ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C].Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.,1982: 111-138.
[54] Foley, W.A.and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
[55] Givón, T. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction(vol.I)[M].Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1984.
[56] Goldberg, A. E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
[57] Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation[A]. In P.Cole and J.L.Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics(vol.3): Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
[58] Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990.
[59] Grimshaw, J. Unaccusatives: an overview[Z], Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society ,1987(17): 244-58.
[60] Grimshaw, J., and A. Mester. Light verbs andθ-Marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1988: 205-232.
[61] Gruber, J. S. Studies in Lexical Relations[D]. PhD.dissertation, MIT, 1965.
[62] Haiman, J. Iconicity in Syntax[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985.
[63] Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 2002.
[64] Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. Writing Science: Literary and Discourse Power[M].London: Falmer Press, 1993.
[65] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
[66] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold.1994.
[67] Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language[M]. London: Edward Arnold,1973.
[68] Harris, Alice. Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis[J], Language 58, 1982: 290-306.
[69] Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. Grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[70] Huang, C. -T. J. On lexical structure and syntactic projection[J]. Chinese Languages and Linguistics ,1997(3): 45-89.
[71] Jack, C. R., et al. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.
[72] Jackendoff, R. S. Foundations of Language[M]. Oxford: OUP, 2002.
[73] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantic Structures[M]. Mass.: The MIT Press,1990.
[74] Jackendoff, R. S. Mme. Tussaud Meets the Binding Theory[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1992(10):1-31.
[75] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1972.
[76] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantics and Cognition[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1983.
[77] Jackendoff, R. S. The Architecture of the Language Faculty[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1997.
[78] Jackendoff, R. S. The combinatorial structure of thought: the family of causative concepts[A]. In Reuland, Eric & Wemer Abraham (eds.), Knowledge and Language (Vol.2)[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1993: 31-50.
[79] Jackendoff, R. S. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 1976(7): 89-150.
[80] Jackendoff, R. S. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1987(18): 369-411.
[81] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantic Structures[M].Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press,1990.
[82] Jayaseelan, K. A. Complex Predicates andθ-Theory[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 92-111.
[83] Johnson, Mark. The Body in Mind: The bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[84] Jones, Charles. Thematic Relations in Control[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.),Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 75-90.
[85] Katz , J. J. and J. Fodor The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39, 1963(2): 170 -210.
[86] Katz, J. Chomsky on meaning[J]. Language 56, 1980(1).
[87] Ladusaw, W. A. and D. R. Dowty. Towards a Nongrammatical Account of Thematic Roles[A]. In W. Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics21: Thematic Relations[C]. San Diego: Academic Press, 1988, 62-73.
[88] Lakoff, G. Irregularities in Syntax [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
[89] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[90] Lakoff. G and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[91] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(Vol.I): Theoretical Prerequisites[M].Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 1987.
[92] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(Vol. II): Descriptive Application [M ]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
[93] Larson, R. K. Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1990: 589-632.
[94] Larson, R. K. On double object constructions[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1988: 335-391.
[95] Leech, G. N. Semantics[M]. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1974.
[96] Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman, 1983.
[97] Levin, B. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation[M]. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
[98] Levin, B, and M. Rappaport. An approach to unaccusative mismatches[A]. Proceedings of the North-East Linguistics Society 1989(19): 314-328.
[99] Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[100] Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995.
[101] Lin Tzong-Hong. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure [D]. Ph.D dissertation. Irvine: UC-Irvine, 2001.
[102] Manning, C. D. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations[M]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1996.
[103] Marantz, Alec. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1984.
[104] Mithun, Marianne. Active/Agentive case marking and its motivations[J]. Language 67, 1991: 511-546.
[105] Nedyalkov, V. P. & G. G. Silnitsky. The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives[A]. In F. Kiefer (ed.).Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics[C]. Doredrecht: Reidel, 1973.
[106] Ouhalla, J. Introducing Transformational Grammar: From Principles and Parameters to Minimalism[M]. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited, 1999.
[107] Packard, J. L. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[108] Palmer, F.R. Grammatical Roles and Relations[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[109] Perlmutter, D. Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
[110] Perlmutter, D. M. and P M. Postal. Impersonal Passives and some relational laws[A]. In Perlmutter, D. M. and C. G. Rosen(eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984: 126-70.
[111] Perlmutter, D. M. and P. M. Postal. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law[A]. In D.M. Perlmutter and C. Rosen(eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984:81-125.
[112] Pinker, Steven. Learnability and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1989.
[113] Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
[114] Postal, P.M. Cross-over Phenomena[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
[115] Pustejovsky, James. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995.
[116] Radford, A. English Syntax: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[117] Radford, A. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997a.
[118] Radford. A. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997b.
[119] Randall, J. H. Inheritance[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C]. New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 129-144.
[120] Rappaport Hovav, M. and B Levin. Building Verb Meanings[A]. In Miaiam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder(eds.), The Projection of Arguments[C]. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications,1998: 97-126.
[121] Ravin, Yael. Lexical Semantics without Thematic Roles[M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
[122] Rizzi, Luigi. Relativized Minimality[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990.
[123] Robins, R. H. A Short History of Linguistics[M]. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1967.
[124] Rosen, Carol. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical Relations[A]. In David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen(eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984: 38-77.
[125] Rosen, S. T. Argument Structure and Complex Predicates[M]. New York: Garland Publishing, INC., 1990.
[126] Rozwadowska, Bozena. Thematic Restrictions on Derived Nominals[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 147-160.
[127] Schlesinger,I.M. Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[128] Singh, J. D. Panini's theory of kārakas[J]. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 1974(3): 287-320.
[129] Smith, C. S. The Parameter of Aspect[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.
[130] Stowell, Timothy. Origins of phrase structure[D]. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation, 1981.
[131] Talmy, L. Figure and ground as thematic roles. Paper presented at the 1985 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America[M]., Seattle, 1985a.
[132] Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition[J].Cognitive Science 12, 1988: 49-100.
[133] Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen(ed.), Language typology and syntactic description(vol.3): Grammatical categories and the lexicon[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985b: 57-149.
[134] Talmy, L. Towards A Cognitive Semantics(Vol.II):Typology and Process in Concept Structuring[M]. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000.
[135] Tan, F. Notion of Subject in Chinese[D]. dissertation, Stanford University, CA, 1991.
[136] Taylor, J .R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1995.
[137] Tenny, C. L. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness[D]. dissertation, MIT. 1987.
[138] Tenny, C. L. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis[A]. In I. Sag and A. Szabolsci(eds.), Lexical Matters[C], Standford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1989.
[139] Tenny, C. L. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M].Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
[140] Trask, R. L.. Historical Linguistics[M]. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1996.
[141] Trubetzkoy, N. S. Principles of Phonology[M]. University of California Press. 1969.
[142] Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
[143] Ura, H. Multiple Feature Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Functions Splitting[D]. dissertation, MIT, 1996.
[144] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity[J]. Language 66, 1990: 221-260.
[145] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and R. J. La Polla. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[146] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. An Introduction to Syntax[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[147] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[148] Wechsler, Stephen. Argument Structure and Linking[D]. dissertation, Stanford University, 1991.
[149] Wechsler, Stephen. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure[M]. Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications, 1995.
[150] Wierzbicka, A. Semantic Primitives[M]. Frankfurt: Athenum, 1972.
[151] Wierzbicka, A. Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
[152] Wierzbicka, A. Semantics: Primes and Universals[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
[153] Wilkins, W. Thematic structure and reflexivization[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., 1988: 191-212.
[154] Wilkins, W. Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[M]. San Diego: Academic Press, INC., 1988.
[155] Williams, E. Thematic Structure in Syntax[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1994.
[156] Williams, E. Argument Structure and Morphology[J]. Linguistic Review 1,1981: 81-114.
[157] Huang Yan. Pragmatics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
[158] Zaenen, Annie. Unaccusativity in Dutch: integrating syntax and lexical semantics[A]. In James Pustejovsky(ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon[C], Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993:129-61.
[159] Richards等编(管燕红等译).朗文语言教学及应用语言学辞典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005:413.
[160]安丰存.题元角色理论与领有名词提升移位[J].解放军外国语学院学, 2007(3):11-17.
[161]蔡基刚,英汉词化对比与综合型表达[A]. 2005.熊学亮、蔡基刚(主编),语言界面[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,238-263.
[162]陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003:140.
[163]陈新仁.词汇阻遏现象的顺应性阐释, 2007(1):80-86.
[164]陈新仁.国外词汇语用学研究述评[J].外语研究, 2005(5): 5-9.
[165]程工.评“题元原型角色与论元选择”[J].国外语言学,1995(3): 29-33,39.
[166]程工,构词规则的能产性为什么有限?[A].熊学亮、蔡基刚(主编),语言界面[C].上海:复旦大学出版社, 2005: 223-237.
[167]程琪龙.概念框架和认知[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006
[168]程琪龙. Jackendoff的概念语义学理论[J].外语教学与研究,1997(2): 8-13.
[169]程琪龙.致使概念语义结构的认知研究[J].现代外语,2001 (2): 121-132.
[170]仇伟.不及物运动动词带处所宾语构式的认知研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2006(6):83-87.
[171]邓思颖.汉语方言语法的参数理论[M ].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[172]董秀芳.从词汇化的角度看粘合式动补结构的性质[J].语言科学,2007(1):40-47.
[173]董秀芳.汉语的词库与词法[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2004.
[174]董秀芳.论句法结构的词汇化[J].语言研究, 2002(3):56-65.
[175]董燕萍、蔡振光,竞争模型中的语义线索:论元特征满足度[J].外语教学与研究,2007(3): 169-176.
[176]范晓,张豫峰等.语法理论纲要[M].上海:上海译文出版社, 2003.
[177]范晓.动词的配价与句子的生成[J].汉语学习,1996(1): 3-7.
[178]范晓.汉语学习[J].动词的配价与句子的生成, 1996(1).
[179]范晓.动词的配价与句子的生成[J].汉语学习,1996 (1): 3-7.
[180]高春雨.动词隐喻与角色题元[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2007(1):21-24.
[181]高明乐.联接理论的发展与现状[J].外语学刊. 2004(2): 61-66.
[182]高明乐.题元角色的句法实现[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
[183]贡献.动词词库模型之解释力[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2000(2): 18-21.
[184]顾阳.论元结构理论介绍[J].国外语言学,1994(1): 1-11.
[185]顾阳.生成语法及词库中动词的一些特性[J].国外语言学,1996(3): 1-16.
[186]桂诗春.心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[187]郭继懋.领主属宾句[J].中国语文,1990(1).
[188]郭继懋.试谈“飞上海”等不及物动词带宾语现象[J].中国语文,1999(5): 337-346.
[189]郭继懋.关于存现结构理论探讨[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[190]韩景泉.领有名词提升移位与格理论[J].现代外语, 2000(3):261-272.
[191]何晓炜.双及物结构中的题元阶层[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2002(6): 9-12.
[192]胡建华.题元、论元和语法功能项---格标效应与语言差异[J].外语教学与研究, 2007(3): 165-168
[193]胡建华.现代汉语不及物动词的论元和宾语---从抽象动词“有”到句法—信息结构接口[J].中国语文, 2008(5): 396-409.
[194]胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社, 1989.
[195]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2004.
[196]黄河.中文信息处理与词汇语法研究[J].山东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2002,(5): 78-80.
[197]靳光谨.现代汉语动词语义计算理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[198]黎锦熙.新著国文语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992.
[199]李炯英.波兰语义学派概述[J].外语教学与研究, 2005(5): 377-382.
[200]李炯英.从语义基元的视角比较Wierzbicka与Jackendoff的语义学理论—波兰语义学派研究之三[J].外语教学, 2006(5): 16-18.
[201]李临定.汉语比较变换语法[M].北京:中国社会科学院出版社, 1988.
[202]李临定.现代汉语句型[M].北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[203]李勇忠.构式义、转喻与句式压制[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2004(2):10-14 .
[204]林杏光、王玲玲、孙德金,现代汉语动词大词典[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1994.
[205]刘辰诞.论元结构:认知模型向句法结构投射的中介[J].外国语, 2005(2):62-69.
[206]刘辰诞:结构和边界:语言表达式的认知基础[D].河南大学博士论文,2006.
[207]刘国辉、宋洁琳,小议主流语言学派对名词化的研究[A].载文旭,徐安泉(主编),认知语言学新视野[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006:299-321.
[208]刘晓林.也谈不及物动词带宾语的问题[J].外国语, 2004(1):33-39.
[209]刘鑫民.现代汉语句子生成问题研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2004.
[210]刘润清.西方语言学流派[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
[211]鲁川﹑林杏光.现代汉语语法的格关系[J].汉语学习,1989(5).
[212]陆俭明、沈阳.汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
[213]陆俭明.句法语义接口问题[J].外国语,2006(3):30-35.
[214]吕叔湘.中国文法要略[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[215]罗思敏、徐海、王文斌.当代词汇化研究综合考察[J].现代外语, 2007(4):414-423.
[216]马莉.从论元的角度看“王冕死了父亲”[J].外语教学,2003(3): 23-27.
[217]马建忠.马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1898.
[218]马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[219]梅德明.现代句法学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2008.
[220]孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰,动词用法词典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社, 1987.
[221]牛保义.英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析[J].外语与外语教学, 2005(6): 1-6.
[222]潘海华、韩景泉.显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究[J].语言研究,2005(3):1-13.
[223]潘海华.词汇映射理论在汉语句法研究中的应用[J].现代外语,1997(4):1-16.
[224]彭玉海.试谈配价与题元的关系[J].中国俄语教学,2001(3):7-13.
[225]彭玉海.题元研究的方法论[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2004(3):26-30.
[226]彭玉海.题元与俄语语义理论[J].外语学刊, 2003(4): 36-41.
[227]秦德娟、袁毅敏.作格分析法研究[J].云南民族大学学报, 2007(3):136-139.
[228]任鹰.动词语义特征对共现名词指称方式的制约和影响[J].世界汉语教学, 2007(3): 29-37.
[229]沈阳.动词的题元结构与动词短语的同构分析[J].世界汉语教学, 1997(4): 26-41.
[230]沈圆.句法-语义界面研究[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2007.
[231]沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社, 1999.
[232]施春宏.动结式的配价层级及其歧价现象[J].语言教学与研究, 2006(4): 45-57.
[233]石定栩.乔姆斯基的形式句法---历史进程与最新理论[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社, 2002.
[234]石毓智.语法化的动因和机制[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
[235]束定芳现代语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[236]史锡尧.“介宾+动”向“动宾”的演变——语言的经济性原则[J].汉语学习,2000(1):6-7
[237]宋国明.句法理论概要[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[238]宋文辉.现代汉语动结式的认知研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007.
[239]孙晋文、伍雅清.再论领有名词提升移位[M].语言科学, 2003(6): 46-52.
[240]孙英杰.句法与词汇语义接口[J].社会科学辑刊[J]. 2007(1):251-255.
[241]王力.汉语语法史[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1989.
[242]王力.中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[243]王寅.语义理论与语言教学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[244]王寅.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[245]王灿龙.词汇化二例---兼谈词汇化和语法化的关系[J].当代语言学,2005(3):225-236.
[246]王德春.多角度研究语言[M].北京:清华大学出版社, 2002.
[247]王德春.现代修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 2001.
[248]王德春.现代语言学研究[M].福州:福建人民出版社, 1983.
[249]王德春.语言学概论[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 1997.
[250]王德春.语言学通论[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1990.
[251]王德春.语言学通论[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 1990.
[252]王俊毅,及物动词与不及物动词分类考察[J].语言教学与研究,2001(5): 17-24.
[253]王立非.布拉格学派与标记理论[J].外语研究,1991,(1): 1-7.
[254]王立非.关于标记理论[J].外国语, 1991(4): 30-34.
[255]王文斌、徐睿.英汉使役心理动词的形态分类和句法结构比较分析[J].外国语,2005(4): 22-29.
[256]尉万传.《词汇化与语言演变》述介[J].外语教学与研究,2007(6):474-476.
[257]温宾利、程杰.论轻动词v的纯句法本质[J].现代外语,2007(2):111-123.
[258]温宾利.句法学导论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2002.
[259]温宾利.、陈宗利.领有名词移位:基于MP的分析[J].现代外语,2001(4):412-416.
[260]吴福祥.语法化演变的共相与殊相[A].载沈家煊、吴福祥、马贝加主编,语法化与语法研究(二)[C].北京:商务印书馆,2005:267-306.
[261]吴庚堂.汉语被动式与动词被动化[J].现代外语,2000(3): 249-260.
[262]吴卸耀.现代汉语存现句[M].上海:学林出版社,2006.
[263]谢应光.标记理论与英语动词的语法范畴[J].外国语,1998(1): 36-41.
[264]邢福义.汉语语法三百问[M].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[265]熊仲儒.现代汉语的致使句式[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社, 2004.
[266]徐杰.两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题[J].当代语言学,1999(1),16-29.
[267]徐烈炯.生成语法理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1988.
[268]徐烈炯.题元理论与汉语配价问题[J].当代语言学(试刊),1998(3): 1–21.
[269]徐盛桓.常规关系与句式结构研究--以汉语不及物动词带宾语句式为例[J].外国语, 2003 (2): 8-16.
[270]徐盛桓.名动转用的语义基础[J].外国语, 2001(1).
[271]徐盛桓.语言的“有标记”与“无标记”[J].山东外语教学,1985(4): 1-9.
[272]薛恩奎.配价、词义、句式[J].中国俄语教学, 2005(4):1-5.
[273]杨素英.从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J].当代语言学, 1999(1):30-43.
[274]喻如珍、金顺德.当代西方语法理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1994: 289-330.
[275]袁毓林.现代汉语名词的配价研究[J].中国社会科学,1992(3):205-223.
[276]袁毓林.汉语动词的配价研究[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,1998.
[277]袁毓林.论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件—表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响[J].语言研究,2004(4): 1-10.
[278]曾立英.作格研究述评[J].现代外语, 2007(4):424-432.
[279]张权.英语动词名词化的认知结构分析[J].外国语, 2001(6):29-34.
[280]张辉、孙明智.关于语义结构与概念结构一致性的问题[J]外语研究1997(2):13-17.
[281]张京鱼.心理动词与英语典型使役化结构[J].四川外语学院学报, 2004(5): 97-101.
[282]赵彦春. Burzio内论元说证伪[J].现代外语,2001(2):133-142.
[283]赵彦春.作格动词与存现结构症结[J].外语学刊2002(2):63-67.
[284]朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1982.
[285]朱行帆.轻动词和汉语不及物动词带宾语现象[J].现代外语,2005(3):221-231.
[286]朱永生、严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[287]朱永生.名词化、动词化与语法隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,2006(2):83-90.
[2] Alsina, Alex. On the argument structure of Causatives[J].Linguistic Inquiry, 1992(4):517-555.
[3] Arad, M. A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics,1996 (8): 215-242.
[4] Baker, M. C. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[5] Baker, M. C. On the structural positions of themes and goals[A]. In J.Rooryck and L.Zaring (eds.), 1996: 7-34.
[6] Baker, M.C. Thematic roles and syntactic structure[A].In L.Haegeman,ed., Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1997:73-137.
[7] Baltin, M. R. A-movements[A]. In Baltin, M. and C. Collins(eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory[C]. Cambridge (Mass.): Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000: 226-251.
[8] Belletti, A and L Rizzi. Psych-verbs andθ-theory[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1988(6): 291-352.
[9] Belletti, Adriana. The Case of Unaccusatives[J]. Linguistic Inquiry19, 1988: 1-34.
[10] Bhat, D. N. S. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
[11] Blutner, R. Lexical pragmatics[J]. Journal of Semantics, 1998(15):115-162.
[12] Blutner, R. Lexical semantics and pragmatics[A]. In Hamm, F. & T. Zimmermann(eds.). Semantik[C].Hamburg, 2002: 27-58.of Pragmatics[C].Oxford: Blackwell, 2004: 488-514.
[14] Borer, H. The Projection of Arguments[A].In E.Benedicto and J. Runner (eds.).Functional Projections [C].Massachusetts: Umass, Amherst,1994.
[15] Bouchard, D. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar[M]. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
[16] Bresnan, J. Lexicality and argument structure[Z]. In: Paris Syntax and Semantics Conference, 1995:1-27.
[17] Bresnan, J. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar[J]. Language, 1994(1): 72-131.
[18] Bresnan, J.& J. Kanerva. Locative inversion in Chiche?a: a case study of factorization in grammar[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1989 (20): 1-50.
[19] Bresnan, J. Lexical Functional Syntax[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
[20] Bresnan, J. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1982.
[21] Brinton, L. & E. C. Traugott. Lexicalization and Language Change[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[22] Burzio, L. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
[23] Butt, M. and T. H. King. Argument Realization[C]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[24] Cabrera, J. C. M. On the Relations between Grammaticalization and Lexicalization[A]. In Ramat, A. G.. and Paul J. Hopper(eds), The Limits of Grammaticalization[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998: 211-227.
[25] Cann, R., C. Grover. and P. Miller(eds). Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG[C]. Leland Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2000.
[26] Carnie, A. Syntax: A General Introductuion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002.
[27] Carrol, J. Linguistic Relativity and Language Learning[A]. In Allen. J. andCorder. S(eds). Readings for Applied Linguistics[C]. London: OUP, 1977.
[28] Chafe, W. L. Meaning and the Structure of Language[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
[29] Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding[M]. Dordrecht: Foris, 1981.
[30] Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program[M]. Mass: The MIT Press, 1995.
[31] Chomsky, N. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory[A]. In Hale, K. and J. Keyser(eds), The View from Building 20[C]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1993.
[32] Croft, W. Typology and Universals[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[33] Croft, W. Event structure in argument linking[A]. In Miaiam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder(eds.), The Projection of Arguments[C]. Stanford,California: CSLI Publications, 1998:21-57.
[34] Cruse, D. A. Some thoughts on agentivity[J].Journal of Linguistics, 1973 (9): 1-204.
[35] Davis, A. R. Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon[M].Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, 2001.
[36] Davis. A. R. Lexical Semantics and Linking in the Hierarchical Lexicon[D]. dissertation, Stanford University. 1996.
[37] Dik, S. C. Functional Grammar[M]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1981.
[38] Dik, S. C. Functional Grammar[M].Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978.
[39] Dik, S. C. Studies in Functional Grammar[M]. London: Academic Press INC. LTD., 1978.
[40] Dik. S. C. The Theory of Functional Grammar(I)[M]. Dordrecht: Foris, 1989: 226.
[41] Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity[J]. Language 55, 1979: 59-138.
[42] Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[43] Dowty, D. Thematic Proto - Roles and Argument Selection[J] . Language67. 1991(3): 547 - 619.
[44] Dowty, D. On the semantic content of the notion of thematic role. In Chierchia, Partee, and Turner(eds.): Properties, Types and Meaning(Vol. 2), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989: 69-130.
[45] Dowty, D. On the syntax and semantics of the atomic predicate CAUSE[Z]. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1972(8): 62-74.
[46] Dowty, D. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M], Reidel: Dordrecht, 1979.
[47] Falk, Y N. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax[M]. CSLI. 2001.
[48] Fauconnier,G. Mapping in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997.
[49] Fillmore, C. J. The case for case reopened[A]. In P.Cole and J.Sadock(eds), Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations[C].New York: Academic Press, 1977: 59-81.
[50] Fillmore, C. J. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. BLS 12, 1986: 95-107.
[51] Fillmore, C J. Some Problems for Case Grammar[A]. In R. O’Brain(ed.), Report on the Twenty-Second Annual Round Table Meeting on Languages and Linguistics[C]. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1971: 35-36.
[52] Fillmore, Charles J. The Case for Case. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory[M].New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968: 1-88.
[53] Fillmore, C. J. Frame Semantics[A]. In Linguistic Society of Korea(ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm[C].Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.,1982: 111-138.
[54] Foley, W.A.and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
[55] Givón, T. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction(vol.I)[M].Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1984.
[56] Goldberg, A. E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
[57] Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation[A]. In P.Cole and J.L.Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics(vol.3): Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
[58] Grimshaw, J. Argument Structure [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990.
[59] Grimshaw, J. Unaccusatives: an overview[Z], Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society ,1987(17): 244-58.
[60] Grimshaw, J., and A. Mester. Light verbs andθ-Marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1988: 205-232.
[61] Gruber, J. S. Studies in Lexical Relations[D]. PhD.dissertation, MIT, 1965.
[62] Haiman, J. Iconicity in Syntax[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985.
[63] Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 2002.
[64] Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. Writing Science: Literary and Discourse Power[M].London: Falmer Press, 1993.
[65] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
[66] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold.1994.
[67] Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language[M]. London: Edward Arnold,1973.
[68] Harris, Alice. Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis[J], Language 58, 1982: 290-306.
[69] Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. Grammaticalization[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[70] Huang, C. -T. J. On lexical structure and syntactic projection[J]. Chinese Languages and Linguistics ,1997(3): 45-89.
[71] Jack, C. R., et al. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.
[72] Jackendoff, R. S. Foundations of Language[M]. Oxford: OUP, 2002.
[73] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantic Structures[M]. Mass.: The MIT Press,1990.
[74] Jackendoff, R. S. Mme. Tussaud Meets the Binding Theory[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1992(10):1-31.
[75] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1972.
[76] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantics and Cognition[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1983.
[77] Jackendoff, R. S. The Architecture of the Language Faculty[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1997.
[78] Jackendoff, R. S. The combinatorial structure of thought: the family of causative concepts[A]. In Reuland, Eric & Wemer Abraham (eds.), Knowledge and Language (Vol.2)[C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1993: 31-50.
[79] Jackendoff, R. S. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 1976(7): 89-150.
[80] Jackendoff, R. S. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1987(18): 369-411.
[81] Jackendoff, R. S. Semantic Structures[M].Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press,1990.
[82] Jayaseelan, K. A. Complex Predicates andθ-Theory[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 92-111.
[83] Johnson, Mark. The Body in Mind: The bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[84] Jones, Charles. Thematic Relations in Control[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.),Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 75-90.
[85] Katz , J. J. and J. Fodor The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39, 1963(2): 170 -210.
[86] Katz, J. Chomsky on meaning[J]. Language 56, 1980(1).
[87] Ladusaw, W. A. and D. R. Dowty. Towards a Nongrammatical Account of Thematic Roles[A]. In W. Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics21: Thematic Relations[C]. San Diego: Academic Press, 1988, 62-73.
[88] Lakoff, G. Irregularities in Syntax [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
[89] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[90] Lakoff. G and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[91] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(Vol.I): Theoretical Prerequisites[M].Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 1987.
[92] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar(Vol. II): Descriptive Application [M ]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
[93] Larson, R. K. Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1990: 589-632.
[94] Larson, R. K. On double object constructions[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1988: 335-391.
[95] Leech, G. N. Semantics[M]. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1974.
[96] Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman, 1983.
[97] Levin, B. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation[M]. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
[98] Levin, B, and M. Rappaport. An approach to unaccusative mismatches[A]. Proceedings of the North-East Linguistics Society 1989(19): 314-328.
[99] Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[100] Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995.
[101] Lin Tzong-Hong. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure [D]. Ph.D dissertation. Irvine: UC-Irvine, 2001.
[102] Manning, C. D. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations[M]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1996.
[103] Marantz, Alec. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1984.
[104] Mithun, Marianne. Active/Agentive case marking and its motivations[J]. Language 67, 1991: 511-546.
[105] Nedyalkov, V. P. & G. G. Silnitsky. The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives[A]. In F. Kiefer (ed.).Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics[C]. Doredrecht: Reidel, 1973.
[106] Ouhalla, J. Introducing Transformational Grammar: From Principles and Parameters to Minimalism[M]. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited, 1999.
[107] Packard, J. L. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[108] Palmer, F.R. Grammatical Roles and Relations[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[109] Perlmutter, D. Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
[110] Perlmutter, D. M. and P M. Postal. Impersonal Passives and some relational laws[A]. In Perlmutter, D. M. and C. G. Rosen(eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984: 126-70.
[111] Perlmutter, D. M. and P. M. Postal. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law[A]. In D.M. Perlmutter and C. Rosen(eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984:81-125.
[112] Pinker, Steven. Learnability and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1989.
[113] Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
[114] Postal, P.M. Cross-over Phenomena[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
[115] Pustejovsky, James. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995.
[116] Radford, A. English Syntax: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[117] Radford, A. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997a.
[118] Radford. A. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997b.
[119] Randall, J. H. Inheritance[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C]. New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 129-144.
[120] Rappaport Hovav, M. and B Levin. Building Verb Meanings[A]. In Miaiam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder(eds.), The Projection of Arguments[C]. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications,1998: 97-126.
[121] Ravin, Yael. Lexical Semantics without Thematic Roles[M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
[122] Rizzi, Luigi. Relativized Minimality[M]. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990.
[123] Robins, R. H. A Short History of Linguistics[M]. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1967.
[124] Rosen, Carol. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical Relations[A]. In David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen(eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2[C], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984: 38-77.
[125] Rosen, S. T. Argument Structure and Complex Predicates[M]. New York: Garland Publishing, INC., 1990.
[126] Rozwadowska, Bozena. Thematic Restrictions on Derived Nominals[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed.), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].New York: Academic Press, INC., 1988: 147-160.
[127] Schlesinger,I.M. Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[128] Singh, J. D. Panini's theory of kārakas[J]. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 1974(3): 287-320.
[129] Smith, C. S. The Parameter of Aspect[M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.
[130] Stowell, Timothy. Origins of phrase structure[D]. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation, 1981.
[131] Talmy, L. Figure and ground as thematic roles. Paper presented at the 1985 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America[M]., Seattle, 1985a.
[132] Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition[J].Cognitive Science 12, 1988: 49-100.
[133] Talmy, L. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen(ed.), Language typology and syntactic description(vol.3): Grammatical categories and the lexicon[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985b: 57-149.
[134] Talmy, L. Towards A Cognitive Semantics(Vol.II):Typology and Process in Concept Structuring[M]. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000.
[135] Tan, F. Notion of Subject in Chinese[D]. dissertation, Stanford University, CA, 1991.
[136] Taylor, J .R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1995.
[137] Tenny, C. L. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness[D]. dissertation, MIT. 1987.
[138] Tenny, C. L. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis[A]. In I. Sag and A. Szabolsci(eds.), Lexical Matters[C], Standford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1989.
[139] Tenny, C. L. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M].Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
[140] Trask, R. L.. Historical Linguistics[M]. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1996.
[141] Trubetzkoy, N. S. Principles of Phonology[M]. University of California Press. 1969.
[142] Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
[143] Ura, H. Multiple Feature Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Functions Splitting[D]. dissertation, MIT, 1996.
[144] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity[J]. Language 66, 1990: 221-260.
[145] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and R. J. La Polla. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[146] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. An Introduction to Syntax[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[147] Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[148] Wechsler, Stephen. Argument Structure and Linking[D]. dissertation, Stanford University, 1991.
[149] Wechsler, Stephen. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure[M]. Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications, 1995.
[150] Wierzbicka, A. Semantic Primitives[M]. Frankfurt: Athenum, 1972.
[151] Wierzbicka, A. Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
[152] Wierzbicka, A. Semantics: Primes and Universals[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
[153] Wilkins, W. Thematic structure and reflexivization[A]. In Wendy Wilkins(ed), Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[C].San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., 1988: 191-212.
[154] Wilkins, W. Syntax and Semantics(Vol.21): Thematic Relations[M]. San Diego: Academic Press, INC., 1988.
[155] Williams, E. Thematic Structure in Syntax[M]. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1994.
[156] Williams, E. Argument Structure and Morphology[J]. Linguistic Review 1,1981: 81-114.
[157] Huang Yan. Pragmatics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
[158] Zaenen, Annie. Unaccusativity in Dutch: integrating syntax and lexical semantics[A]. In James Pustejovsky(ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon[C], Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993:129-61.
[159] Richards等编(管燕红等译).朗文语言教学及应用语言学辞典.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005:413.
[160]安丰存.题元角色理论与领有名词提升移位[J].解放军外国语学院学, 2007(3):11-17.
[161]蔡基刚,英汉词化对比与综合型表达[A]. 2005.熊学亮、蔡基刚(主编),语言界面[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,238-263.
[162]陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003:140.
[163]陈新仁.词汇阻遏现象的顺应性阐释, 2007(1):80-86.
[164]陈新仁.国外词汇语用学研究述评[J].外语研究, 2005(5): 5-9.
[165]程工.评“题元原型角色与论元选择”[J].国外语言学,1995(3): 29-33,39.
[166]程工,构词规则的能产性为什么有限?[A].熊学亮、蔡基刚(主编),语言界面[C].上海:复旦大学出版社, 2005: 223-237.
[167]程琪龙.概念框架和认知[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006
[168]程琪龙. Jackendoff的概念语义学理论[J].外语教学与研究,1997(2): 8-13.
[169]程琪龙.致使概念语义结构的认知研究[J].现代外语,2001 (2): 121-132.
[170]仇伟.不及物运动动词带处所宾语构式的认知研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2006(6):83-87.
[171]邓思颖.汉语方言语法的参数理论[M ].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[172]董秀芳.从词汇化的角度看粘合式动补结构的性质[J].语言科学,2007(1):40-47.
[173]董秀芳.汉语的词库与词法[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2004.
[174]董秀芳.论句法结构的词汇化[J].语言研究, 2002(3):56-65.
[175]董燕萍、蔡振光,竞争模型中的语义线索:论元特征满足度[J].外语教学与研究,2007(3): 169-176.
[176]范晓,张豫峰等.语法理论纲要[M].上海:上海译文出版社, 2003.
[177]范晓.动词的配价与句子的生成[J].汉语学习,1996(1): 3-7.
[178]范晓.汉语学习[J].动词的配价与句子的生成, 1996(1).
[179]范晓.动词的配价与句子的生成[J].汉语学习,1996 (1): 3-7.
[180]高春雨.动词隐喻与角色题元[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2007(1):21-24.
[181]高明乐.联接理论的发展与现状[J].外语学刊. 2004(2): 61-66.
[182]高明乐.题元角色的句法实现[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
[183]贡献.动词词库模型之解释力[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2000(2): 18-21.
[184]顾阳.论元结构理论介绍[J].国外语言学,1994(1): 1-11.
[185]顾阳.生成语法及词库中动词的一些特性[J].国外语言学,1996(3): 1-16.
[186]桂诗春.心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[187]郭继懋.领主属宾句[J].中国语文,1990(1).
[188]郭继懋.试谈“飞上海”等不及物动词带宾语现象[J].中国语文,1999(5): 337-346.
[189]郭继懋.关于存现结构理论探讨[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[190]韩景泉.领有名词提升移位与格理论[J].现代外语, 2000(3):261-272.
[191]何晓炜.双及物结构中的题元阶层[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2002(6): 9-12.
[192]胡建华.题元、论元和语法功能项---格标效应与语言差异[J].外语教学与研究, 2007(3): 165-168
[193]胡建华.现代汉语不及物动词的论元和宾语---从抽象动词“有”到句法—信息结构接口[J].中国语文, 2008(5): 396-409.
[194]胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄.系统功能语法概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社, 1989.
[195]胡壮麟.认知隐喻学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2004.
[196]黄河.中文信息处理与词汇语法研究[J].山东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2002,(5): 78-80.
[197]靳光谨.现代汉语动词语义计算理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[198]黎锦熙.新著国文语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1992.
[199]李炯英.波兰语义学派概述[J].外语教学与研究, 2005(5): 377-382.
[200]李炯英.从语义基元的视角比较Wierzbicka与Jackendoff的语义学理论—波兰语义学派研究之三[J].外语教学, 2006(5): 16-18.
[201]李临定.汉语比较变换语法[M].北京:中国社会科学院出版社, 1988.
[202]李临定.现代汉语句型[M].北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[203]李勇忠.构式义、转喻与句式压制[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2004(2):10-14 .
[204]林杏光、王玲玲、孙德金,现代汉语动词大词典[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1994.
[205]刘辰诞.论元结构:认知模型向句法结构投射的中介[J].外国语, 2005(2):62-69.
[206]刘辰诞:结构和边界:语言表达式的认知基础[D].河南大学博士论文,2006.
[207]刘国辉、宋洁琳,小议主流语言学派对名词化的研究[A].载文旭,徐安泉(主编),认知语言学新视野[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006:299-321.
[208]刘晓林.也谈不及物动词带宾语的问题[J].外国语, 2004(1):33-39.
[209]刘鑫民.现代汉语句子生成问题研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2004.
[210]刘润清.西方语言学流派[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
[211]鲁川﹑林杏光.现代汉语语法的格关系[J].汉语学习,1989(5).
[212]陆俭明、沈阳.汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
[213]陆俭明.句法语义接口问题[J].外国语,2006(3):30-35.
[214]吕叔湘.中国文法要略[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[215]罗思敏、徐海、王文斌.当代词汇化研究综合考察[J].现代外语, 2007(4):414-423.
[216]马莉.从论元的角度看“王冕死了父亲”[J].外语教学,2003(3): 23-27.
[217]马建忠.马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1898.
[218]马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[219]梅德明.现代句法学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2008.
[220]孟琮、郑怀德、孟庆海、蔡文兰,动词用法词典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社, 1987.
[221]牛保义.英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析[J].外语与外语教学, 2005(6): 1-6.
[222]潘海华、韩景泉.显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究[J].语言研究,2005(3):1-13.
[223]潘海华.词汇映射理论在汉语句法研究中的应用[J].现代外语,1997(4):1-16.
[224]彭玉海.试谈配价与题元的关系[J].中国俄语教学,2001(3):7-13.
[225]彭玉海.题元研究的方法论[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2004(3):26-30.
[226]彭玉海.题元与俄语语义理论[J].外语学刊, 2003(4): 36-41.
[227]秦德娟、袁毅敏.作格分析法研究[J].云南民族大学学报, 2007(3):136-139.
[228]任鹰.动词语义特征对共现名词指称方式的制约和影响[J].世界汉语教学, 2007(3): 29-37.
[229]沈阳.动词的题元结构与动词短语的同构分析[J].世界汉语教学, 1997(4): 26-41.
[230]沈圆.句法-语义界面研究[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2007.
[231]沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌:江西教育出版社, 1999.
[232]施春宏.动结式的配价层级及其歧价现象[J].语言教学与研究, 2006(4): 45-57.
[233]石定栩.乔姆斯基的形式句法---历史进程与最新理论[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社, 2002.
[234]石毓智.语法化的动因和机制[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
[235]束定芳现代语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[236]史锡尧.“介宾+动”向“动宾”的演变——语言的经济性原则[J].汉语学习,2000(1):6-7
[237]宋国明.句法理论概要[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[238]宋文辉.现代汉语动结式的认知研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007.
[239]孙晋文、伍雅清.再论领有名词提升移位[M].语言科学, 2003(6): 46-52.
[240]孙英杰.句法与词汇语义接口[J].社会科学辑刊[J]. 2007(1):251-255.
[241]王力.汉语语法史[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1989.
[242]王力.中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[243]王寅.语义理论与语言教学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[244]王寅.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[245]王灿龙.词汇化二例---兼谈词汇化和语法化的关系[J].当代语言学,2005(3):225-236.
[246]王德春.多角度研究语言[M].北京:清华大学出版社, 2002.
[247]王德春.现代修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 2001.
[248]王德春.现代语言学研究[M].福州:福建人民出版社, 1983.
[249]王德春.语言学概论[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 1997.
[250]王德春.语言学通论[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,1990.
[251]王德春.语言学通论[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 1990.
[252]王俊毅,及物动词与不及物动词分类考察[J].语言教学与研究,2001(5): 17-24.
[253]王立非.布拉格学派与标记理论[J].外语研究,1991,(1): 1-7.
[254]王立非.关于标记理论[J].外国语, 1991(4): 30-34.
[255]王文斌、徐睿.英汉使役心理动词的形态分类和句法结构比较分析[J].外国语,2005(4): 22-29.
[256]尉万传.《词汇化与语言演变》述介[J].外语教学与研究,2007(6):474-476.
[257]温宾利、程杰.论轻动词v的纯句法本质[J].现代外语,2007(2):111-123.
[258]温宾利.句法学导论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2002.
[259]温宾利.、陈宗利.领有名词移位:基于MP的分析[J].现代外语,2001(4):412-416.
[260]吴福祥.语法化演变的共相与殊相[A].载沈家煊、吴福祥、马贝加主编,语法化与语法研究(二)[C].北京:商务印书馆,2005:267-306.
[261]吴庚堂.汉语被动式与动词被动化[J].现代外语,2000(3): 249-260.
[262]吴卸耀.现代汉语存现句[M].上海:学林出版社,2006.
[263]谢应光.标记理论与英语动词的语法范畴[J].外国语,1998(1): 36-41.
[264]邢福义.汉语语法三百问[M].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[265]熊仲儒.现代汉语的致使句式[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社, 2004.
[266]徐杰.两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题[J].当代语言学,1999(1),16-29.
[267]徐烈炯.生成语法理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1988.
[268]徐烈炯.题元理论与汉语配价问题[J].当代语言学(试刊),1998(3): 1–21.
[269]徐盛桓.常规关系与句式结构研究--以汉语不及物动词带宾语句式为例[J].外国语, 2003 (2): 8-16.
[270]徐盛桓.名动转用的语义基础[J].外国语, 2001(1).
[271]徐盛桓.语言的“有标记”与“无标记”[J].山东外语教学,1985(4): 1-9.
[272]薛恩奎.配价、词义、句式[J].中国俄语教学, 2005(4):1-5.
[273]杨素英.从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J].当代语言学, 1999(1):30-43.
[274]喻如珍、金顺德.当代西方语法理论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1994: 289-330.
[275]袁毓林.现代汉语名词的配价研究[J].中国社会科学,1992(3):205-223.
[276]袁毓林.汉语动词的配价研究[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,1998.
[277]袁毓林.论元结构和句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件—表达精细化对动词配价和句式构造的影响[J].语言研究,2004(4): 1-10.
[278]曾立英.作格研究述评[J].现代外语, 2007(4):424-432.
[279]张权.英语动词名词化的认知结构分析[J].外国语, 2001(6):29-34.
[280]张辉、孙明智.关于语义结构与概念结构一致性的问题[J]外语研究1997(2):13-17.
[281]张京鱼.心理动词与英语典型使役化结构[J].四川外语学院学报, 2004(5): 97-101.
[282]赵彦春. Burzio内论元说证伪[J].现代外语,2001(2):133-142.
[283]赵彦春.作格动词与存现结构症结[J].外语学刊2002(2):63-67.
[284]朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1982.
[285]朱行帆.轻动词和汉语不及物动词带宾语现象[J].现代外语,2005(3):221-231.
[286]朱永生、严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[287]朱永生.名词化、动词化与语法隐喻[J].外语教学与研究,2006(2):83-90.