现代汉语作格交替现象研究
|
摘要
自Perlmutter( 1978)提出著名的非宾格动词假设(Unaccusativity Hypothesis)以来,学者们广泛赞同不及物动词实际上是不同质的,可分为两大次类:非作格动词(unergative verb)和非宾格动词(unaccusative verb)。这种对立是“跨具体语言的,是适用于各种自然语言的”(徐杰,2004:29)。本文的讨论限于狭义的非宾格动词,即能够参与起动/使动交替的动词结构,亦称作格动词。虽然汉语并未被证实属作格语言(吕叔湘,1987:5),但作格作为一个普遍现象,在汉语中同样存在。遗憾的是,汉语的作格交替现象尚未引起足够的重视。
本文研究汉语作格交替现象旨在对引起交替的语义和句法因素给予详尽的描述,并通过对作格结构与其它结构(如被动句、中动句、把字句、主题句和重动句)的比较,希望对作格的特征有个更为细致深入的认识。与以往的文献不同,本文的重心放在汉语的动结式(RVC)作格性的描述和解释,试图回答以下问题:作格RVC如何分类?是否所有的RVC都参与作格交替?作格RVC的语义和句法特征是什么?作格RVC的诊断式是什么?
本文属句法-语义界面研究,认为作格结构的解释是句法和语义互动的结果。如作格动词的致使义对结构具有依赖性,必须在带宾语时才能体现出来;另外,对同一RVC而言,如“吃饱”,在不同的结构下,其作格交替能力也是不一样的。在该理论基础的指引下,本文首先对作格动词和作格RVC分别加以了分类论述。其中作格动词分为四类:物理状态变化动词;心理状态变化动词;形容词转动词;自我变化动词。至于后者,本文发现汉语作格RVC根据其在使动句中主语的特征可以分为三种情况:(1)主语为施事(Agent)兼致事(Causer),即所谓的施事使因(agentive causer),V1和V2的语义指向为异指(disjoint referential),可以发生交替,简称A类。(2)主语既可以是施事兼致事,V1和V2的语义指向为异指,不可发生交替。主语也可以是独立的致事,即非施事使因(non-agentive causer),V1和V2的语义指向为同指(co-referential),指向役事(causee),可以发生交替,简称B类。(3)主语只能是非施事使因(non-agentive causer),V1和V2的语义指向为同指(co-referential),指向役事(causee),可以发生交替,简称C类。然后,本文就与作格交替能力相关的语义因素从以下五个方面加以了论述:状态变化;使动性;施动性;有界性;以及内论元的生命度。
本文并对汉语作格动词和作格动结式的诊断分别加以了讨论。对前者而言,首先,作格动词可以进行“NP1+V+NP2”和“NP2+V”的交替;同时,作格动词所在的及物句可以转换成“使”字句,即“NP1+使+V+NP2”。但就动结式而言,情况略为复杂。虽然不管动结式中的V1是及物动词、非作格动词或形容词,所有的作格动结式都可以参与“NP1+V+NP2”和“NP2+V”的交替,但是我们发现并不是所有的作格RVC都可以转换成“使”字句,例如A类中的作格动结式。因此,我们提出相对“使”字句而言,“把”字句可以认为是更为理想的诊断式。
最后,本文对小句理论(Hoekstra 1988; Sybesma 1999)加以改进,将小句理论与轻动词双重投射结合起来,试图解释施事使因和非施事使因的产生机制。根据致使结构的词汇语义表征[[x DO-SOMETHING]CAUSE[y BECOME STATE]],功能语类轻动词发生三次投射,分别为vP[DO],vP[CAUSE], vP[BECOME],其中vP[BECOME]即对应于小句(small clause),所以本文主要讨论前两者。当第一层投射是vP[CAUSE],说明V1的主体与V2的主体必须不能同一,因而通过外层功能投射vP[DO],加入了外部施事成分,即施事使因。当第一层投射是vP[DO],说明V1的主体与V2的主体必须只能同一,通过外层功能投射vP[CAUSE],加入外部非施事性的致事成分。
Ever since Perlmutter's Unaccusative Hypothesis, researchers have widely accepted the view that intransitive verbs are subdivided into unergative verbs and unaccusative verbs. Our discussion is restricted to those unaccusative verbs that can participate in inchoative/causative alternation, namely, ergative verbs. As a language without overt morphological change, Chinese is hard to be defined as an ergative language; however, as a universal linguistic phenomenon, ergativity also exists in Chinese. It is a pity that Chinese ergative alternation has not received adequate attention, considering its importance.
This thesis investigates Chinese ergative alternation, chiefly aiming to provide an exhaustive characterization of semantic and syntactic features that are responsible for alternation. We hope that a deeper understanding can be gained of the nature of ergativity in Chinese and its relationship with other constructions, such as the bei-construction, the middle construction, the ba-construction, the topicalized structure, the verb-copying construction and so on. Deviant from the previous literature, this dissertation attaches great significance to Chinese resultative construction, since many Chinese RVCs (Resultative Verb Compounds) exhibit ergative nature. Some answers are to be provided concerning the following questions: What is an ergative RVC? In what way can RVCs be classified? Do all RVCs participate in ergative alternation? What are the semantic and syntactic characterizations of ergative RVCs? What are the diagnostics for ergative RVCs?
The theoretical underpinnings of this study are syntax-semantics interface approach, in which both the syntax and the lexicon constrain the association of possible interpretations with possible structural positions. Following this interface approach, firstly, this dissertation gives an account of the classification of Chinese ergative verbs and RVCs respectively. The former are divided into four categories: verbs of change of physical state; verbs of change of psychological state; deadjectival verbs; verbs of self change. As for the latter, in light of the nature of the subjects in their corresponding causative structures, we claim that ergative RVCs fall into three groups: a) the subject is agentive causer (Group A); b) the subject can be either agentive causer, or non-agentive causer (Group B); c) the subject can be only non-agentive causer (Group C). After that, semantic features are elaborated that contribute to ergative alternation from five aspects: change of state; causativity; agentivity; telicity; and animacy of the object.
After an overview of the semantic characteristics of ergative expression, we go on to explore the workable diagnostics for ergative verbs and RVCs in Chinese. Doubtlessly, an ergative verb can enter the alternation between“NP1+V+NP2”and“NP2+V”; at the same time, an ergative verb can appear in the periphrastic causative structure“NP1+shi‘make’+NP2+V”as well. As far as Chinese ergative RVCs are concerned, it is found that they can alternate between“NP1+VP+NP2”and“NP2+VP”, no matter whether V1 is transitive, unergative or adjective. However, considering that not all ergative RVCs are able to fit into the shi-construction, we, in turn, suggest that the ba-construction be used as a more favorable diagnostic. While discussing the diagnostics for Chinese ergative expressions, we differentiate intransitve ergative structures from passivization, topicalization and middle construction in the hope of having a better understanding of the attribute of ergative alternation.
Followed is the discussion on how the subjects of different attributes are selected in the derivation from intransitive ergative to causative ergative structures. Ergative RVCs are only those that can adhere to Simpon’s Generalization (resultative attributes are predicated of objects, whether surface objects or underlying objects), which serves as a theoretical foundation of the Small Clause theory. In view of the inadequacy of this theory, we put forward an Improved Small Clause theory, proposing dual vP projection, including vP[CAUSE]and vP[DO]. The former indicates that the logical subjects of V1 and V2 are different. The latter suggests that the logical subjects of V1 and V2 are the same. It is revealed that the lower vP decides the nature of the higher vP, exhibiting some complementary distribution.
In summary, the present dissertation constitutes one of the pioneering studies of Chinese ergativity and purports to supplement data from Chinese in the hope of stimulating further and more systematic study on the lexical-semantics and syntax relationship.
本文研究汉语作格交替现象旨在对引起交替的语义和句法因素给予详尽的描述,并通过对作格结构与其它结构(如被动句、中动句、把字句、主题句和重动句)的比较,希望对作格的特征有个更为细致深入的认识。与以往的文献不同,本文的重心放在汉语的动结式(RVC)作格性的描述和解释,试图回答以下问题:作格RVC如何分类?是否所有的RVC都参与作格交替?作格RVC的语义和句法特征是什么?作格RVC的诊断式是什么?
本文属句法-语义界面研究,认为作格结构的解释是句法和语义互动的结果。如作格动词的致使义对结构具有依赖性,必须在带宾语时才能体现出来;另外,对同一RVC而言,如“吃饱”,在不同的结构下,其作格交替能力也是不一样的。在该理论基础的指引下,本文首先对作格动词和作格RVC分别加以了分类论述。其中作格动词分为四类:物理状态变化动词;心理状态变化动词;形容词转动词;自我变化动词。至于后者,本文发现汉语作格RVC根据其在使动句中主语的特征可以分为三种情况:(1)主语为施事(Agent)兼致事(Causer),即所谓的施事使因(agentive causer),V1和V2的语义指向为异指(disjoint referential),可以发生交替,简称A类。(2)主语既可以是施事兼致事,V1和V2的语义指向为异指,不可发生交替。主语也可以是独立的致事,即非施事使因(non-agentive causer),V1和V2的语义指向为同指(co-referential),指向役事(causee),可以发生交替,简称B类。(3)主语只能是非施事使因(non-agentive causer),V1和V2的语义指向为同指(co-referential),指向役事(causee),可以发生交替,简称C类。然后,本文就与作格交替能力相关的语义因素从以下五个方面加以了论述:状态变化;使动性;施动性;有界性;以及内论元的生命度。
本文并对汉语作格动词和作格动结式的诊断分别加以了讨论。对前者而言,首先,作格动词可以进行“NP1+V+NP2”和“NP2+V”的交替;同时,作格动词所在的及物句可以转换成“使”字句,即“NP1+使+V+NP2”。但就动结式而言,情况略为复杂。虽然不管动结式中的V1是及物动词、非作格动词或形容词,所有的作格动结式都可以参与“NP1+V+NP2”和“NP2+V”的交替,但是我们发现并不是所有的作格RVC都可以转换成“使”字句,例如A类中的作格动结式。因此,我们提出相对“使”字句而言,“把”字句可以认为是更为理想的诊断式。
最后,本文对小句理论(Hoekstra 1988; Sybesma 1999)加以改进,将小句理论与轻动词双重投射结合起来,试图解释施事使因和非施事使因的产生机制。根据致使结构的词汇语义表征[[x DO-SOMETHING]CAUSE[y BECOME STATE]],功能语类轻动词发生三次投射,分别为vP[DO],vP[CAUSE], vP[BECOME],其中vP[BECOME]即对应于小句(small clause),所以本文主要讨论前两者。当第一层投射是vP[CAUSE],说明V1的主体与V2的主体必须不能同一,因而通过外层功能投射vP[DO],加入了外部施事成分,即施事使因。当第一层投射是vP[DO],说明V1的主体与V2的主体必须只能同一,通过外层功能投射vP[CAUSE],加入外部非施事性的致事成分。
Ever since Perlmutter's Unaccusative Hypothesis, researchers have widely accepted the view that intransitive verbs are subdivided into unergative verbs and unaccusative verbs. Our discussion is restricted to those unaccusative verbs that can participate in inchoative/causative alternation, namely, ergative verbs. As a language without overt morphological change, Chinese is hard to be defined as an ergative language; however, as a universal linguistic phenomenon, ergativity also exists in Chinese. It is a pity that Chinese ergative alternation has not received adequate attention, considering its importance.
This thesis investigates Chinese ergative alternation, chiefly aiming to provide an exhaustive characterization of semantic and syntactic features that are responsible for alternation. We hope that a deeper understanding can be gained of the nature of ergativity in Chinese and its relationship with other constructions, such as the bei-construction, the middle construction, the ba-construction, the topicalized structure, the verb-copying construction and so on. Deviant from the previous literature, this dissertation attaches great significance to Chinese resultative construction, since many Chinese RVCs (Resultative Verb Compounds) exhibit ergative nature. Some answers are to be provided concerning the following questions: What is an ergative RVC? In what way can RVCs be classified? Do all RVCs participate in ergative alternation? What are the semantic and syntactic characterizations of ergative RVCs? What are the diagnostics for ergative RVCs?
The theoretical underpinnings of this study are syntax-semantics interface approach, in which both the syntax and the lexicon constrain the association of possible interpretations with possible structural positions. Following this interface approach, firstly, this dissertation gives an account of the classification of Chinese ergative verbs and RVCs respectively. The former are divided into four categories: verbs of change of physical state; verbs of change of psychological state; deadjectival verbs; verbs of self change. As for the latter, in light of the nature of the subjects in their corresponding causative structures, we claim that ergative RVCs fall into three groups: a) the subject is agentive causer (Group A); b) the subject can be either agentive causer, or non-agentive causer (Group B); c) the subject can be only non-agentive causer (Group C). After that, semantic features are elaborated that contribute to ergative alternation from five aspects: change of state; causativity; agentivity; telicity; and animacy of the object.
After an overview of the semantic characteristics of ergative expression, we go on to explore the workable diagnostics for ergative verbs and RVCs in Chinese. Doubtlessly, an ergative verb can enter the alternation between“NP1+V+NP2”and“NP2+V”; at the same time, an ergative verb can appear in the periphrastic causative structure“NP1+shi‘make’+NP2+V”as well. As far as Chinese ergative RVCs are concerned, it is found that they can alternate between“NP1+VP+NP2”and“NP2+VP”, no matter whether V1 is transitive, unergative or adjective. However, considering that not all ergative RVCs are able to fit into the shi-construction, we, in turn, suggest that the ba-construction be used as a more favorable diagnostic. While discussing the diagnostics for Chinese ergative expressions, we differentiate intransitve ergative structures from passivization, topicalization and middle construction in the hope of having a better understanding of the attribute of ergative alternation.
Followed is the discussion on how the subjects of different attributes are selected in the derivation from intransitive ergative to causative ergative structures. Ergative RVCs are only those that can adhere to Simpon’s Generalization (resultative attributes are predicated of objects, whether surface objects or underlying objects), which serves as a theoretical foundation of the Small Clause theory. In view of the inadequacy of this theory, we put forward an Improved Small Clause theory, proposing dual vP projection, including vP[CAUSE]and vP[DO]. The former indicates that the logical subjects of V1 and V2 are different. The latter suggests that the logical subjects of V1 and V2 are the same. It is revealed that the lower vP decides the nature of the higher vP, exhibiting some complementary distribution.
In summary, the present dissertation constitutes one of the pioneering studies of Chinese ergativity and purports to supplement data from Chinese in the hope of stimulating further and more systematic study on the lexical-semantics and syntax relationship.
引文
Aissen, J. (2003).“Differential Object-marking: Iconicity vs. Economy.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21: 435-483.
Alexiadou, A. & M. Everaert. (2004). The Unaccusativity Puzzle—Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alsina, A. (1996).“Resultatives: A Joint Operation of Semantic and Syntactic Structures.”Paper presented at the LFG Workshop, Grenoble, France. Rudanko, Juhani.
Arad, M. (1996).“A Minimalist View of the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface.”UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Belletti, A. (1988).“The Case of Unaccusative.”Linguistic Inquiry, 19:1-34.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Boas, H.C. (2005).“Determining the Productivity of Resultatives: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff.”Language, 81: 448-464.
Borer, H. (1994). The Projection of Arguments.”In J. Runner (Ed.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 17).
Bresnan, J. & A. Zaenen. (1990).“Deep Unaccusativity in LFG.”In Dziwirek, K., Farrell, P. & E. M., Bikandi (Eds.), Grammatical Relations. A Cross-Theoretical Perspective(45-57). California: CSLI Publications.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Butt, M. & W. Geuder. (1998). The Projection of Arguments. California: CSLI Publications.
Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chang, Jung-Hsing. 2001. The Syntax of Event Structure in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2003.“Event Structure and Argument Linking in Chinese.”Language and Linguistics, 4: 317-351.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Cheng L.-S. Lisa. (1987).“On the‘Passive’Construction in Mandarin.”The Chinese Linguistics Workshop in Connecticut (42-59).
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (1988).“Aspects of the ba Construction.”In Carol Tenny (Ed.), Studies in Generative Approaches to Aspect: Lexicon Project Working Papers 24(73-84).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (1997).“Resultative Compounds and Lexical Relational Structures.”In Chinese Languages and Linguistics III: Morphology and Lexicon (167-197). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (2007).“Verb Copying in Mandarin Chinese.”In N. Corver & J. Nunes (Eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement / Linguistics today no.107 (151-174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa & C.T. James Huang. (1994).“On the Argument Structure of Resultative
Compounds.”In M. Chen & O. Tzeng (Eds.), In Honor of William Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change. Taipei :Pyramid Press.
Cheng L.-S. Lisa & E. Ritter (1987).“A Small Clause Analysis of Inalienable Possession in Mandarin and French.”NELS 18, 65-78.
Cheng L.-S. Lisa, Huang C.-T. James, Li Y.-H. Audrey & Tang C.-C. Jane. (1997).
Causative Compounds across Chinese Dialects: A Study of Cantonese, Mandarin and Taiwanese. In C. Tseng (ed.) Chinese Languages and Linguistics IV: Typological Studies of Languages in China. 199-224.Taipei:Academia Sinica.
Chomsky, N. (1970).“Remarks on Nominalization.”In Jacobs & Rosenbaum(Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar(184-221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, N. (1998).“Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework.”MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA.: MITWPL.
Chomsky, N. (1999).“Derivation by Phase.”MIT Occasional Paper in Linguistics 18, MIT. Cambridge, MA.: MITWPL.
Comrie, B. (1985).“Causative Verb Formation and Other Verb-deriving Morphology.”In T.Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. 3).
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology(2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell,.
Croft, W. (2000). Typology and Univesals. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Dai, Xiang-ling. (1992).“The Head in WO PAO DE KUAI.”Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 20 (1): 84-119.
Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity . London: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, D. (1991).“Thematic Proto-roles and Aargument Selection.”Language, 67: 547–619.
Ernst, T. (1992).“Chinese Adjuncts and Phrase Structure Theory.”Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 22 (1): 41-71.
Fagan, M.B. S. (1988).“The English Middle.”Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (2): 181-203.
Filip, H. (1996).“Psychological Predicates and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.”In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968).“The Case for Case”. In Bach, E. & Harms, R.T. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (1-88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fillmore, C. (1970).“The grammar of Hitting and Breaking.”In Jacobs, R. & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar(120-33). Waltham, Mass: Ginn.
Foley, W.A. & R.D. Van Valin. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Folli, R. & G. Ramchand. (2005).“Prepositions and Results in Italian and English: an Analysis from Event Decomposition.”In H. Verkyul, H. van Hout & H. de Swartz (Eds.), Perspectives on Aspect (81-105). Dordrecht: Springer.
Grimshaw, J. & A. Mester. (1988).“Light Verbs and Theta-marking.”Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (2): 205-232.
Gu, Yang. 1992. The Syntax of Resultative and Causative Compounds in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. Cornell University.
Gu, Yang. (1998).“Causativity and the Feature Checking Mechanism: From A Minimalist Perspective.”In B. T'sou (Ed.), Studia Linguistica Serica. Hong Kong: CityUniversity of Hong Kong Press.
Gu, Yang & Haihua Pan. (2001).“A Further Investigation into the Complement Structure of Mandarin V-de Resultative Construction.”In Haihua Pan(ed.), Studies in Chinese Linguistics Vol. 2(1-30). Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. (1993).“On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.”In Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger ( 53-109). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. (1997).“On the Complex nature of Simple Predicates.”In Alex Alsina et al(Eds.), Complex Predicates (29-66). CSLI.
Hale, K. & S. Keyser .(1998).“The Basic Elements of Argument Structure.”In MIT Working papers in linguistics 32: Papers from the Upenn/ MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure (73-118). Cambridge: MIT.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. (1998).“The Syntax of Resultatives.”In Masatake, Muraki & Enoch Iwamoto (Eds.), Linguistics: In Search of. the Human Mind (178–208). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Haspelmath, M. (1993).“More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations.”In Comrie, B. & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
He, Xiaoling. (2005). On Patient-Subject Construction in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Hong Kong.
Her, One-Soon. (2006).“Argument-function Mismatches in Mandarin Resultatives: A Lexical Mapping Account.”Lingua, 117: 221-246.
Higginbotham, J. (1999). Telicity and Headedness. Ms. Oxford: Somerville College. Hoekstra, T. (1988).“Small Clause Results.”Lingua, 74: 101-139.
Hoekstra, T. (2004). Arguments and Structure-Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoekstra,T & R.Mulder. (1990).“Unergative as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication.”The Linguistic Review, 7:1-79.
Hopper, P. & S.A. Thompson. (1980).“Transitivity in grammar and discourse.”Language, 56: 251-299.
Huang, Chu-Ren. (1989).“Subcategorized TOPICs in Mandarin Chinese.”In The Chinese Language Teachers Association Annual Conference. Boston. November 17-19th.
Huang, C-T. James. (1987).“Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness.”In Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. Beter Meulen (Eds.) The Representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Huang, C-T. James. (1988).“WO PAO DE KUAI and Chinese Phrase Structure.”Language, 64(2): 274-311.
Huang, C.T. James. (1992).“Complex Predicates in Control.”In R. Larson et al. (Eds.). Control and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1993).“Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences.”Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 103-138.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1997).“On Lexical Structure and Syntactic Projection.”Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3.
Huang, C.T.-James. 1982/1998. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Huang, C.-T. James. (2005).“Synthetic Analyticity and the Other End of the Parameter.”Lecture notes, 2005 LSA Linguistic Institute, MIT and Harvard University.
Huang, C.-T. James. (2006).“Resultatives and Unaccusatives: a Parametric View.”Chuugoku gogaku: Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan, 253:44-91.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Mass: the MIT Press.
Jimmy, Lin. (2004). Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Johns, A., Massam, D. & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.). (2006). Ergativity-Emerging Issues. Netherlands: Springer.
Keyser, S. J. & T. Roeper. (1984).“On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English.”Linguistic Inquiry, (15): 381 -416.
Kiparsky, P. (1997).“Remarks on Denominal Verbs.”In Alex Alsina et al. (Eds.), Complex Predicates (473-499), CSLI.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Larson, R. (1988).“On the Double Object Construction.”Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lemmens, M. (1998). Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity: Causative Construction in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. (2004).“Verbs and Constructions: Where Next?”Western Conference on Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, November 12-14, 2004.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1999).“Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events.”Proceedings of SALT 9, 199-223.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (2004).“The Semantic Determinants of Argument Expression: A View from the English Resultative Construction.”In J. Gu'eron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The Syntax of Time(477-494). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Li, C. N. (Ed). (1976). Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. (1976).“Development of the Causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interaction of Diachronic Processes in Syntax.”In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The Grammar of causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics, Vol.6) (477-492). New York: Academic Press.
Li, C. N. & S.A. Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, C. N. & S.A. Thompson. (1994).“On‘Middle Voice’Verbs in Mandarin.”In B. Fox and P. Hopper (Eds.). Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231-246.
Li, Yafei. (1990).“On V-V Compounds in Chinese.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (8):177-207.
Li, Yafei. (1993).“Structural Heads and Aspectuality.”Language, 69 (3) : 480-504.
Li, Yafei. (1995).“The Thematic Hierarchy and Causativity.”Natural Language andLinguistic Theory, 13.
Lin, Huei-Ling. (2003).“Postverbal Second Predicates in Taiwanese.”Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 1.2, 65-94.
Lin, Tzong-Hong. (2001). Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mateu, J. (2005).“Arguing our way to the Direct Object Restriction on English resultatives.”Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 8: 55-82.
Mcdonald, E. (1994).“Completive Verb Compounds in Modern Chinese: A New Look at an Old Problem.”Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 22:317-362.
Pan, Haihua. (1995).“Locality, Self-Ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives”Doctoral Dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Perlmutter, D. (1978).“Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.”In Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkeley.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pye, C. & D. Loeb (1995). Experimenting With the Causative Alternation. Ms. University of Kansas.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin. (2001).“An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives.”Language, 77(4): 766–97.
Ritter, E. & S. T. Rosen. (1998).“Delimiting Events in Syntax.”In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Argument Projection: Lexical and Grammatical Objects(135-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, S. T. (1996).“Events and Verb Classification.”Linguistics, 34:191-223.
Shi Dingxu & Tang Sze-Wing. (1999).“Some Notes on the So-Called Pseudo-Passives in Chinese.”Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Annual Research Forum. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. (1976).“The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus.”In Shibatani, Masayoshi(Ed.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Sinclair, J. et al. (eds.). (2002). Cobuild English-Chinese Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.
Stowell, T. (1991).“Small Clause Restructuring.”In Freidin, R. (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Mass: the MIT Press.
Sung, Kuo-Ming. (1994). Case Assignment under Incorporation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Sybesma, R. P. E. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, James H.-Y. (1984).“Verbs and Times in Chinese: Vendler’s Four Categories.”In Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics (289-296). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. (1985).“Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms.”In Shopen, T.(Ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. Mass: the MIT Press.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (1997).“The Parametric Approach to the Resultative Construction in Chinese and English.”In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 203-226.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (1998). Parametrization of Features in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (2005).“Chinese Small Clause Revisited.”Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics (TEAL-3) Harvard University, July 22-23rd.
Tenny, C. L. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thompson, S.A. (1973).“Resultative Verb Compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A Case for Lexical Rules.”Language, 49 (2): 361-379.
Ting, Jin. (2006).“The Middle Construction in Mandarin Chinese and the Presyntactic Approach.”ConcentricL Studies in Linguistics, 32.1:89-117.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & R. Lapolla. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1990).“Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity.”Language, 66: 221-60.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1989).“Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition.”Linguistics and Philosophy, 12 (1): 39-94.
Voorst, Jan V. (1988). Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Wang, Chuanchih. (1998).“An Event Syntactic Account of Delimitation in Mandarin.”In Proceedings of the Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (22nd, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, February 28-March 1, 1998). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 5, Number 1.
Wei, Jiewu. (2006).“Two Types of V-de Constructions in Mandarin Chinese.”USTWPL 2: 97-107.
Williams, E. (1981).“Argument Structure and Morphology.”Linguistic Review, 1: 81-114.
Woolford, E. (2006).“Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure.”Linguistic Inquiry, 37 (1): 111-130.
Yoko Suguioka. (2001).“Transitivity Alternations in Deadjectival Verbs.”Proceedings of the COE International Symposium (169-187).
Yu, Ning. (1995).“Towards a Definition of Unaccusative Verbs in Chinese.”In Jose Camacho & Lina Choueiri (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (Vol. 1)(339–353). LA: University of Southern California.
Yuan, Boping. (1999).“Acquiring the Unaccusative/unergative Distinction in a Second Language: Evidence from English-speaking Learners of L2 Chinese.”Linguistics, 37 (2):275-296.
Zaenen, A. (1988).“Unaccusative Verbs in Dutch and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.”CSLI Reports 88-123, CSLI, Stanford University.
Zhang, Niina. (2001).“The Structures of Depictive and Resultative Constructions in Chinese.”ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 22:191-221
Zhou, Xinping. (1990). Aspects of Chinese Syntax: Ergativity and Phrase Structures. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Illinois at Urbanna-Champaign.
曹宏.2004a.中动句对动词形容词的选择限制及其理据.《语言科学》,(1):11-28.
曹宏.2004b.论中动句的句法构造特点.《世界汉语教学》,(3): 38-48.
陈昌来. 2002.现代汉语动词的句法语义属性研究.上海:学林出版社.
程工. 1999.语言共性论.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
崔希亮.1995.“把”字句的若干句法语义问题.《世界汉语教学》,(3):12-21.
邓思颖.2003.汉语方言语法的参数理论.北京:北京大学出版社.
邓思颖.2004.作格化和汉语被动句.《中国语文》,(4):291-301.
董秀芳. 1998.述补带宾句式中的韵律限制.《语言研究》,(1):55-62.
范晓. 2001.动词的配价与汉语的把字句.《中国语文》,(4):309-319.
菲尔墨,C.J.著,胡明扬译. 2005.“格”辨.北京:商务印书馆.
冯胜利. 2005.汉语韵律语法研究.北京:北京大学出版社.
高名凯. 1957.汉语语法论.北京:科学出版社.
顾阳. 1996.生成语法词库中动词的一些特性.《国外语言学》,(3):1-16.
顾阳. 1997.关于存现结构的理论讨论.《现代外语》,(3):14-25.
郭锐.1993.汉语动词的过程结构.《中国语文》,(6):410-419.
郭锐. 1995.述结式述补结构的配价结构和成分整合,沈阳、郑定欧主编《现代汉语配价语法研究》.北京:北京大学出版社.
郭锐. 2002.现代汉语词类研究.北京:商务印书馆.
何元建. 2004.论使役句的类型学特征.《语言科学》,(1):29-40.
何元建,王玲玲. 2002.论汉语使役句.《汉语学习》,(4): 1-9.
黄月圆.1996.把/被结构与动词重复结构的互补分布现象.《中国语文》,(2):92-99.
黄月圆,杨素英,高立群,张旺熹,崔希亮. 2007.汉语作为第二语言“被”字句习得的考察.《世界汉语教学》,(2):76-90.
黄正德著,宁春岩,候方,张达三译. 1983.汉语生成语法—汉语中的逻辑关系及语法理论.黑龙江:黑龙江大学科研处.
黄正德.1990.中文的两种及物动词和两种不及物动词,《第二届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集》,世界华文出版社,台北,39-59.
黄正德主编. 2004.中国语言学论丛(第三辑).北京:北京语言大学出版社.
黄正德. 2007.汉语动词的题元结构与其句法表现.《语言科学》,(4):3-21.
金立鑫.1997.“把”字句的句法、语义、语境特征.《中国语文》,(6) :415-423.
科姆里,B著,沈家煊译.1989.语言共性和语言类型.北京:华夏出版社.
李伯约.2006.使役结构若干问题刍议.《外国语言文学研究》,(3): 25-30.
李临定.1980.动补格句式.《中国语文》,(2):93-101.
李临定.1984.究竟哪个“补”哪个—“动补格”关系再议.《汉语学习》,(2) :1-10.
李临定.. 1984.动词的宾语和结构的宾语.《语言教学与研究》,(3) :103-123.
李临定. 1984.施事、受事和句法分析.《语文研究》,(4):8-17.
李临定.1988.汉语比较变换语法.《语文研究》,(2) :10-16.
李临定. 1992.从简单到复杂的分析方法-结果补语句构造分析.《世界汉语教学》,(3):161-165.
李小荣.1994.对述结式带宾语功能的考察.《汉语学习》,(5):32-38.
李亚非.2004.补充式复合动词论.《中国语言学论丛》,(第三辑) :63-77.
梁雨.2006.几类补语指向主语动结式的句法形式.《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版),(4):62-65.
陆俭明.1990.“VA了”述补结构语义分析.《汉语学习》,(1).
陆俭明,沈阳. 2004.汉语和汉语研究十五讲.北京:北京大学出版社.
吕叔湘. 1987.说“胜”和“败”.《中国语文》,(1):1-5.
吕云生. 2005.有关“施事后置”及“非宾格假说”几个问题.《语言科学》,(5):50-70.
马庆株. 2005.汉语动词和动词性结构.北京:北京大学出版社.
马希文. 1987.与动结式动词有关的某些句式.《中国语文》,(6):424-441.
马真,陆俭明.1997.形容词作结果补语情况考察(一).《汉语学习》,(12) :3-7.
孟琮,郑怀德,孟庆海,蔡文兰编.1999.汉语动词用法词典.北京:商务印书馆.
缪锦安.1990.汉语的语义结构和补语形式.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
牛保义. 2005.英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析.《外语与外语教学》,(6):1-5.
潘海华,韩景泉. 2005.显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究.《语文研究》,(9):1-13.
彭国珍. 2006.偏离类动结式的句法特征.《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版),(4):47-51.
任鹰.2001.主宾可换位动结式述语结构分析.《中国语文》,(4) :320-329.
沈家煊. 2002.如何处置“处置式”?-论把字句的主观性.《中国语文》,(5):387-399.
沈家煊. 2006.认知与汉语语法研究.北京:商务印书馆.
沈阳. 2005.“管辖与约束理论”和汉语语法研究.载“语言学前沿与汉语研究”(刘丹青主编) .上海:上海教育出版社.
沈阳,何元建,顾阳.2001.生成语法理论与汉语法研究.哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社.
施春宏. 2005.动结式论元结构的整合过程及其相关问题.《世界汉语教学》,(1):5-21.
施马翎,沈阳. 2006.结果补语小句分析和小句的内部结构.《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版),(4):40-46.
石定栩.1998.汉语主题句的特征.《现代外语》,(2): 40-57.
石定栩. 2007.向心结构与离心结构新探.《外语教学与研究》,(4):276-284.
石定栩,胡建华. 2005.“被”的句法地位.《当代语言学》,(3):213-224.
石毓智. 2001.汉语语法化的历程—形态句法发展的动因和机制.北京:北京大学出版社.
石毓智. 2003.现代汉语语法系统的建立—动补结构的产生及其影响.北京:北京语言大学出版社.
石毓智.2007.语言学假设中的论据问题-论“王冕死了父亲”之类句子产生的历史条件.《语言科学》,(4):39-51.
宋国明. 1997.句法理论概要.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
宋文辉. 2006.关于宾语必须前置的动结式.《汉语学报》,(4):57-66.
宋文辉. 2007.现代汉语动结式的认知研究.北京:北京大学出版社.
宋文辉.再论现代汉语动结式的句法核心.《现代外语》,(2):163-171.
宋亚云. 2005.汉语作格动词的历史演变及其相关问题研究.北京大学博士论文.
孙晋文、伍雅清.2003.再论领有名词提升移位.《语言科学》,(6):46-52.
汤廷池. 2002.汉语复合动词的“使动与起动交替”. Language and Linguistics 3: 615-644.
宛新政.2005.现代汉语致使句研究.浙江:浙江大学出版社.
王大新.1998.动结式及其后置成分的语义、语法分析.《学术交流》,(2):117-121.
王广成,王秀卿. 2006.事件结构的句法映射-以“把”字句为例.《现代外语》,(4):354-361.
王红旗. 2001.动结式述补结构在把字句和重动句中的分布.《语文研究》,(1):6-11.
王红旗.2003.“把”字句的意义究竟是什么.《语文研究》,(2): 35-40.
王俊毅.2001.及物动词与不及物动词分类考察.《语言教学与研究》,(5):17-23.
王玲玲.2001.汉语动结结构句法与语义研究.博士论文.香港理工大学.
王邱丕,施建基.1990.程度与情状.《中国语文》,(6).
王文斌,徐睿.2005.英汉使役心理动词的形态分类和句法结构比较分析.《外语研》,(4) :22-29.
望月圭子(MOCHIZUKI, Keiko). 2003.汉语动词的及物与不及物:日本学生的学习困难点.第七届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集.
温宾利,陈宗利. 2001.领有名词移位:基于MP的分析.《现代外语》,(4):412-416.
吴庚堂.1999.“被”字的特征与转换.《当代语言学》,(4):25-37.
吴益民.1998.双重投射假设和及物性变异.《现代外语》,(3):30-45.
夏晓蓉. 2001.英汉V-R结构与非宾格现象.《外语教学与研究》,(3):172-177.
辛永芬. 2003.论能够做结果补语的动词.《河南大学学报》(社会科学版),(1):87-89.
刑福义. 2004.汉语语法三百问.北京:商务印书馆.
熊学亮,蔡基刚. 2005.语言界面.上海:复旦大学出版社.
熊仲儒.2004.现代汉语中的致使句式.安徽:安徽大学出版社.
徐丹. 2001.从动补结构的形成看语义对句法结构的影响-兼谈汉语动词语义及功能的分化.《语文研究》,(2):5-12.
徐丹著,张祖建译.汉语句法引论.北京:北京语言大学出版社.
徐杰.2001.普遍语法原则和汉语语法现象.北京:商务印书馆.
徐杰.1999.两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题.《当代语言学》,(1):16-29.
徐杰(主编) . 2004.汉语研究的类型学视角.北京:北京语言大学出版社.
徐烈炯,刘丹青主编. 2003.话题与焦点新论.上海:上海教育出版社.
徐烈炯. 1990.语义学.北京:语文出版社.
徐烈炯(主编) . 1999.共性与个性—汉语语言学中的争议.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
徐通铿. 1998.自动和使动-汉语语义句法的两种基本句式及其历史演变.《世界汉语教学》,(1): 11-21.
徐燕青.1999.“使”字句与“把”字句的异同考察.《世界汉语教学》,(4):52-58.
薛凤生.1987.试论“把”字句的语义特征.《语言教学与研究》,(1):61-62.
延俊荣. 2001.动结式V+RV带宾语的标记模式.《语文研究》,(4):25-29.
杨石泉.1986.动、补、宾的层次.《中国语文》,(4):277-280.
杨素英. 1999.从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系.《当代语言学》,(1):30-62.
叶向阳.2004.“把”字句的致使性解释.《世界汉语教学》,(2):25-39.
易福成(Taras).1999.《孙子兵法》谓词句法和语义研究.北京大学中文系博士论文,北京大学.
影山太郎著,于康等译.动词语义学[M]..北京:中国广播电视大学出版社,2001.
袁毓林. 1998.汉语动词的配价研究.江西:江西教育出版社.
袁毓林. 2001.述结式配价的控制-还原分析.《中国语文》,(5):399-410.
袁毓林.2001.述结式配价的控制-还原分析.《中国语文》,(5) :399-410.
曾立英. 2006.现代汉语的作格现象研究.北京大学博士论文.
曾立英. 2007.现代汉语作格动词的判定标准.《语言学论丛》,(第三十五辑).北京:商务印书馆,46-68.
詹人凤.1989.动结式短语的表述问题.《中国语文》,(2) :105-111.
詹卫东. 2004.论元结构与句式变换.《中国语文》,(3):209-221.
张伯江. 2002.施事角色的语用属性.《中国语文》,(6):483-494.
张济聊.2000.有关“把”字句的若干验证与探索.《语文研究》,(1):28-37.
张京鱼. 2001a.汉语心理动词及其句式.《唐都学刊》,(1) :112-115.
张京鱼.2001b.英语心理使役动词应用对比研究.《外语研究》,(3) :46-50.
张林. 2001.动词“打”的论元结构和句法特点.《湘潭师范学院学报》(社会科学版),(4):101-105.
张豫峰,宋桔. 2007.“化”尾动词构成的致使语态句分析.《复旦学报》(社会科学版),(4):105-110.
张云秋. 2002.“化”尾动词功能弱化的等级序列.《中国语文》,(1):50-54.
张云秋.1994.汉语短语的分类问题.《语文研究》,(4).
张云秋.2004.现代汉语受事宾语句研究.上海:学林出版社.
赵杨. 2006.汉语使动及其中介语表征.北京:北京大学出版社.
郑定欧. 1999.词汇语法理论与语法句法研究.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
周有斌,邵敬敏. 1993.汉语心理动词及其句型.《语文研究》,(3) :32-48.
朱德熙. 1982.语法讲义.北京:商务印书馆.
Alexiadou, A. & M. Everaert. (2004). The Unaccusativity Puzzle—Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alsina, A. (1996).“Resultatives: A Joint Operation of Semantic and Syntactic Structures.”Paper presented at the LFG Workshop, Grenoble, France. Rudanko, Juhani.
Arad, M. (1996).“A Minimalist View of the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface.”UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Belletti, A. (1988).“The Case of Unaccusative.”Linguistic Inquiry, 19:1-34.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Boas, H.C. (2005).“Determining the Productivity of Resultatives: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff.”Language, 81: 448-464.
Borer, H. (1994). The Projection of Arguments.”In J. Runner (Ed.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 17).
Bresnan, J. & A. Zaenen. (1990).“Deep Unaccusativity in LFG.”In Dziwirek, K., Farrell, P. & E. M., Bikandi (Eds.), Grammatical Relations. A Cross-Theoretical Perspective(45-57). California: CSLI Publications.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. Butt, M. & W. Geuder. (1998). The Projection of Arguments. California: CSLI Publications.
Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chang, Jung-Hsing. 2001. The Syntax of Event Structure in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2003.“Event Structure and Argument Linking in Chinese.”Language and Linguistics, 4: 317-351.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Cheng L.-S. Lisa. (1987).“On the‘Passive’Construction in Mandarin.”The Chinese Linguistics Workshop in Connecticut (42-59).
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (1988).“Aspects of the ba Construction.”In Carol Tenny (Ed.), Studies in Generative Approaches to Aspect: Lexicon Project Working Papers 24(73-84).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (1997).“Resultative Compounds and Lexical Relational Structures.”In Chinese Languages and Linguistics III: Morphology and Lexicon (167-197). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (2007).“Verb Copying in Mandarin Chinese.”In N. Corver & J. Nunes (Eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement / Linguistics today no.107 (151-174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa & C.T. James Huang. (1994).“On the Argument Structure of Resultative
Compounds.”In M. Chen & O. Tzeng (Eds.), In Honor of William Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change. Taipei :Pyramid Press.
Cheng L.-S. Lisa & E. Ritter (1987).“A Small Clause Analysis of Inalienable Possession in Mandarin and French.”NELS 18, 65-78.
Cheng L.-S. Lisa, Huang C.-T. James, Li Y.-H. Audrey & Tang C.-C. Jane. (1997).
Causative Compounds across Chinese Dialects: A Study of Cantonese, Mandarin and Taiwanese. In C. Tseng (ed.) Chinese Languages and Linguistics IV: Typological Studies of Languages in China. 199-224.Taipei:Academia Sinica.
Chomsky, N. (1970).“Remarks on Nominalization.”In Jacobs & Rosenbaum(Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar(184-221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, N. (1998).“Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework.”MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA.: MITWPL.
Chomsky, N. (1999).“Derivation by Phase.”MIT Occasional Paper in Linguistics 18, MIT. Cambridge, MA.: MITWPL.
Comrie, B. (1985).“Causative Verb Formation and Other Verb-deriving Morphology.”In T.Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. 3).
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology(2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell,.
Croft, W. (2000). Typology and Univesals. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Dai, Xiang-ling. (1992).“The Head in WO PAO DE KUAI.”Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 20 (1): 84-119.
Dixon, R.M.W. (1994). Ergativity . London: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, D. (1991).“Thematic Proto-roles and Aargument Selection.”Language, 67: 547–619.
Ernst, T. (1992).“Chinese Adjuncts and Phrase Structure Theory.”Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 22 (1): 41-71.
Fagan, M.B. S. (1988).“The English Middle.”Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (2): 181-203.
Filip, H. (1996).“Psychological Predicates and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.”In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968).“The Case for Case”. In Bach, E. & Harms, R.T. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (1-88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fillmore, C. (1970).“The grammar of Hitting and Breaking.”In Jacobs, R. & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar(120-33). Waltham, Mass: Ginn.
Foley, W.A. & R.D. Van Valin. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Folli, R. & G. Ramchand. (2005).“Prepositions and Results in Italian and English: an Analysis from Event Decomposition.”In H. Verkyul, H. van Hout & H. de Swartz (Eds.), Perspectives on Aspect (81-105). Dordrecht: Springer.
Grimshaw, J. & A. Mester. (1988).“Light Verbs and Theta-marking.”Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (2): 205-232.
Gu, Yang. 1992. The Syntax of Resultative and Causative Compounds in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. Cornell University.
Gu, Yang. (1998).“Causativity and the Feature Checking Mechanism: From A Minimalist Perspective.”In B. T'sou (Ed.), Studia Linguistica Serica. Hong Kong: CityUniversity of Hong Kong Press.
Gu, Yang & Haihua Pan. (2001).“A Further Investigation into the Complement Structure of Mandarin V-de Resultative Construction.”In Haihua Pan(ed.), Studies in Chinese Linguistics Vol. 2(1-30). Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. (1993).“On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.”In Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger ( 53-109). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. (1997).“On the Complex nature of Simple Predicates.”In Alex Alsina et al(Eds.), Complex Predicates (29-66). CSLI.
Hale, K. & S. Keyser .(1998).“The Basic Elements of Argument Structure.”In MIT Working papers in linguistics 32: Papers from the Upenn/ MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure (73-118). Cambridge: MIT.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. (1998).“The Syntax of Resultatives.”In Masatake, Muraki & Enoch Iwamoto (Eds.), Linguistics: In Search of. the Human Mind (178–208). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Haspelmath, M. (1993).“More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations.”In Comrie, B. & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
He, Xiaoling. (2005). On Patient-Subject Construction in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Hong Kong.
Her, One-Soon. (2006).“Argument-function Mismatches in Mandarin Resultatives: A Lexical Mapping Account.”Lingua, 117: 221-246.
Higginbotham, J. (1999). Telicity and Headedness. Ms. Oxford: Somerville College. Hoekstra, T. (1988).“Small Clause Results.”Lingua, 74: 101-139.
Hoekstra, T. (2004). Arguments and Structure-Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoekstra,T & R.Mulder. (1990).“Unergative as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication.”The Linguistic Review, 7:1-79.
Hopper, P. & S.A. Thompson. (1980).“Transitivity in grammar and discourse.”Language, 56: 251-299.
Huang, Chu-Ren. (1989).“Subcategorized TOPICs in Mandarin Chinese.”In The Chinese Language Teachers Association Annual Conference. Boston. November 17-19th.
Huang, C-T. James. (1987).“Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness.”In Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. Beter Meulen (Eds.) The Representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Huang, C-T. James. (1988).“WO PAO DE KUAI and Chinese Phrase Structure.”Language, 64(2): 274-311.
Huang, C.T. James. (1992).“Complex Predicates in Control.”In R. Larson et al. (Eds.). Control and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1993).“Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences.”Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 103-138.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1997).“On Lexical Structure and Syntactic Projection.”Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3.
Huang, C.T.-James. 1982/1998. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Huang, C.-T. James. (2005).“Synthetic Analyticity and the Other End of the Parameter.”Lecture notes, 2005 LSA Linguistic Institute, MIT and Harvard University.
Huang, C.-T. James. (2006).“Resultatives and Unaccusatives: a Parametric View.”Chuugoku gogaku: Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan, 253:44-91.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Mass: the MIT Press.
Jimmy, Lin. (2004). Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Johns, A., Massam, D. & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.). (2006). Ergativity-Emerging Issues. Netherlands: Springer.
Keyser, S. J. & T. Roeper. (1984).“On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English.”Linguistic Inquiry, (15): 381 -416.
Kiparsky, P. (1997).“Remarks on Denominal Verbs.”In Alex Alsina et al. (Eds.), Complex Predicates (473-499), CSLI.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Larson, R. (1988).“On the Double Object Construction.”Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lemmens, M. (1998). Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity: Causative Construction in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. (2004).“Verbs and Constructions: Where Next?”Western Conference on Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, November 12-14, 2004.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1999).“Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events.”Proceedings of SALT 9, 199-223.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. (2004).“The Semantic Determinants of Argument Expression: A View from the English Resultative Construction.”In J. Gu'eron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The Syntax of Time(477-494). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Li, C. N. (Ed). (1976). Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. (1976).“Development of the Causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interaction of Diachronic Processes in Syntax.”In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The Grammar of causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics, Vol.6) (477-492). New York: Academic Press.
Li, C. N. & S.A. Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, C. N. & S.A. Thompson. (1994).“On‘Middle Voice’Verbs in Mandarin.”In B. Fox and P. Hopper (Eds.). Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231-246.
Li, Yafei. (1990).“On V-V Compounds in Chinese.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (8):177-207.
Li, Yafei. (1993).“Structural Heads and Aspectuality.”Language, 69 (3) : 480-504.
Li, Yafei. (1995).“The Thematic Hierarchy and Causativity.”Natural Language andLinguistic Theory, 13.
Lin, Huei-Ling. (2003).“Postverbal Second Predicates in Taiwanese.”Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 1.2, 65-94.
Lin, Tzong-Hong. (2001). Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mateu, J. (2005).“Arguing our way to the Direct Object Restriction on English resultatives.”Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 8: 55-82.
Mcdonald, E. (1994).“Completive Verb Compounds in Modern Chinese: A New Look at an Old Problem.”Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 22:317-362.
Pan, Haihua. (1995).“Locality, Self-Ascription, Discourse Prominence, and Mandarin Reflexives”Doctoral Dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Perlmutter, D. (1978).“Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.”In Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkeley.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pye, C. & D. Loeb (1995). Experimenting With the Causative Alternation. Ms. University of Kansas.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin. (2001).“An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives.”Language, 77(4): 766–97.
Ritter, E. & S. T. Rosen. (1998).“Delimiting Events in Syntax.”In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Argument Projection: Lexical and Grammatical Objects(135-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, S. T. (1996).“Events and Verb Classification.”Linguistics, 34:191-223.
Shi Dingxu & Tang Sze-Wing. (1999).“Some Notes on the So-Called Pseudo-Passives in Chinese.”Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Annual Research Forum. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. (1976).“The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus.”In Shibatani, Masayoshi(Ed.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Sinclair, J. et al. (eds.). (2002). Cobuild English-Chinese Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.
Stowell, T. (1991).“Small Clause Restructuring.”In Freidin, R. (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Mass: the MIT Press.
Sung, Kuo-Ming. (1994). Case Assignment under Incorporation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Sybesma, R. P. E. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, James H.-Y. (1984).“Verbs and Times in Chinese: Vendler’s Four Categories.”In Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics (289-296). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. (1985).“Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms.”In Shopen, T.(Ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. Mass: the MIT Press.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (1997).“The Parametric Approach to the Resultative Construction in Chinese and English.”In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 203-226.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (1998). Parametrization of Features in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (2005).“Chinese Small Clause Revisited.”Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics (TEAL-3) Harvard University, July 22-23rd.
Tenny, C. L. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thompson, S.A. (1973).“Resultative Verb Compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A Case for Lexical Rules.”Language, 49 (2): 361-379.
Ting, Jin. (2006).“The Middle Construction in Mandarin Chinese and the Presyntactic Approach.”ConcentricL Studies in Linguistics, 32.1:89-117.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & R. Lapolla. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1990).“Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity.”Language, 66: 221-60.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1989).“Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition.”Linguistics and Philosophy, 12 (1): 39-94.
Voorst, Jan V. (1988). Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Wang, Chuanchih. (1998).“An Event Syntactic Account of Delimitation in Mandarin.”In Proceedings of the Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (22nd, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, February 28-March 1, 1998). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 5, Number 1.
Wei, Jiewu. (2006).“Two Types of V-de Constructions in Mandarin Chinese.”USTWPL 2: 97-107.
Williams, E. (1981).“Argument Structure and Morphology.”Linguistic Review, 1: 81-114.
Woolford, E. (2006).“Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure.”Linguistic Inquiry, 37 (1): 111-130.
Yoko Suguioka. (2001).“Transitivity Alternations in Deadjectival Verbs.”Proceedings of the COE International Symposium (169-187).
Yu, Ning. (1995).“Towards a Definition of Unaccusative Verbs in Chinese.”In Jose Camacho & Lina Choueiri (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (Vol. 1)(339–353). LA: University of Southern California.
Yuan, Boping. (1999).“Acquiring the Unaccusative/unergative Distinction in a Second Language: Evidence from English-speaking Learners of L2 Chinese.”Linguistics, 37 (2):275-296.
Zaenen, A. (1988).“Unaccusative Verbs in Dutch and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.”CSLI Reports 88-123, CSLI, Stanford University.
Zhang, Niina. (2001).“The Structures of Depictive and Resultative Constructions in Chinese.”ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 22:191-221
Zhou, Xinping. (1990). Aspects of Chinese Syntax: Ergativity and Phrase Structures. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Illinois at Urbanna-Champaign.
曹宏.2004a.中动句对动词形容词的选择限制及其理据.《语言科学》,(1):11-28.
曹宏.2004b.论中动句的句法构造特点.《世界汉语教学》,(3): 38-48.
陈昌来. 2002.现代汉语动词的句法语义属性研究.上海:学林出版社.
程工. 1999.语言共性论.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
崔希亮.1995.“把”字句的若干句法语义问题.《世界汉语教学》,(3):12-21.
邓思颖.2003.汉语方言语法的参数理论.北京:北京大学出版社.
邓思颖.2004.作格化和汉语被动句.《中国语文》,(4):291-301.
董秀芳. 1998.述补带宾句式中的韵律限制.《语言研究》,(1):55-62.
范晓. 2001.动词的配价与汉语的把字句.《中国语文》,(4):309-319.
菲尔墨,C.J.著,胡明扬译. 2005.“格”辨.北京:商务印书馆.
冯胜利. 2005.汉语韵律语法研究.北京:北京大学出版社.
高名凯. 1957.汉语语法论.北京:科学出版社.
顾阳. 1996.生成语法词库中动词的一些特性.《国外语言学》,(3):1-16.
顾阳. 1997.关于存现结构的理论讨论.《现代外语》,(3):14-25.
郭锐.1993.汉语动词的过程结构.《中国语文》,(6):410-419.
郭锐. 1995.述结式述补结构的配价结构和成分整合,沈阳、郑定欧主编《现代汉语配价语法研究》.北京:北京大学出版社.
郭锐. 2002.现代汉语词类研究.北京:商务印书馆.
何元建. 2004.论使役句的类型学特征.《语言科学》,(1):29-40.
何元建,王玲玲. 2002.论汉语使役句.《汉语学习》,(4): 1-9.
黄月圆.1996.把/被结构与动词重复结构的互补分布现象.《中国语文》,(2):92-99.
黄月圆,杨素英,高立群,张旺熹,崔希亮. 2007.汉语作为第二语言“被”字句习得的考察.《世界汉语教学》,(2):76-90.
黄正德著,宁春岩,候方,张达三译. 1983.汉语生成语法—汉语中的逻辑关系及语法理论.黑龙江:黑龙江大学科研处.
黄正德.1990.中文的两种及物动词和两种不及物动词,《第二届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集》,世界华文出版社,台北,39-59.
黄正德主编. 2004.中国语言学论丛(第三辑).北京:北京语言大学出版社.
黄正德. 2007.汉语动词的题元结构与其句法表现.《语言科学》,(4):3-21.
金立鑫.1997.“把”字句的句法、语义、语境特征.《中国语文》,(6) :415-423.
科姆里,B著,沈家煊译.1989.语言共性和语言类型.北京:华夏出版社.
李伯约.2006.使役结构若干问题刍议.《外国语言文学研究》,(3): 25-30.
李临定.1980.动补格句式.《中国语文》,(2):93-101.
李临定.1984.究竟哪个“补”哪个—“动补格”关系再议.《汉语学习》,(2) :1-10.
李临定.. 1984.动词的宾语和结构的宾语.《语言教学与研究》,(3) :103-123.
李临定. 1984.施事、受事和句法分析.《语文研究》,(4):8-17.
李临定.1988.汉语比较变换语法.《语文研究》,(2) :10-16.
李临定. 1992.从简单到复杂的分析方法-结果补语句构造分析.《世界汉语教学》,(3):161-165.
李小荣.1994.对述结式带宾语功能的考察.《汉语学习》,(5):32-38.
李亚非.2004.补充式复合动词论.《中国语言学论丛》,(第三辑) :63-77.
梁雨.2006.几类补语指向主语动结式的句法形式.《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版),(4):62-65.
陆俭明.1990.“VA了”述补结构语义分析.《汉语学习》,(1).
陆俭明,沈阳. 2004.汉语和汉语研究十五讲.北京:北京大学出版社.
吕叔湘. 1987.说“胜”和“败”.《中国语文》,(1):1-5.
吕云生. 2005.有关“施事后置”及“非宾格假说”几个问题.《语言科学》,(5):50-70.
马庆株. 2005.汉语动词和动词性结构.北京:北京大学出版社.
马希文. 1987.与动结式动词有关的某些句式.《中国语文》,(6):424-441.
马真,陆俭明.1997.形容词作结果补语情况考察(一).《汉语学习》,(12) :3-7.
孟琮,郑怀德,孟庆海,蔡文兰编.1999.汉语动词用法词典.北京:商务印书馆.
缪锦安.1990.汉语的语义结构和补语形式.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
牛保义. 2005.英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析.《外语与外语教学》,(6):1-5.
潘海华,韩景泉. 2005.显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究.《语文研究》,(9):1-13.
彭国珍. 2006.偏离类动结式的句法特征.《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版),(4):47-51.
任鹰.2001.主宾可换位动结式述语结构分析.《中国语文》,(4) :320-329.
沈家煊. 2002.如何处置“处置式”?-论把字句的主观性.《中国语文》,(5):387-399.
沈家煊. 2006.认知与汉语语法研究.北京:商务印书馆.
沈阳. 2005.“管辖与约束理论”和汉语语法研究.载“语言学前沿与汉语研究”(刘丹青主编) .上海:上海教育出版社.
沈阳,何元建,顾阳.2001.生成语法理论与汉语法研究.哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社.
施春宏. 2005.动结式论元结构的整合过程及其相关问题.《世界汉语教学》,(1):5-21.
施马翎,沈阳. 2006.结果补语小句分析和小句的内部结构.《华中科技大学学报》(社会科学版),(4):40-46.
石定栩.1998.汉语主题句的特征.《现代外语》,(2): 40-57.
石定栩. 2007.向心结构与离心结构新探.《外语教学与研究》,(4):276-284.
石定栩,胡建华. 2005.“被”的句法地位.《当代语言学》,(3):213-224.
石毓智. 2001.汉语语法化的历程—形态句法发展的动因和机制.北京:北京大学出版社.
石毓智. 2003.现代汉语语法系统的建立—动补结构的产生及其影响.北京:北京语言大学出版社.
石毓智.2007.语言学假设中的论据问题-论“王冕死了父亲”之类句子产生的历史条件.《语言科学》,(4):39-51.
宋国明. 1997.句法理论概要.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
宋文辉. 2006.关于宾语必须前置的动结式.《汉语学报》,(4):57-66.
宋文辉. 2007.现代汉语动结式的认知研究.北京:北京大学出版社.
宋文辉.再论现代汉语动结式的句法核心.《现代外语》,(2):163-171.
宋亚云. 2005.汉语作格动词的历史演变及其相关问题研究.北京大学博士论文.
孙晋文、伍雅清.2003.再论领有名词提升移位.《语言科学》,(6):46-52.
汤廷池. 2002.汉语复合动词的“使动与起动交替”. Language and Linguistics 3: 615-644.
宛新政.2005.现代汉语致使句研究.浙江:浙江大学出版社.
王大新.1998.动结式及其后置成分的语义、语法分析.《学术交流》,(2):117-121.
王广成,王秀卿. 2006.事件结构的句法映射-以“把”字句为例.《现代外语》,(4):354-361.
王红旗. 2001.动结式述补结构在把字句和重动句中的分布.《语文研究》,(1):6-11.
王红旗.2003.“把”字句的意义究竟是什么.《语文研究》,(2): 35-40.
王俊毅.2001.及物动词与不及物动词分类考察.《语言教学与研究》,(5):17-23.
王玲玲.2001.汉语动结结构句法与语义研究.博士论文.香港理工大学.
王邱丕,施建基.1990.程度与情状.《中国语文》,(6).
王文斌,徐睿.2005.英汉使役心理动词的形态分类和句法结构比较分析.《外语研》,(4) :22-29.
望月圭子(MOCHIZUKI, Keiko). 2003.汉语动词的及物与不及物:日本学生的学习困难点.第七届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集.
温宾利,陈宗利. 2001.领有名词移位:基于MP的分析.《现代外语》,(4):412-416.
吴庚堂.1999.“被”字的特征与转换.《当代语言学》,(4):25-37.
吴益民.1998.双重投射假设和及物性变异.《现代外语》,(3):30-45.
夏晓蓉. 2001.英汉V-R结构与非宾格现象.《外语教学与研究》,(3):172-177.
辛永芬. 2003.论能够做结果补语的动词.《河南大学学报》(社会科学版),(1):87-89.
刑福义. 2004.汉语语法三百问.北京:商务印书馆.
熊学亮,蔡基刚. 2005.语言界面.上海:复旦大学出版社.
熊仲儒.2004.现代汉语中的致使句式.安徽:安徽大学出版社.
徐丹. 2001.从动补结构的形成看语义对句法结构的影响-兼谈汉语动词语义及功能的分化.《语文研究》,(2):5-12.
徐丹著,张祖建译.汉语句法引论.北京:北京语言大学出版社.
徐杰.2001.普遍语法原则和汉语语法现象.北京:商务印书馆.
徐杰.1999.两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题.《当代语言学》,(1):16-29.
徐杰(主编) . 2004.汉语研究的类型学视角.北京:北京语言大学出版社.
徐烈炯,刘丹青主编. 2003.话题与焦点新论.上海:上海教育出版社.
徐烈炯. 1990.语义学.北京:语文出版社.
徐烈炯(主编) . 1999.共性与个性—汉语语言学中的争议.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
徐通铿. 1998.自动和使动-汉语语义句法的两种基本句式及其历史演变.《世界汉语教学》,(1): 11-21.
徐燕青.1999.“使”字句与“把”字句的异同考察.《世界汉语教学》,(4):52-58.
薛凤生.1987.试论“把”字句的语义特征.《语言教学与研究》,(1):61-62.
延俊荣. 2001.动结式V+RV带宾语的标记模式.《语文研究》,(4):25-29.
杨石泉.1986.动、补、宾的层次.《中国语文》,(4):277-280.
杨素英. 1999.从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系.《当代语言学》,(1):30-62.
叶向阳.2004.“把”字句的致使性解释.《世界汉语教学》,(2):25-39.
易福成(Taras).1999.《孙子兵法》谓词句法和语义研究.北京大学中文系博士论文,北京大学.
影山太郎著,于康等译.动词语义学[M]..北京:中国广播电视大学出版社,2001.
袁毓林. 1998.汉语动词的配价研究.江西:江西教育出版社.
袁毓林. 2001.述结式配价的控制-还原分析.《中国语文》,(5):399-410.
袁毓林.2001.述结式配价的控制-还原分析.《中国语文》,(5) :399-410.
曾立英. 2006.现代汉语的作格现象研究.北京大学博士论文.
曾立英. 2007.现代汉语作格动词的判定标准.《语言学论丛》,(第三十五辑).北京:商务印书馆,46-68.
詹人凤.1989.动结式短语的表述问题.《中国语文》,(2) :105-111.
詹卫东. 2004.论元结构与句式变换.《中国语文》,(3):209-221.
张伯江. 2002.施事角色的语用属性.《中国语文》,(6):483-494.
张济聊.2000.有关“把”字句的若干验证与探索.《语文研究》,(1):28-37.
张京鱼. 2001a.汉语心理动词及其句式.《唐都学刊》,(1) :112-115.
张京鱼.2001b.英语心理使役动词应用对比研究.《外语研究》,(3) :46-50.
张林. 2001.动词“打”的论元结构和句法特点.《湘潭师范学院学报》(社会科学版),(4):101-105.
张豫峰,宋桔. 2007.“化”尾动词构成的致使语态句分析.《复旦学报》(社会科学版),(4):105-110.
张云秋. 2002.“化”尾动词功能弱化的等级序列.《中国语文》,(1):50-54.
张云秋.1994.汉语短语的分类问题.《语文研究》,(4).
张云秋.2004.现代汉语受事宾语句研究.上海:学林出版社.
赵杨. 2006.汉语使动及其中介语表征.北京:北京大学出版社.
郑定欧. 1999.词汇语法理论与语法句法研究.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
周有斌,邵敬敏. 1993.汉语心理动词及其句型.《语文研究》,(3) :32-48.
朱德熙. 1982.语法讲义.北京:商务印书馆.