汉英空间构式对比研究
|
摘要
汉语中一直存在着一类表达空间方位关系的汉字,比如：“上、下、左、右、前、后、外、里、内、中”等。在现代汉语里,这些字经常与其它一些汉字结合在一起形成传统意义上的我们称之为“词”或“词组”的固定表达被收入进现代汉语词典当中。自《马氏文通》以来,汉语中的这些方位词受到了汉语语法学家们的高度关注,成为了汉语语法研究的一个热点和重点。学者们从不同的角度对汉语中的方位词进行了较为密集的研究。
“五四”白话文运动以来,汉语的语言结构发生了剧烈的变化,实现了从主要以单音节为主的文言文向以双音节为主的白话文的转变。相应地,学者们对汉语方位词的研究也就自然地分为对古代汉语方位词的研究和对现代汉语方位词的研究这样两大研究方向。以往学者对古代汉语方位词的研究主要是从语法学、语义学、词源学和文化学的角度展开的,对现代汉语方位词研究的视角较之古代汉语要更加宽泛和丰富,其中包括语法学、词汇学、形式语义学、语法化、对外汉语教学、语言习得、比较语言学和认知语言学等。
本研究遵循认知语言学的研究思路,以经验现实主义哲学为最基本的哲学方法论,以认知构式语法、认知语义学、字本位理论为具体的理论指导,以量化和对比为方法,以汉语和英语中的空间关系表达为研究对象,从人类的空间概念结构出发对汉英语言的基本结构进行了对比研究,试图从人类的空间概念和隐喻思维的角度去统一挖掘和解读汉英语言基本语法结构的形成原因和发展路径。
国外的语言理论,包括认知构式语法理论,大都是建立在对英语或其他一些语言研究的基础之上的。国外的认知语言学家们在创建他们的理论体系的时候较少把他们的理论建立在对汉语语言材料的分析和研究之上。Langacker, Lakoff, Croft等知名认知语言学家以及国内学者徐通锵、王寅等人都积极倡导对语言进行从一般到特殊,由个性而致共性的研究方法。英国著名构式语法学家William Croft更是十分强调语言的特殊性,他认为根本就不存在什么跨语言的普遍性的句法范畴,只有“构式”本身才是语法的元素性的分析单位。汉语“字本位”理论的创建者徐通锵积极倡导汉语的研究要回归汉语文字学的研究传统,从汉语本身的特点和传统出发去研究汉语,而不要去以汉语的语言事实去硬套西方的语言理论,做削足适履的事情。他认为采取归纳法,立足于语言个性特点的研究最终同样可以达到对语言共性规律的认识。
本研究正是立足于汉语的特殊性,积极吸收西方语言学研究的新思路和新方法,对汉语和英语的结构特点进行对比研究,通过对比,找出两种语言在结构上真正的普遍性和特殊性之所在,争取在语言类型学和普通语言学的研究领域作出一点贡献。
汉语是一种古老的语言,它是几千年中华文明和文化的重要载体和重要的组成部分,是世界语言和文化长廊中的一朵奇葩,具有很强的特殊性。现代汉语以两字构式为核心,形成了大量的、固定的两字字组,即传统意义上的“词”。具体的两字字组背后体现的是抽象的两字构式。现代汉语两字构式格局的形成有其深刻的认知理据,可以从体验观、概念结构以及隐喻认知的角度得到充分的解释和论证。构式语法和字本位理论为我们的研究提供了强有力的理论工具。认知语义学家们一致认为空间概念是人类对客观外部世界的最基本的认知之一。人类的语言,从意义到形式,在很多方面都留下了时空的烙印,体现了人们对空间和时间的理解和认知方式。本研究的基本理论假设是从语言中的空间构式出发或许能揭开语言结构规律的谜团。很多前辈构式语法学家在这个领域里已经取得了十分可喜的成绩。Brugman, Lakoff, Langacker, Talmy以及Goddard等认知语言学家们都曾经尝试着从空间概念的角度去解释英语词义的延伸和语法结构的形成机理,提出了多种理论和模型。本研究从空间概念和隐喻思维的角度出发统一对汉英语言基本构式的形成做出了阐释和论证。通过对汉英语言空间构式的实证和对比,本研究得出以下几条重要的结论：
(1)重新审视了前辈认知语言学家对语言、认知和现实世界三者之间关系的阐述,对从现实世界到认知再到语言这样的语言形成和演化的进路有了新的认识和细节上的修正。
(2)本研究从跨语言的角度进一步论证了人类的空间概念结构是语言中构式结构形成的重要基础和前提。本研究认为汉英语言中一些基本的句法构式是一个类典型的范畴集合,范畴的核心成员是以空间概念为基础形成的空间构式,在隐喻的基础上形成了范畴的非核心成员。核心成员与非核心成员的地位会随着时间的推移和社会环境的变化而发生改变。语言中的构式是一个围绕着概念结构而组织起来的层级性的网络系统,语言知识是以构式网络的形式储存在大脑之中的。构式网络之中上一层级的构式对下一层级的构式来说是表征和整合的关系,下一层级构式对上一层级构式是体现和蕴含的关系。
(3)通过跨语言的实证研究,本研究否定了William Croft和谢信一的关于将语言划分为临摹性和抽象性语言类型的假说。本研究提出了语言的“象征性”这一重要概念,并且画出了语言的象征性和规约性发展坐标图,指出语言可能主要选择象征性的发展路径或主要选择规约性的发展路径,但不大可能在两个方面都取得空前的发展。汉语属于象征性较强的语言,英语属于规约性较强的语言。对于象征性和规约性的划分或可以成为语言类型学研究上的一条重要的衡量标准。
(4)从汉英语言的实际语言材料出发,本研究论证并支撑了Lakoff提出的“形式空间化假说(SFH)”。从人类概念结构的角度对人类的语言结构作出系统的描述和充分的解释一直是构式语法学家们重大的理论诉求之一。构式语法学家们提出了多种多样的认知模型企图对句法结构作出归纳性的阐释。本着认知语言学的基本原则,本研究力图做到理论简化统一,概括充分全面,力争用最少、最统一的空间概念参数实现对汉英语言基本句法构式的统一的概括和描写。
(5)语言的普遍性和特殊性一直是普通语言学和语言类型学研究的重要课题之一。本研究本着从特殊到普遍的归纳性的认识路线具体阐释了汉英语言基本构式的普遍性和特殊性具体之所在。本研究论证并揭示了对空间关系所形成的意象图式以及认知域具有跨语言的普遍性,对空间关系意象图式的概念识解、概念结构、隐喻思维以及语言编码具有跨语言的特殊性这一重要的语言规律。
There has been a set of Chinese characters which express space relations in Chinese, for instance,"shang, xia, qian, hou, zuo, you, wai, li, nei, zhong" etc. In modern Chinese, these characters are often put together with other characters to form some definite character groups to indicate certain space relations. In traditional Chinese grammar, these character groups are regarded as "words" or "word groups", which are compiled into Chinese dictionary. Since Ma Shi Wen Tong, many Chinese grammarians focused on these space words and produced a lot of research works.
Since the May4th Movement, Chinese language has experienced a dramatic change. The classical Chinese tends to be replaced by the colloquial style Chinese. Correspondingly, the studies on Chinese space words fall into two main fields; they are the study on ancient Chinese space words and the study on modern Chinese space words separately. The studies on ancient Chinese space words are carried out mainly from the aspect of grammar, semantics, etymology and culture while the studies on modern Chinese space words are mainly carried out from the aspect of grammar, morphology, formal semantics, grammaticalization, TCFL (Teaching Chinese as Foreign Language), language acquisition, comparative linguistics and cognitive linguistics.
The present study follows a cognitive linguistic route which is based on the experiential realism. The study takes the construction grammar, the cognitive semantics and the Chinese sinogram-based theory as its theoretical foundations and adopts a quantified and contrastive research method with the space constructions in modern Chinese and contemporary English as its research target. The study tries to give a unified interpretation to the causes and the evolution path of some basic constructions in both Chinese and English.
Most of the foreign linguistic theories, including the theory of construction grammar, are based on English and many other languages. When many foreign linguists build up their theories, they seldom take Chinese language into their consideration. Langacker, Lakoff, Croft and Chinese linguists Xu Tongqiang and Wang Yin proposed that linguistic research should follow the route that is from the specific to the general. Famous British linguist William Croft especially emphasizes the specificity of language. He holds the view that there don't exist such things as cross-language syntactic categories and what exist are constructions which are the primitive units of grammatical analysis. Xu Tongqiang, the initiator of the Chinese sinogram-based theory also proposed that the research of Chinese grammar should return to Chinese tradition. He thinks that based on induction method, people can also get to know the general rules of languages.
The present study is a contrastive study between Chinese and English space constructions which is just based on the specificity of Chinese language and under the guidance of Chinese and Western new theories and methods of linguistic studies. By the contrast, the individuality and generality of Chinese and English language are disclosed which might do some contributions to the general linguistics and language typology.
Chinese is a kind of ancient language which is the main carrier and important component of Chinese civilization and Chinese culture. It is very unique and with great specialty. Chinese language is full of fixed two-character groups which embodies two-character constructions. The formation of two-character construction has its profound cognitive foundation which can be proved and interpreted from the perspective of experiential view and conceptual structure. The construction grammar and the Sinogram-based theory provide us a powerful tool to explore Chinese and English space constructions. Cognitive semanticists all agree that space concept is one of the basic cognitions that human experienced toward the outside world. From meaning to form, human languages are characterized by space and time marks which represent human being's understanding and cognitive way toward space and time. The basic theoretical hypothesis of the present research is that we might disclose the mystery of the language structure by means of the space constructions in languages. Many construction grammarians have already made great progress in this field. Many cognitive grammarians, such as Lakoff, Langacker and Talmy, all put forward their theoretical models to explain the forming mechanism of English syntactic structures and the extension processes of word meanings. The present research combines the research of Chinese and English space constructions within one theoretical framework and explains their forming mechanisms from the perspective of space concepts and metaphorical mapping. The research has drawn the following conclusions:
(1) The relation between the reality, the cognition and the language has been reviewed. Traditionally, many cognitive linguists agree on such an evolutionary path as from the reality to the cognition and then to human language. In the study, a revision has been made toward such an evolutionary path.
(2) From the perspective of cross-linguistic study, the research argues that human being's space concepts are the important prerequisite and foundation of their language structure. The basic syntactic constructions in both Chinese and English are prototype categories and the prototype numbers of the categories are the space constructions which are based on space concepts. Based on the prototype constructions, the marginal constructions are formed by means of metaphorical mapping. The status of the prototype members and the marginal members will change with time passing and the development of society. The constructions in the language are networks which are organized around conceptual structures and the linguistic knowledge is stored in the mind in the form of network. In the networks, the lower level constructions embody and entail the upper level constructions which are formed on the basis of the inductive reasoning and integrating to the lower level constructions.
(3) Through the cross-linguistic empirical analysis, the research cast a doubt on the hypothesis proposed by William Croft and Xie Xinyi that languages can be basically divided into the types of iconic language and abstract language. This study put forward the concept of "symbolicity" to replace Croft's "iconicity" and draw up a coordinate chart concerning language symbolicity and conventionality. The study also points out that language can either develop along the symbolic route or along the conventional route, but it is not possible for languages to get fully developed along both the two routes. Chinese tends to be a more symbolic language while English get fully developed in the conventional dimension. The dimension of symbolicity and conventionality might become a new standard in language typology.
(4) From the perspective of cross-linguistic study, this research gives a further support to Lakoff's SFH (Spatialization of Form Hypotheses). It has been one of the linguists'most important theoretical pursuits to disclose the mystery of syntactic structure from the perspective of conceptual structure. Construction grammarians have put forward various kinds of cognitive models to try to make an inductive interpretation to syntactic structures. Based on the cognitive linguistics'basic principle, this research tries to simplify and unify the various kinds of theories and models and tries to interpret and generalize some basic syntactic constructions in both Chinese and English with several conceptual parameters concerning space concepts.
(5) The universality and particularity of human languages have always been one of the important topics in general linguistics and language typology. Following the route from particularity to universality, the research points out where the particularity and universality actually lie in Chinese and English basic constructions. The research shows that for Chinese and English, the construe of space concepts is universal and each of them has their unique ways to encode these space concepts.
“五四”白话文运动以来,汉语的语言结构发生了剧烈的变化,实现了从主要以单音节为主的文言文向以双音节为主的白话文的转变。相应地,学者们对汉语方位词的研究也就自然地分为对古代汉语方位词的研究和对现代汉语方位词的研究这样两大研究方向。以往学者对古代汉语方位词的研究主要是从语法学、语义学、词源学和文化学的角度展开的,对现代汉语方位词研究的视角较之古代汉语要更加宽泛和丰富,其中包括语法学、词汇学、形式语义学、语法化、对外汉语教学、语言习得、比较语言学和认知语言学等。
本研究遵循认知语言学的研究思路,以经验现实主义哲学为最基本的哲学方法论,以认知构式语法、认知语义学、字本位理论为具体的理论指导,以量化和对比为方法,以汉语和英语中的空间关系表达为研究对象,从人类的空间概念结构出发对汉英语言的基本结构进行了对比研究,试图从人类的空间概念和隐喻思维的角度去统一挖掘和解读汉英语言基本语法结构的形成原因和发展路径。
国外的语言理论,包括认知构式语法理论,大都是建立在对英语或其他一些语言研究的基础之上的。国外的认知语言学家们在创建他们的理论体系的时候较少把他们的理论建立在对汉语语言材料的分析和研究之上。Langacker, Lakoff, Croft等知名认知语言学家以及国内学者徐通锵、王寅等人都积极倡导对语言进行从一般到特殊,由个性而致共性的研究方法。英国著名构式语法学家William Croft更是十分强调语言的特殊性,他认为根本就不存在什么跨语言的普遍性的句法范畴,只有“构式”本身才是语法的元素性的分析单位。汉语“字本位”理论的创建者徐通锵积极倡导汉语的研究要回归汉语文字学的研究传统,从汉语本身的特点和传统出发去研究汉语,而不要去以汉语的语言事实去硬套西方的语言理论,做削足适履的事情。他认为采取归纳法,立足于语言个性特点的研究最终同样可以达到对语言共性规律的认识。
本研究正是立足于汉语的特殊性,积极吸收西方语言学研究的新思路和新方法,对汉语和英语的结构特点进行对比研究,通过对比,找出两种语言在结构上真正的普遍性和特殊性之所在,争取在语言类型学和普通语言学的研究领域作出一点贡献。
汉语是一种古老的语言,它是几千年中华文明和文化的重要载体和重要的组成部分,是世界语言和文化长廊中的一朵奇葩,具有很强的特殊性。现代汉语以两字构式为核心,形成了大量的、固定的两字字组,即传统意义上的“词”。具体的两字字组背后体现的是抽象的两字构式。现代汉语两字构式格局的形成有其深刻的认知理据,可以从体验观、概念结构以及隐喻认知的角度得到充分的解释和论证。构式语法和字本位理论为我们的研究提供了强有力的理论工具。认知语义学家们一致认为空间概念是人类对客观外部世界的最基本的认知之一。人类的语言,从意义到形式,在很多方面都留下了时空的烙印,体现了人们对空间和时间的理解和认知方式。本研究的基本理论假设是从语言中的空间构式出发或许能揭开语言结构规律的谜团。很多前辈构式语法学家在这个领域里已经取得了十分可喜的成绩。Brugman, Lakoff, Langacker, Talmy以及Goddard等认知语言学家们都曾经尝试着从空间概念的角度去解释英语词义的延伸和语法结构的形成机理,提出了多种理论和模型。本研究从空间概念和隐喻思维的角度出发统一对汉英语言基本构式的形成做出了阐释和论证。通过对汉英语言空间构式的实证和对比,本研究得出以下几条重要的结论：
(1)重新审视了前辈认知语言学家对语言、认知和现实世界三者之间关系的阐述,对从现实世界到认知再到语言这样的语言形成和演化的进路有了新的认识和细节上的修正。
(2)本研究从跨语言的角度进一步论证了人类的空间概念结构是语言中构式结构形成的重要基础和前提。本研究认为汉英语言中一些基本的句法构式是一个类典型的范畴集合,范畴的核心成员是以空间概念为基础形成的空间构式,在隐喻的基础上形成了范畴的非核心成员。核心成员与非核心成员的地位会随着时间的推移和社会环境的变化而发生改变。语言中的构式是一个围绕着概念结构而组织起来的层级性的网络系统,语言知识是以构式网络的形式储存在大脑之中的。构式网络之中上一层级的构式对下一层级的构式来说是表征和整合的关系,下一层级构式对上一层级构式是体现和蕴含的关系。
(3)通过跨语言的实证研究,本研究否定了William Croft和谢信一的关于将语言划分为临摹性和抽象性语言类型的假说。本研究提出了语言的“象征性”这一重要概念,并且画出了语言的象征性和规约性发展坐标图,指出语言可能主要选择象征性的发展路径或主要选择规约性的发展路径,但不大可能在两个方面都取得空前的发展。汉语属于象征性较强的语言,英语属于规约性较强的语言。对于象征性和规约性的划分或可以成为语言类型学研究上的一条重要的衡量标准。
(4)从汉英语言的实际语言材料出发,本研究论证并支撑了Lakoff提出的“形式空间化假说(SFH)”。从人类概念结构的角度对人类的语言结构作出系统的描述和充分的解释一直是构式语法学家们重大的理论诉求之一。构式语法学家们提出了多种多样的认知模型企图对句法结构作出归纳性的阐释。本着认知语言学的基本原则,本研究力图做到理论简化统一,概括充分全面,力争用最少、最统一的空间概念参数实现对汉英语言基本句法构式的统一的概括和描写。
(5)语言的普遍性和特殊性一直是普通语言学和语言类型学研究的重要课题之一。本研究本着从特殊到普遍的归纳性的认识路线具体阐释了汉英语言基本构式的普遍性和特殊性具体之所在。本研究论证并揭示了对空间关系所形成的意象图式以及认知域具有跨语言的普遍性,对空间关系意象图式的概念识解、概念结构、隐喻思维以及语言编码具有跨语言的特殊性这一重要的语言规律。
There has been a set of Chinese characters which express space relations in Chinese, for instance,"shang, xia, qian, hou, zuo, you, wai, li, nei, zhong" etc. In modern Chinese, these characters are often put together with other characters to form some definite character groups to indicate certain space relations. In traditional Chinese grammar, these character groups are regarded as "words" or "word groups", which are compiled into Chinese dictionary. Since Ma Shi Wen Tong, many Chinese grammarians focused on these space words and produced a lot of research works.
Since the May4th Movement, Chinese language has experienced a dramatic change. The classical Chinese tends to be replaced by the colloquial style Chinese. Correspondingly, the studies on Chinese space words fall into two main fields; they are the study on ancient Chinese space words and the study on modern Chinese space words separately. The studies on ancient Chinese space words are carried out mainly from the aspect of grammar, semantics, etymology and culture while the studies on modern Chinese space words are mainly carried out from the aspect of grammar, morphology, formal semantics, grammaticalization, TCFL (Teaching Chinese as Foreign Language), language acquisition, comparative linguistics and cognitive linguistics.
The present study follows a cognitive linguistic route which is based on the experiential realism. The study takes the construction grammar, the cognitive semantics and the Chinese sinogram-based theory as its theoretical foundations and adopts a quantified and contrastive research method with the space constructions in modern Chinese and contemporary English as its research target. The study tries to give a unified interpretation to the causes and the evolution path of some basic constructions in both Chinese and English.
Most of the foreign linguistic theories, including the theory of construction grammar, are based on English and many other languages. When many foreign linguists build up their theories, they seldom take Chinese language into their consideration. Langacker, Lakoff, Croft and Chinese linguists Xu Tongqiang and Wang Yin proposed that linguistic research should follow the route that is from the specific to the general. Famous British linguist William Croft especially emphasizes the specificity of language. He holds the view that there don't exist such things as cross-language syntactic categories and what exist are constructions which are the primitive units of grammatical analysis. Xu Tongqiang, the initiator of the Chinese sinogram-based theory also proposed that the research of Chinese grammar should return to Chinese tradition. He thinks that based on induction method, people can also get to know the general rules of languages.
The present study is a contrastive study between Chinese and English space constructions which is just based on the specificity of Chinese language and under the guidance of Chinese and Western new theories and methods of linguistic studies. By the contrast, the individuality and generality of Chinese and English language are disclosed which might do some contributions to the general linguistics and language typology.
Chinese is a kind of ancient language which is the main carrier and important component of Chinese civilization and Chinese culture. It is very unique and with great specialty. Chinese language is full of fixed two-character groups which embodies two-character constructions. The formation of two-character construction has its profound cognitive foundation which can be proved and interpreted from the perspective of experiential view and conceptual structure. The construction grammar and the Sinogram-based theory provide us a powerful tool to explore Chinese and English space constructions. Cognitive semanticists all agree that space concept is one of the basic cognitions that human experienced toward the outside world. From meaning to form, human languages are characterized by space and time marks which represent human being's understanding and cognitive way toward space and time. The basic theoretical hypothesis of the present research is that we might disclose the mystery of the language structure by means of the space constructions in languages. Many construction grammarians have already made great progress in this field. Many cognitive grammarians, such as Lakoff, Langacker and Talmy, all put forward their theoretical models to explain the forming mechanism of English syntactic structures and the extension processes of word meanings. The present research combines the research of Chinese and English space constructions within one theoretical framework and explains their forming mechanisms from the perspective of space concepts and metaphorical mapping. The research has drawn the following conclusions:
(1) The relation between the reality, the cognition and the language has been reviewed. Traditionally, many cognitive linguists agree on such an evolutionary path as from the reality to the cognition and then to human language. In the study, a revision has been made toward such an evolutionary path.
(2) From the perspective of cross-linguistic study, the research argues that human being's space concepts are the important prerequisite and foundation of their language structure. The basic syntactic constructions in both Chinese and English are prototype categories and the prototype numbers of the categories are the space constructions which are based on space concepts. Based on the prototype constructions, the marginal constructions are formed by means of metaphorical mapping. The status of the prototype members and the marginal members will change with time passing and the development of society. The constructions in the language are networks which are organized around conceptual structures and the linguistic knowledge is stored in the mind in the form of network. In the networks, the lower level constructions embody and entail the upper level constructions which are formed on the basis of the inductive reasoning and integrating to the lower level constructions.
(3) Through the cross-linguistic empirical analysis, the research cast a doubt on the hypothesis proposed by William Croft and Xie Xinyi that languages can be basically divided into the types of iconic language and abstract language. This study put forward the concept of "symbolicity" to replace Croft's "iconicity" and draw up a coordinate chart concerning language symbolicity and conventionality. The study also points out that language can either develop along the symbolic route or along the conventional route, but it is not possible for languages to get fully developed along both the two routes. Chinese tends to be a more symbolic language while English get fully developed in the conventional dimension. The dimension of symbolicity and conventionality might become a new standard in language typology.
(4) From the perspective of cross-linguistic study, this research gives a further support to Lakoff's SFH (Spatialization of Form Hypotheses). It has been one of the linguists'most important theoretical pursuits to disclose the mystery of syntactic structure from the perspective of conceptual structure. Construction grammarians have put forward various kinds of cognitive models to try to make an inductive interpretation to syntactic structures. Based on the cognitive linguistics'basic principle, this research tries to simplify and unify the various kinds of theories and models and tries to interpret and generalize some basic syntactic constructions in both Chinese and English with several conceptual parameters concerning space concepts.
(5) The universality and particularity of human languages have always been one of the important topics in general linguistics and language typology. Following the route from particularity to universality, the research points out where the particularity and universality actually lie in Chinese and English basic constructions. The research shows that for Chinese and English, the construe of space concepts is universal and each of them has their unique ways to encode these space concepts.
引文
Anderson, J.M. The grammar of Case:Toward a Localistic Theory [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1971.
Bennett, David C. Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions:An Essay in Stratificational Semantics [M]. London:Longman,1975.
Bolinger, D. The Form of Language [M]. London:Longmans,1977.
Brown, R. A First Language:The early Stages [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1973.
Brugman, C. Story of OVER. MA Thesis. University of California,1981
Clark, Herb. Space, time, semantics, and the child [A].in:Timothy E. Moore. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language [C]. New York:Academic Press,1973.
Croft, William & D. Allan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. CPU,2004
De Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistic [M].匕京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001：66.
Dirven, R.& M. Verspoor. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1998.
Fillmore, Charles J. Towards a Theory of Deixis. Paper read at the Pacific Conference on Contrastive Linguistics and Language Universals, University of Hawaii,1971.
Fillmore, Charles J. Santa Cruse Lectures on Dexis. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistic Club,1975a.
Fillmore, Charles J. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning [A]. In C. Cogen et al (eds.) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistic Society,1975b.
Fillmore, Charles J. Towards a Describtive Framework for Spacial Dexis [A], Jarvella R. J.& Klein W. (eds.). Speech, Place and Action:Studies in Dexis and Related Topics. New York:Weley,1982.
Fillmore, Charles J. Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of the Grammatical Construction. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
Fillmore, Charles J. Inversion and Constructional Inheritance [A]. In Webelhuth, G., J. P. Koenig, and A. Kathol (eds.). Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford, C A.:CSLI Publiations,1999.
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Ostman. Constructional Approaches to Language. Vol.2:Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2004.
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Ostman. Construction Grammar:A Thumbnail Sketch [A]. In Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Ostman (eds.). Constructional Approaches to Language [C]. Vol.2:Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2004.
Givon, T. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology:an archaeologist'field trip [J]. Chicago Linguistic Society,1971 (7):394.
Goddard, Cliff. On and On:Verbal Explications for a Polysemic Network. Cognitive Linguistics,13 (3),2002
Goldberg, Adele. E. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press,1995.
Goldberg, Adele. E. The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions [A]. In M. Vespoor, K. Lee & E. Sweester (eds.). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1997.
Goldberg, Adele. E. Argument Realization:The Role of Construction, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors [A]. In Ostman, Jan-Ola & M. Fried (eds.). The Hand book of English Linguisics. Malden, Mass:Blackwell,2005.
Goldberg, Adele. E. Constructions at work:the Nature of Generalization in Language [M]. OUP,2006.
Herskovits, Annette. Space and prepositions in English:Regularities and irregularities in a complex domain [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford University,1982.
Humboldt, Wilhelm. On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species [M],1836.(?)小平译,论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神的影响[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
Jackendoff, R.S. Semantic structure [M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1990.
Jackendoff,R.S. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1983.
Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lakoff, George,& Mark Johnson. Metaphors We live By [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar:Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1987.
Langacker, Ronald W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2000
Levinson, Stephen C. From outer to inner space:Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts & Pederson (eds.) Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Levinson, S. C. Space in Language and Cognition:Explorations in Cognitive Diversity [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
Levinson, S. C.& D. P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space:Explorations in Cognitive Diversity [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006.
Liu, Feng-his. A Clitic Analysis of Locative Particles [J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,1998,26 (1)
Miller, G. A and Johnson Laird, P.N.Language and Percetion [M]. Cambridge, M A:Harvard University Press,1976.
Nelson, K. Structure and Strategy in Learning to Talk [J]. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,38,1973 (Serial No.149)
Nanny, Max & Olga Fischer. Form Miming Meaning — Iconicity in Language and Culture [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Panther Klaus—Uwe & G, Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamin, 1999
Paul, J. Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization [M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Peirce, C. The Philosophy of Peirce [M]. T. Buchler (ed.). New York:Harcourt, Brace,1940.
Piaget, Jean. The Mechanism of Perception [M]. Translated by G. N. Seagrim. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1961.
Schank, R. C.& Abelson, R. P. Scripts, Plans, and Knowledge, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence [A]. CUP,1975.
Svorou, S. The Grammar of Space [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1994.
Turner, M. The Lterary Mind. OUP,1996.
Talmy, L. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences [A]. In J. H. Greenberg, et al. (eds.). Universals of Human Language [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1978, Vol,4.
Talmy, L. How Language Structures Space [A]. In Pink & L. Acredolo (eds.). Spacial Orientation:Theory, Research, and Application [M]. New York:Plenum Press,1983.
Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Thought [A]. In William H. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, and K. Peterson (eds.). Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1985.
Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition [J]. In Cognitive Science,12,1988.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol.Ⅱ:Typology and Process in Concept Structuring [M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,2000.
Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989.
Ungerer,F.,& Schmid, H.J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London:Addison Wesley Longman Limited,1996.
陈承泽.国文法草创[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982
储泽祥.现代汉语方所系统研究[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,1997a.
崔希亮.空间方位关系及其泛化形式的认知解释[A].见：中国语文杂志社编.语法研究和探索(十)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000a.
崔希亮.汉语空间方位场景与论元的凸显[J]世界汉语教学,2001,(4)
崔希亮.空间关系的类型学研究[J].汉语学习,2002,(1).
戴浩一(叶蜚声译).以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上)[J].国外语言学,1990,(4)
戴浩一(叶蜚声译).以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下)[J].国外语言学,1991,(1)
方经民.地点域／方位域对立和汉语句法分析[J].语言科学,2004,(6)
方经民.汉语空间方位参照的认知结构[J].世界汉语教学,1999b,(4)
方经民.论方位参照的构成要素[J].中国语学(东京),1993.
方经民.论汉语空间方位参照的认知过程中的基本策略[J].中国语文,1999a,(1)
方经民.论汉语空间方位参照认知过程中的语义理解[A].见：面向新世纪挑战的现代汉语语法研究—98现代汉语语法学国际学术会议论文集[C].济南：山东教育出版社,2000.
方经民.现代汉语方位成分的分化和语法化[J].世界汉语教学,2004a,(2).
高远李福印.罗纳德·兰艾克认知语法十讲[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2007.
高远李福印.乔治·莱考夫认知语言学十讲[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2007.
龚千炎.中国语言学史稿[M].北京：语言出版社.
缑瑞隆.方位词“上”“下”的语义认知基础与对外汉语教学[J].语言文字应用,2004,(4)
《古代汉语词典》编写组.古代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998.
洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异极其对人类精神的影响[M].北京：世界图书出版公司,2008.
霍文琦.汉字是独一无二的视觉文字[J].北京：中国社会科学报,2012,(271)
蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
廖秋忠.空间方位词和方位参考点[J].中国语文,1989,(1)
黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1992.
李晋霞.刘云.从概念域看单音节方位词语法化的非匀质性[J].语言科学,2006,(4)
李讷.汤普森(黄宣范译).汉语语法(Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar) [M].台北：文鹤出版有限公司,1983。
李瑛.“上下”域方位隐喻初探[J].重庆交通学院学报(社科版),2002a,(3).
李瑛.“前后”域方位隐喻初探[J].四川教育学院学报,2002b,(7)
李瑛.“前后”方位隐喻义的拓展[J].西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004(2)
林语堂.《林语堂散文经典全集》(第一卷)[M].北京：九州出版社,1974.
林书武.《隐喻与象似性》简介[J].国外语言学,1995,(3)
刘丹青.方所题元的若干类型学参项[A].见：徐杰.汉语研究的类型学视角[G].北京：北京语言大学出版社,2005.
刘润清.《西方语言学流派》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
陆俭明.现代汉语语法研究教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
吕叔湘.汉语语法论文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1963.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集(第一卷中国文法要略)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990a.
吕叔湘.方位词使川情况的初步考察[A].见：吕叔湘,吕叔湘文集(第二卷汉语语法论文集)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990b.
马建忠.马氏文通[M].北京：商务印书馆,1983.
潘文国.杨白俭.英汉对比的理论与方法研究：共性·个性·视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2008.
齐沪杨.“N+在+处所+V”句式语义特征分析[J].汉语学习,1994(6)
齐沪杨.现代汉语空间问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,1999.
邱斌.汉语方位类词相关问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2008.
沈家炕.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究,200I(4)
石毓智.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2000.
束定芳.语言的认知研究—认知语言学论文精选[A].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
王祥荣.儿童语言中的“上”、“下”类方位词[J].安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000.
王寅.构式语法研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2011.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外与教育出版社,2007.
王寅.认知语言学探索[M].重庆：重庆出版社,2005.
王寅.认知语言学的翻译观[J].中国翻译,2005(5)
谢信一(叶蜚声译).汉语中的时间和意象(上)[J].国外语言学,1991(4).
谢信一(叶蜚声译).汉语中的时间和意象(中)[J].国外语言学,1992a(1)
谢信一(叶蜚声译).汉语中的时间和意象(下)[J].国外语言学,1992b(3)
刑福义.时间方所[A].见：语法问题思索集[C].北京：北京语言学院出版社,1995.
刑福义.方位结构“X里”和“X中”[J].世界汉语教学,1996,(4)
绪可望.杨忠.客观主义、经验现实主义及辩证唯物主义认识论并语言观比较研究[J].外语学刊,2012(1)
绪可望.论认知隐喻观的理论阐释力[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(4)
徐盛桓.认知语言学研究的新视点[J].外语教学与研究,2002(5)
徐通锵.基础语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
徐通锵.汉语字本位语法导论[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2008.
杨伯峻 何乐士.古代汉语语法及其发展[M].北京：语文出版社,1992.
杨自俭 李瑞华编.吕叔湘.通过对比研究语法[A].汉英对比研究论文集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1990.
张辉.论空间概念在语言知识建构中的作用[J].解放军外语学院学报,1998,(1)
张世禄.先秦汉语方位词的语法功能[J].河北大学学报,1996,(1)
张学新.汉字拼义理论：心理学对汉字本质的新定性[J].广州：华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(4)
朱德熙.在香山语法会议上的发言[J].《语言文字应用》,1998,(1)
赵元任.汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏[A].赵元任语言学论文选,北京：商务印书馆,2002.
赵元任.汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏[A].中国现代语言学的开拓和发展：赵元任语言学论文选.北京：清华大学出版社,1992.
赵元任.汉语口语语法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1979.
邹韶华.现代汉语方位词的语法功能[J].中国语文,1984,(3)
Bennett, David C. Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions:An Essay in Stratificational Semantics [M]. London:Longman,1975.
Bolinger, D. The Form of Language [M]. London:Longmans,1977.
Brown, R. A First Language:The early Stages [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1973.
Brugman, C. Story of OVER. MA Thesis. University of California,1981
Clark, Herb. Space, time, semantics, and the child [A].in:Timothy E. Moore. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language [C]. New York:Academic Press,1973.
Croft, William & D. Allan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. CPU,2004
De Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistic [M].匕京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001：66.
Dirven, R.& M. Verspoor. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1998.
Fillmore, Charles J. Towards a Theory of Deixis. Paper read at the Pacific Conference on Contrastive Linguistics and Language Universals, University of Hawaii,1971.
Fillmore, Charles J. Santa Cruse Lectures on Dexis. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistic Club,1975a.
Fillmore, Charles J. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning [A]. In C. Cogen et al (eds.) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistic Society,1975b.
Fillmore, Charles J. Towards a Describtive Framework for Spacial Dexis [A], Jarvella R. J.& Klein W. (eds.). Speech, Place and Action:Studies in Dexis and Related Topics. New York:Weley,1982.
Fillmore, Charles J. Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of the Grammatical Construction. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
Fillmore, Charles J. Inversion and Constructional Inheritance [A]. In Webelhuth, G., J. P. Koenig, and A. Kathol (eds.). Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford, C A.:CSLI Publiations,1999.
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Ostman. Constructional Approaches to Language. Vol.2:Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2004.
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Ostman. Construction Grammar:A Thumbnail Sketch [A]. In Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Ostman (eds.). Constructional Approaches to Language [C]. Vol.2:Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2004.
Givon, T. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology:an archaeologist'field trip [J]. Chicago Linguistic Society,1971 (7):394.
Goddard, Cliff. On and On:Verbal Explications for a Polysemic Network. Cognitive Linguistics,13 (3),2002
Goldberg, Adele. E. Constructions:A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure [M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press,1995.
Goldberg, Adele. E. The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions [A]. In M. Vespoor, K. Lee & E. Sweester (eds.). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1997.
Goldberg, Adele. E. Argument Realization:The Role of Construction, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors [A]. In Ostman, Jan-Ola & M. Fried (eds.). The Hand book of English Linguisics. Malden, Mass:Blackwell,2005.
Goldberg, Adele. E. Constructions at work:the Nature of Generalization in Language [M]. OUP,2006.
Herskovits, Annette. Space and prepositions in English:Regularities and irregularities in a complex domain [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford University,1982.
Humboldt, Wilhelm. On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species [M],1836.(?)小平译,论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神的影响[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
Jackendoff, R.S. Semantic structure [M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1990.
Jackendoff,R.S. Semantics and Cognition [M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1983.
Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lakoff, George,& Mark Johnson. Metaphors We live By [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar:Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1987.
Langacker, Ronald W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2000
Levinson, Stephen C. From outer to inner space:Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In Nuyts & Pederson (eds.) Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Levinson, S. C. Space in Language and Cognition:Explorations in Cognitive Diversity [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
Levinson, S. C.& D. P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space:Explorations in Cognitive Diversity [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006.
Liu, Feng-his. A Clitic Analysis of Locative Particles [J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,1998,26 (1)
Miller, G. A and Johnson Laird, P.N.Language and Percetion [M]. Cambridge, M A:Harvard University Press,1976.
Nelson, K. Structure and Strategy in Learning to Talk [J]. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,38,1973 (Serial No.149)
Nanny, Max & Olga Fischer. Form Miming Meaning — Iconicity in Language and Culture [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Panther Klaus—Uwe & G, Radden. Metonymy in Language and Thought [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamin, 1999
Paul, J. Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization [M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Peirce, C. The Philosophy of Peirce [M]. T. Buchler (ed.). New York:Harcourt, Brace,1940.
Piaget, Jean. The Mechanism of Perception [M]. Translated by G. N. Seagrim. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1961.
Schank, R. C.& Abelson, R. P. Scripts, Plans, and Knowledge, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence [A]. CUP,1975.
Svorou, S. The Grammar of Space [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1994.
Turner, M. The Lterary Mind. OUP,1996.
Talmy, L. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences [A]. In J. H. Greenberg, et al. (eds.). Universals of Human Language [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1978, Vol,4.
Talmy, L. How Language Structures Space [A]. In Pink & L. Acredolo (eds.). Spacial Orientation:Theory, Research, and Application [M]. New York:Plenum Press,1983.
Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Thought [A]. In William H. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, and K. Peterson (eds.). Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1985.
Talmy, L. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition [J]. In Cognitive Science,12,1988.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol.Ⅱ:Typology and Process in Concept Structuring [M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,2000.
Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989.
Ungerer,F.,& Schmid, H.J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London:Addison Wesley Longman Limited,1996.
陈承泽.国文法草创[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982
储泽祥.现代汉语方所系统研究[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,1997a.
崔希亮.空间方位关系及其泛化形式的认知解释[A].见：中国语文杂志社编.语法研究和探索(十)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000a.
崔希亮.汉语空间方位场景与论元的凸显[J]世界汉语教学,2001,(4)
崔希亮.空间关系的类型学研究[J].汉语学习,2002,(1).
戴浩一(叶蜚声译).以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(上)[J].国外语言学,1990,(4)
戴浩一(叶蜚声译).以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议(下)[J].国外语言学,1991,(1)
方经民.地点域／方位域对立和汉语句法分析[J].语言科学,2004,(6)
方经民.汉语空间方位参照的认知结构[J].世界汉语教学,1999b,(4)
方经民.论方位参照的构成要素[J].中国语学(东京),1993.
方经民.论汉语空间方位参照的认知过程中的基本策略[J].中国语文,1999a,(1)
方经民.论汉语空间方位参照认知过程中的语义理解[A].见：面向新世纪挑战的现代汉语语法研究—98现代汉语语法学国际学术会议论文集[C].济南：山东教育出版社,2000.
方经民.现代汉语方位成分的分化和语法化[J].世界汉语教学,2004a,(2).
高远李福印.罗纳德·兰艾克认知语法十讲[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2007.
高远李福印.乔治·莱考夫认知语言学十讲[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2007.
龚千炎.中国语言学史稿[M].北京：语言出版社.
缑瑞隆.方位词“上”“下”的语义认知基础与对外汉语教学[J].语言文字应用,2004,(4)
《古代汉语词典》编写组.古代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998.
洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异极其对人类精神的影响[M].北京：世界图书出版公司,2008.
霍文琦.汉字是独一无二的视觉文字[J].北京：中国社会科学报,2012,(271)
蓝纯.从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
廖秋忠.空间方位词和方位参考点[J].中国语文,1989,(1)
黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1992.
李晋霞.刘云.从概念域看单音节方位词语法化的非匀质性[J].语言科学,2006,(4)
李讷.汤普森(黄宣范译).汉语语法(Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar) [M].台北：文鹤出版有限公司,1983。
李瑛.“上下”域方位隐喻初探[J].重庆交通学院学报(社科版),2002a,(3).
李瑛.“前后”域方位隐喻初探[J].四川教育学院学报,2002b,(7)
李瑛.“前后”方位隐喻义的拓展[J].西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004(2)
林语堂.《林语堂散文经典全集》(第一卷)[M].北京：九州出版社,1974.
林书武.《隐喻与象似性》简介[J].国外语言学,1995,(3)
刘丹青.方所题元的若干类型学参项[A].见：徐杰.汉语研究的类型学视角[G].北京：北京语言大学出版社,2005.
刘润清.《西方语言学流派》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
陆俭明.现代汉语语法研究教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
吕叔湘.汉语语法论文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1963.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集(第一卷中国文法要略)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990a.
吕叔湘.方位词使川情况的初步考察[A].见：吕叔湘,吕叔湘文集(第二卷汉语语法论文集)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990b.
马建忠.马氏文通[M].北京：商务印书馆,1983.
潘文国.杨白俭.英汉对比的理论与方法研究：共性·个性·视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2008.
齐沪杨.“N+在+处所+V”句式语义特征分析[J].汉语学习,1994(6)
齐沪杨.现代汉语空间问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,1999.
邱斌.汉语方位类词相关问题研究[M].上海：学林出版社,2008.
沈家炕.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究,200I(4)
石毓智.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2000.
束定芳.语言的认知研究—认知语言学论文精选[A].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
王祥荣.儿童语言中的“上”、“下”类方位词[J].安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000.
王寅.构式语法研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2011.
王寅.认知语言学[M].上海：上海外与教育出版社,2007.
王寅.认知语言学探索[M].重庆：重庆出版社,2005.
王寅.认知语言学的翻译观[J].中国翻译,2005(5)
谢信一(叶蜚声译).汉语中的时间和意象(上)[J].国外语言学,1991(4).
谢信一(叶蜚声译).汉语中的时间和意象(中)[J].国外语言学,1992a(1)
谢信一(叶蜚声译).汉语中的时间和意象(下)[J].国外语言学,1992b(3)
刑福义.时间方所[A].见：语法问题思索集[C].北京：北京语言学院出版社,1995.
刑福义.方位结构“X里”和“X中”[J].世界汉语教学,1996,(4)
绪可望.杨忠.客观主义、经验现实主义及辩证唯物主义认识论并语言观比较研究[J].外语学刊,2012(1)
绪可望.论认知隐喻观的理论阐释力[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(4)
徐盛桓.认知语言学研究的新视点[J].外语教学与研究,2002(5)
徐通锵.基础语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
徐通锵.汉语字本位语法导论[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2008.
杨伯峻 何乐士.古代汉语语法及其发展[M].北京：语文出版社,1992.
杨自俭 李瑞华编.吕叔湘.通过对比研究语法[A].汉英对比研究论文集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1990.
张辉.论空间概念在语言知识建构中的作用[J].解放军外语学院学报,1998,(1)
张世禄.先秦汉语方位词的语法功能[J].河北大学学报,1996,(1)
张学新.汉字拼义理论：心理学对汉字本质的新定性[J].广州：华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(4)
朱德熙.在香山语法会议上的发言[J].《语言文字应用》,1998,(1)
赵元任.汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏[A].赵元任语言学论文选,北京：商务印书馆,2002.
赵元任.汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏[A].中国现代语言学的开拓和发展：赵元任语言学论文选.北京：清华大学出版社,1992.
赵元任.汉语口语语法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1979.
邹韶华.现代汉语方位词的语法功能[J].中国语文,1984,(3)