基于主观性理论的汉语镜像成分句法和语义功能研究
|
摘要
汉语中存在大量的镜像换位成分，涉及方所、性状、否定和小句等等，它们可以围绕某一参照中心成分做前后镜像换位，如“在床上躺着”和“躺在床上”，“多给了”和“给多了”等等。对此现象，本文以Langacker的共时主观性理论为指导，同时辅以Traugott历时主观化理论、心理空间理论及语用学相关理论，对这四类成分因镜像换位而产生的主观性差异系统分析，探寻其在认知上的共性，并以此来解释镜像成分在换位前后的语义和句法表现。本文所用汉语语料主要来源于“北大语料库”和“语料库在线”及其它名家作品和参考文献用例，部分例句来自网络和内省。上述四类镜像换位成分中，“方所”和“性状”主要基于单纯的主观性范式，即以说话人为主要主观视角，而“否定”和“小句”则主要基于交互主观性范式，即以言听双方的认知互动为主观视角。
本文主要基于对镜像成分在不同位置所述谓的对象的不同而展开分析。在言语活动中，言听双方、言谈对象及言谈内容构成了言语事件的三个必要元素。依据Langacker(1987)，世界的事体（entity）分为两类：具有概念独立特征的“事物（thing）”和概念依存特征的“关系（relationships）”，“关系”是以“事物”的存在为前提的，是对“事物”的述谓，因此，言语事件中的每一个述谓成分都有其述谓的对象，该对象或者为言谈对象（目标物），或者为说话人。基于这一思路，通过对“方所”、“性状”、“否定”和“小句”四类镜像成分在换位前后所分别述谓的对象进行分析，寻找其语义差异，以此来证明其在不同位置上的主观性差异，并根据主观性的差异分析镜像成分在不同位置上的语义特征及句法表现。此外，本文还就“方所”、“性状”和“否定”三个成分进行了历时考查，以期从语言演变的视角论证成分在历时主观化过程中发生的句法位置的变动，达到共时分析和历时研究的相互补充。
总体而言，四类镜像成分在参照中心成分后的位置均表现为对具体实体或事件的述谓，而在参照中心成分前的位置均表现为对说话人的述谓、或是以说话人为概念参照而实现对某个实体的述谓。前者的语义较具体，更多地体现了指称或描述功能，具有客观性；后者的语义较抽象，通常体现的是言者表述功能，其指称性减弱而主观性增强。因此，文章总体的结论是：镜像成分在参照中心成分的左端所产生的主观性要高于其在右端的主观性。按照Langacker的“入场”理论模型，我们说，镜像成分“左置”体现的是说话人“域”内观察，而“右置”体现的是“域”外观察。藉此，文章对这些不同范畴的这一句法现象提出了统一的解释。
一、方所成分的镜像换位以“在+方所”和“向+方所”最为典型。由于方所成分所在的构式通常体现的是位移事件，因此，文章以视角主观性为切入点，将方所成分的表达分为“内部观察”和“外部观察”两种视角，并结合人们在位移事件中的观察机制，在每种观察视角内又分“由内向外”和“由外向内”两种观察方式，并据此对动前式和动后式的“在+方所”的语义特征和句法表现进行了分析，发现它们在[过程性]、[完成性]、[致使性]和[有界性]、[附着性]上存在系统的对立。此外，动前式的“在+方所”成分可以进行焦点化、可以作为言者的移情对象；而动式后的处所成分的及物性要高于动前式的及物性。在语篇方面，动前式的后续句一般是对动作行为的进一步详述，而动后式的后续句则是对该处所发生的其它动作的详述。同样，“向+方所”结构的动前式和动后式亦在[位移性]、[方向性]、[接触性]、[单音节]、[时段]和[主观参照]等维度表现出系统性的差异。
二、性状成分的镜像换位以“状－定”换位和“状－补”换位为常。在“状－定”换位中，状语性状是对性状的突显，强调其对说话人的认知意义和重要性，而定语性状则是对其宿主客观属性的描写，其性状本身并不突显。据此，文章给出了定语句和状语句的构式义，并分析了状语性状固有的隐性语义条件和增强性状突显的显性操作手段。状语句和定语句在主观性上的差异可以解释其在谓语结构、宾语结构、时体特征、疑问化、否定等维度上的不同。同样，在“状－补”换位中，状语性状是对说话人的述谓，而补语性状是对客观情状的述谓，这导致它们在形态组配、量性特征、句法和情态等方面存在明显的对立。
三、在否定成分的镜像换位中，由于否定词“没（有）”具有空间建构功能，本质上体现的是言听双方在认知空间上的协调，因而比“不”具有更高的（交互）主观性，由此导致“没（有）”在语用的礼貌表现和语篇连贯等维度同“不”表现出对立。由于“不”的主观性程度较低，或者说主要体现了客观性，这使得它可以通过“主－从”换位的句法手段，由从句位置前移至主句位置而不改变其语义并达到增强主观性的效果；而“没（有）”因其本质上的强主观性而不具有这一潜能。
四、在小句的镜像换位中，句首从句和句尾从句在“内部特征”和“外部特征”两个维度的六个方面表现出对立，句首从句更多地体现了言听双方的认知互动，因而更容易实现宏观上的语篇连贯，而句尾从句则只是对其前面主句的概念延续，具有微观层面上的局部功能。同时，主从句主语的一致性与否及关联词在主语前后位置的不同亦影响主观性的差异。文章以因果复句为例对这一主观性现象进行了分析，对表因连接词“因为”、“由于”和“既然”所引导的小句在镜像换位上的不同表现给出了合理的解释。“因为”是对说话人的显性编码、“由于”是对说话人和听话人的隐性编码、而“既然”则是对说话人和听话人显性编码。由此导致三者中，“由于”小句的主观性要高于“既然”小句，“因为”小句的主观性程度最低。
镜像成分主观性“左置”的倾向是一种转喻认知机制作用的结果。其历时演变机制则表明主观性源于客观性，客观性蕴含主观性这一现象。成分主观性与句法位置的嬗变说明，汉语在主观化演变中符合VO语言的演变特征，同时也表明汉语是个强主观性语言。
Modern Chinese contains a large body of elements that can swap around acertain reference center, such as “Ta zai chuangshang tangzhe (On the bed he islying)” and “Ta tang zai chuangshang(He is lying on the bed)”,“duo geile(toomuch has been given)” and “gei duole(has given too much)”(herein the phrase“zai chuangshang” switches around “tang”, the reference center, and duo aroundgei), We call these elements “mirror elements” or “mirror expressions” as theyhave two possible positional variants and thus form a mirror image to each other. Therather unwieldy number of these mirror expressions in modern Chinese crosscutdifferent grammatical categories such as locative phrases, qualitative phrases,negatives and clauses. This makes it a good enough reason for us to make an attemptto find out the cognitive principle that can ultimately account for all these phenomena.
With Langacker’s synchronic model of subjectivity as rationale, complementedby mental space and pragmatic theory, especially Traugott’s diachronic paradiagm onsubjectification, the current study centers on the subjectivity differences of thesemirror expressions when positioned at alternate places, aiming to find out their sharedcognitive mechanism, and to shed light on their semantic and syntactic implications.
As a speech event usually comprises three elements,1) speech participants, i.e.,speaker and addressee(s),2) the speech setting, i.e., the place, time, and circumstancesin which the speech event takes place, and3) speech proper, i.e., the linguisticexpression itself, any predication should therefore have an entity as its target to bepredicated upon. This entity can either be an object in the external world andmaterialized as a sentence argument or relation, or the speaker themselves. That is tosay, an expression may in one circumstance be predicative of the concrete object inthe world, and in another predicative of the speaker. Following this line of thinking,the current study approaches the above-mentioned four mirror categories to see whatentity they are predicative of at mirroring positions, which can then be taken asevidence for their subjectivity or objectivity. By so doing, we can give a thorough analysis and explanation of the mirror expressions’ semantic and syntactic variation.
The study proves that the four kinds of mirror expressions, taken as a whole, arepredicative of the concrete objects or relations in the external world (which usuallyare realized as sentence elements) when positioned at the right side of the referencecenter, and the speaker (or take the speaker as the conceptual reference for predicatingother objects) when at the left. The right position accords the mirror expressions witha concrete content meaning which is mainly for referring and describing an objectivething or relation specified in the sentence itself, whereas the left position is capable ofimposing an abstract meaning on, and thus the speaker’s expressive connotation of,the position-shifted expressions, making them more reflective of the speaker’sperspective in viewing the scene. Therefore, the mirror expressions are moresubjective at the left side of the reference center (left positioning) than at the right side(right positioning). In line with Langacker’s “grounding” model, the paper claimsthat the left positioning specifies people’s domain-in viewing, thus more subjective;while the right positioning shows speaker’s domain-out viewing, thus more objective.This is what the four kinds of mirror expressions have in common.
Chapter3discusses the mirroring phenomena of locative phrases, with“zai(at)+locative noun” and “xiang(towards)+locative noun” as typicalconstructions. As the locative constructions usually appear in a motion event, whichalways reflects a locutionary agent’s advantage point in viewing it, the paper thusdistinguishes two kinds of viewing perspectives, that is, the domain-in anddomain-out perspectives, and within each viewing perspective are the two ways ofviewing strategy, i.e., the “core-out” strategy and the “out-in”strategy1. Thisclassification actually can accomodate all uses of “zai+locative noun”constructions and, accordingly, their meaning differences at the alternate positions(hence pre-verb construction and post-verb construction) can be explained in terms ofthe parameters of “process”,“perfective”,“causative” for the verb, and“boundedness” and “adhesiveness” for the arguments. Besides, the pre-verb construction also bears other special characteristics, such as being focused on with thehelp of additional adverbial particles, showing a speaker’s empathy, and having alow degree of transitivity, which are in contrast with post-verb constructions. On thediscourse level, the sentence following the pre-verb construction is mostly the furtherdevelopment of the action expressed by the verb (the reference center), and thesentence coming after the post-verb construction denotes a new action taking place atthat location.
Construction “xiang+locative noun” also shows similar qualities with that of“zai+locative noun”. The pre-verb and post-verb constructions also showdifferences in the dimensions of “movement”,“direction”,“touchability”,“syllabic length”,“time stretch” and “speaker-reference”.
Chapter4examines the mirroring expressions of qualitative phrases, especiallythe switching between “adverbials” and “attributives”, and that between“adverbials” and “complements”. In the mirror image between “adverbials”and “attributives”, the adverbial qualitatives gain a prominent cognitive positionfor speaker, therefore more subjective, while the attributive qualitatives merelymodify their head nouns, without any salience in itself, therefore objective. This leadsto their differences on the constructional meaning, with the adverbial qualitativesfocusing mainly on their salience for the speaker at the speech event, which is whatthe attributive qualitatives lack. The adverbial position (i.e., pre-verb position)demands some implicit morphological and semantic requirements for thosequalitatives that would appear in this position; however, with its subjective character,some poorly-made adverbial qualitatives can also meet these constructionalrequirements by some explicit sentential operations. The subjectivity differencebetween adverbials and attributives can help us account for their differences in thepredicate and object structure, aspect character, interrogating and negating variance,etc.
The switching between “adverbials” and “complements” also shows thatthe adverbials qualitatives are predicative of the speaker while the complements are predicative of the objective situation. This results in their differences in themorphological structures, quantitative characters, syntax and emotional dimensions.
Chapter5expounds the subjectivity of negatives “bu” and “mei(you)”, aswell as their potential to appear at different positions. It was proved that “mei(you)”,with its space-building character and explicit attention to the attitude and cognitivestatus of addressee(s), gains more and more (inter)subjectivity than “bu”, whichpays more attention to the lack of a certain quality by the topic referent.“Mei(you)”,therefore, can act as downtoner showing a speaker’s politeness in negating and amove toward making cognitive alignment with the interlocutor. While in negating aviewpoint,“mei(you)” tends to be more likely to make a coherent discourse than“bu”, which, with its low degree of subjectivity, shows the potential to undergofuther subjectification by moving from complement position to main clause position,a movement which “mei(you)” lacks, for it has achieved extreme subjectification,any moving toward the left main clause would make meaning superfluous.
Chapter6studies the shifting phenomena of adverbial clauses. It demonstratesthat the adverbial clauses preceding the main clauses (i.e., initial clauses) are differentfrom their counterparts following the main clauses (i.e., final clauses) in terms of sixparameters. The initial clauses are characterized by1) their allowance of onlydeclarative sentences;2) not to be taken as sentence focus;3) being harmonious withsubjective discourse markers,4) not to be included within the illocutionary force ofmain clauses,5)the optional characteristics of its pre-clause conjunctions, and6) theirbeing able to be fleshed out by further information. All these parameters make theinitial clauses distinct constructions that show the cognitive coordination between thespeaker and addressee, thus being able to function as discourse organizer, while thefinal clauses only have local function to provide further information for the precedingmain clauses. In other words, the initial clauses are predicative of the speaker andaddressee(s), while the final clauses are predicative of the preceding main clauses.This finding is verified by a case study of causal clauses. As there are mainly threecausal connectives in Chinese,“Yinwei”,“Jiran” and “Youyu”, they show quite different distributional patterns when marking clauses. Clauses introduced byconjunctions “yinwei” and “jiran” can appear sentence-initially and finally,while clauses marked by “youyu” can only appear sentence-initially. Thisphenomenon is motivated by their semantic differences and the characteristics thethree linkers bear in encoding the “Ground”. It is proved that “yinwei” explicitlyencodes the speaker himself,“youyu” implicitly encodes the speaker and addressee,and “jiran” is the explicit encoding of the speaker and addressee. Therefore, inaccordance with Traugott’s subjectification theory and Langacker’s subjectivity theory,“youyu” has the highest degree of subjectivity, which is followed by “jiran”,with “yinwei” the lowest degree of subjectivity. This can explain their varyingperformance and frequency in the initial and final positions of sentences.
It is based on the analysis of the afore-mentioned four mirror expressions that thepaper comes to the conclusion that the left-positioning expressions are moresubjective than their right-positioning counterparts. This finding can give a systematicexplanation to the semantic and syntactic variants of these mirror expressions. Themotivation behind these expressions is the mytonymic cognition in that the part isused to stand for the whole within a scene, for the diachronic development of somemirror expressions show that the subjective uses (domain-in viewing) come after theobjective meaning (domain-out viewing). As was hypothesized by Adamson(2000)and Traugott (2010) that the subjectified elements tend to move towards the leftperiphery of a sentence in VO languages and right in OV languages, theabove-analyzed mirroring expressions prove once again that the modern Chinese is atypical VO language with strong subjectivity.
本文主要基于对镜像成分在不同位置所述谓的对象的不同而展开分析。在言语活动中，言听双方、言谈对象及言谈内容构成了言语事件的三个必要元素。依据Langacker(1987)，世界的事体（entity）分为两类：具有概念独立特征的“事物（thing）”和概念依存特征的“关系（relationships）”，“关系”是以“事物”的存在为前提的，是对“事物”的述谓，因此，言语事件中的每一个述谓成分都有其述谓的对象，该对象或者为言谈对象（目标物），或者为说话人。基于这一思路，通过对“方所”、“性状”、“否定”和“小句”四类镜像成分在换位前后所分别述谓的对象进行分析，寻找其语义差异，以此来证明其在不同位置上的主观性差异，并根据主观性的差异分析镜像成分在不同位置上的语义特征及句法表现。此外，本文还就“方所”、“性状”和“否定”三个成分进行了历时考查，以期从语言演变的视角论证成分在历时主观化过程中发生的句法位置的变动，达到共时分析和历时研究的相互补充。
总体而言，四类镜像成分在参照中心成分后的位置均表现为对具体实体或事件的述谓，而在参照中心成分前的位置均表现为对说话人的述谓、或是以说话人为概念参照而实现对某个实体的述谓。前者的语义较具体，更多地体现了指称或描述功能，具有客观性；后者的语义较抽象，通常体现的是言者表述功能，其指称性减弱而主观性增强。因此，文章总体的结论是：镜像成分在参照中心成分的左端所产生的主观性要高于其在右端的主观性。按照Langacker的“入场”理论模型，我们说，镜像成分“左置”体现的是说话人“域”内观察，而“右置”体现的是“域”外观察。藉此，文章对这些不同范畴的这一句法现象提出了统一的解释。
一、方所成分的镜像换位以“在+方所”和“向+方所”最为典型。由于方所成分所在的构式通常体现的是位移事件，因此，文章以视角主观性为切入点，将方所成分的表达分为“内部观察”和“外部观察”两种视角，并结合人们在位移事件中的观察机制，在每种观察视角内又分“由内向外”和“由外向内”两种观察方式，并据此对动前式和动后式的“在+方所”的语义特征和句法表现进行了分析，发现它们在[过程性]、[完成性]、[致使性]和[有界性]、[附着性]上存在系统的对立。此外，动前式的“在+方所”成分可以进行焦点化、可以作为言者的移情对象；而动式后的处所成分的及物性要高于动前式的及物性。在语篇方面，动前式的后续句一般是对动作行为的进一步详述，而动后式的后续句则是对该处所发生的其它动作的详述。同样，“向+方所”结构的动前式和动后式亦在[位移性]、[方向性]、[接触性]、[单音节]、[时段]和[主观参照]等维度表现出系统性的差异。
二、性状成分的镜像换位以“状－定”换位和“状－补”换位为常。在“状－定”换位中，状语性状是对性状的突显，强调其对说话人的认知意义和重要性，而定语性状则是对其宿主客观属性的描写，其性状本身并不突显。据此，文章给出了定语句和状语句的构式义，并分析了状语性状固有的隐性语义条件和增强性状突显的显性操作手段。状语句和定语句在主观性上的差异可以解释其在谓语结构、宾语结构、时体特征、疑问化、否定等维度上的不同。同样，在“状－补”换位中，状语性状是对说话人的述谓，而补语性状是对客观情状的述谓，这导致它们在形态组配、量性特征、句法和情态等方面存在明显的对立。
三、在否定成分的镜像换位中，由于否定词“没（有）”具有空间建构功能，本质上体现的是言听双方在认知空间上的协调，因而比“不”具有更高的（交互）主观性，由此导致“没（有）”在语用的礼貌表现和语篇连贯等维度同“不”表现出对立。由于“不”的主观性程度较低，或者说主要体现了客观性，这使得它可以通过“主－从”换位的句法手段，由从句位置前移至主句位置而不改变其语义并达到增强主观性的效果；而“没（有）”因其本质上的强主观性而不具有这一潜能。
四、在小句的镜像换位中，句首从句和句尾从句在“内部特征”和“外部特征”两个维度的六个方面表现出对立，句首从句更多地体现了言听双方的认知互动，因而更容易实现宏观上的语篇连贯，而句尾从句则只是对其前面主句的概念延续，具有微观层面上的局部功能。同时，主从句主语的一致性与否及关联词在主语前后位置的不同亦影响主观性的差异。文章以因果复句为例对这一主观性现象进行了分析，对表因连接词“因为”、“由于”和“既然”所引导的小句在镜像换位上的不同表现给出了合理的解释。“因为”是对说话人的显性编码、“由于”是对说话人和听话人的隐性编码、而“既然”则是对说话人和听话人显性编码。由此导致三者中，“由于”小句的主观性要高于“既然”小句，“因为”小句的主观性程度最低。
镜像成分主观性“左置”的倾向是一种转喻认知机制作用的结果。其历时演变机制则表明主观性源于客观性，客观性蕴含主观性这一现象。成分主观性与句法位置的嬗变说明，汉语在主观化演变中符合VO语言的演变特征，同时也表明汉语是个强主观性语言。
Modern Chinese contains a large body of elements that can swap around acertain reference center, such as “Ta zai chuangshang tangzhe (On the bed he islying)” and “Ta tang zai chuangshang(He is lying on the bed)”,“duo geile(toomuch has been given)” and “gei duole(has given too much)”(herein the phrase“zai chuangshang” switches around “tang”, the reference center, and duo aroundgei), We call these elements “mirror elements” or “mirror expressions” as theyhave two possible positional variants and thus form a mirror image to each other. Therather unwieldy number of these mirror expressions in modern Chinese crosscutdifferent grammatical categories such as locative phrases, qualitative phrases,negatives and clauses. This makes it a good enough reason for us to make an attemptto find out the cognitive principle that can ultimately account for all these phenomena.
With Langacker’s synchronic model of subjectivity as rationale, complementedby mental space and pragmatic theory, especially Traugott’s diachronic paradiagm onsubjectification, the current study centers on the subjectivity differences of thesemirror expressions when positioned at alternate places, aiming to find out their sharedcognitive mechanism, and to shed light on their semantic and syntactic implications.
As a speech event usually comprises three elements,1) speech participants, i.e.,speaker and addressee(s),2) the speech setting, i.e., the place, time, and circumstancesin which the speech event takes place, and3) speech proper, i.e., the linguisticexpression itself, any predication should therefore have an entity as its target to bepredicated upon. This entity can either be an object in the external world andmaterialized as a sentence argument or relation, or the speaker themselves. That is tosay, an expression may in one circumstance be predicative of the concrete object inthe world, and in another predicative of the speaker. Following this line of thinking,the current study approaches the above-mentioned four mirror categories to see whatentity they are predicative of at mirroring positions, which can then be taken asevidence for their subjectivity or objectivity. By so doing, we can give a thorough analysis and explanation of the mirror expressions’ semantic and syntactic variation.
The study proves that the four kinds of mirror expressions, taken as a whole, arepredicative of the concrete objects or relations in the external world (which usuallyare realized as sentence elements) when positioned at the right side of the referencecenter, and the speaker (or take the speaker as the conceptual reference for predicatingother objects) when at the left. The right position accords the mirror expressions witha concrete content meaning which is mainly for referring and describing an objectivething or relation specified in the sentence itself, whereas the left position is capable ofimposing an abstract meaning on, and thus the speaker’s expressive connotation of,the position-shifted expressions, making them more reflective of the speaker’sperspective in viewing the scene. Therefore, the mirror expressions are moresubjective at the left side of the reference center (left positioning) than at the right side(right positioning). In line with Langacker’s “grounding” model, the paper claimsthat the left positioning specifies people’s domain-in viewing, thus more subjective;while the right positioning shows speaker’s domain-out viewing, thus more objective.This is what the four kinds of mirror expressions have in common.
Chapter3discusses the mirroring phenomena of locative phrases, with“zai(at)+locative noun” and “xiang(towards)+locative noun” as typicalconstructions. As the locative constructions usually appear in a motion event, whichalways reflects a locutionary agent’s advantage point in viewing it, the paper thusdistinguishes two kinds of viewing perspectives, that is, the domain-in anddomain-out perspectives, and within each viewing perspective are the two ways ofviewing strategy, i.e., the “core-out” strategy and the “out-in”strategy1. Thisclassification actually can accomodate all uses of “zai+locative noun”constructions and, accordingly, their meaning differences at the alternate positions(hence pre-verb construction and post-verb construction) can be explained in terms ofthe parameters of “process”,“perfective”,“causative” for the verb, and“boundedness” and “adhesiveness” for the arguments. Besides, the pre-verb construction also bears other special characteristics, such as being focused on with thehelp of additional adverbial particles, showing a speaker’s empathy, and having alow degree of transitivity, which are in contrast with post-verb constructions. On thediscourse level, the sentence following the pre-verb construction is mostly the furtherdevelopment of the action expressed by the verb (the reference center), and thesentence coming after the post-verb construction denotes a new action taking place atthat location.
Construction “xiang+locative noun” also shows similar qualities with that of“zai+locative noun”. The pre-verb and post-verb constructions also showdifferences in the dimensions of “movement”,“direction”,“touchability”,“syllabic length”,“time stretch” and “speaker-reference”.
Chapter4examines the mirroring expressions of qualitative phrases, especiallythe switching between “adverbials” and “attributives”, and that between“adverbials” and “complements”. In the mirror image between “adverbials”and “attributives”, the adverbial qualitatives gain a prominent cognitive positionfor speaker, therefore more subjective, while the attributive qualitatives merelymodify their head nouns, without any salience in itself, therefore objective. This leadsto their differences on the constructional meaning, with the adverbial qualitativesfocusing mainly on their salience for the speaker at the speech event, which is whatthe attributive qualitatives lack. The adverbial position (i.e., pre-verb position)demands some implicit morphological and semantic requirements for thosequalitatives that would appear in this position; however, with its subjective character,some poorly-made adverbial qualitatives can also meet these constructionalrequirements by some explicit sentential operations. The subjectivity differencebetween adverbials and attributives can help us account for their differences in thepredicate and object structure, aspect character, interrogating and negating variance,etc.
The switching between “adverbials” and “complements” also shows thatthe adverbials qualitatives are predicative of the speaker while the complements are predicative of the objective situation. This results in their differences in themorphological structures, quantitative characters, syntax and emotional dimensions.
Chapter5expounds the subjectivity of negatives “bu” and “mei(you)”, aswell as their potential to appear at different positions. It was proved that “mei(you)”,with its space-building character and explicit attention to the attitude and cognitivestatus of addressee(s), gains more and more (inter)subjectivity than “bu”, whichpays more attention to the lack of a certain quality by the topic referent.“Mei(you)”,therefore, can act as downtoner showing a speaker’s politeness in negating and amove toward making cognitive alignment with the interlocutor. While in negating aviewpoint,“mei(you)” tends to be more likely to make a coherent discourse than“bu”, which, with its low degree of subjectivity, shows the potential to undergofuther subjectification by moving from complement position to main clause position,a movement which “mei(you)” lacks, for it has achieved extreme subjectification,any moving toward the left main clause would make meaning superfluous.
Chapter6studies the shifting phenomena of adverbial clauses. It demonstratesthat the adverbial clauses preceding the main clauses (i.e., initial clauses) are differentfrom their counterparts following the main clauses (i.e., final clauses) in terms of sixparameters. The initial clauses are characterized by1) their allowance of onlydeclarative sentences;2) not to be taken as sentence focus;3) being harmonious withsubjective discourse markers,4) not to be included within the illocutionary force ofmain clauses,5)the optional characteristics of its pre-clause conjunctions, and6) theirbeing able to be fleshed out by further information. All these parameters make theinitial clauses distinct constructions that show the cognitive coordination between thespeaker and addressee, thus being able to function as discourse organizer, while thefinal clauses only have local function to provide further information for the precedingmain clauses. In other words, the initial clauses are predicative of the speaker andaddressee(s), while the final clauses are predicative of the preceding main clauses.This finding is verified by a case study of causal clauses. As there are mainly threecausal connectives in Chinese,“Yinwei”,“Jiran” and “Youyu”, they show quite different distributional patterns when marking clauses. Clauses introduced byconjunctions “yinwei” and “jiran” can appear sentence-initially and finally,while clauses marked by “youyu” can only appear sentence-initially. Thisphenomenon is motivated by their semantic differences and the characteristics thethree linkers bear in encoding the “Ground”. It is proved that “yinwei” explicitlyencodes the speaker himself,“youyu” implicitly encodes the speaker and addressee,and “jiran” is the explicit encoding of the speaker and addressee. Therefore, inaccordance with Traugott’s subjectification theory and Langacker’s subjectivity theory,“youyu” has the highest degree of subjectivity, which is followed by “jiran”,with “yinwei” the lowest degree of subjectivity. This can explain their varyingperformance and frequency in the initial and final positions of sentences.
It is based on the analysis of the afore-mentioned four mirror expressions that thepaper comes to the conclusion that the left-positioning expressions are moresubjective than their right-positioning counterparts. This finding can give a systematicexplanation to the semantic and syntactic variants of these mirror expressions. Themotivation behind these expressions is the mytonymic cognition in that the part isused to stand for the whole within a scene, for the diachronic development of somemirror expressions show that the subjective uses (domain-in viewing) come after theobjective meaning (domain-out viewing). As was hypothesized by Adamson(2000)and Traugott (2010) that the subjectified elements tend to move towards the leftperiphery of a sentence in VO languages and right in OV languages, theabove-analyzed mirroring expressions prove once again that the modern Chinese is atypical VO language with strong subjectivity.
引文
Adamson, S.2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift inthe premodifying string[A]. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization inEnglish[C], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein(eds.),Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins,39-66.
Adamson, S.&González-Diáz, V.2005.“And I were your very very Rosalind”: therole of hyperbole in the grammaticalisation of intensifiers. Paper presentedat FITIGRA (From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives fromGrammaticalization), Leuven,10–12February2005.
Athanasiadou, A., C. Canakis, and B. Cornillie (eds.).2006. Subjectification: VariousPaths to Subjectivity[C].Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin,J.L.1962. How to Do Things with Words[M]. Oxford: OUP.
Bache, C.2000. Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar[M].Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.(eds.).2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A CognitivePerspective[C]. Berlin&New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona,A.2006. Metonymy in meaning and form, with special attention to its rolein lexical semantic change[A]. In J. G. Vázquez González, M. Vázquez,&P.Ron Vaz, eds., The Historical Linguistics-Cognitive Linguistics Interface,19-57. Huelva: University of Huelva.
Barcelona,A.2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form：The roles ofmetonymy and inference[A]. in Klaus-Uwe Panther,Linda L.Thornburg,Antonio Barcelona (eds), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar.John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beaugrande, R. de.1980. Text, Discourse, and Process. Towards a MultidisciplinaryScience of Texts[M]. London: Longman.
Benveniste,1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics[J].223-230. Trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL: University ofMiami Press.
Bolinger, D.1952. Linear modification.[J]. Publications of the modern languageassociation of America67:1117-1144.
Bolinger, D.1977. The form of language[M]. London: Longmans.
Bolinger, D.1989. Intonation and its Uses[M]. Stanford University Press.
Brdar,M. Metonymies we live without[A]., in Metonymy and Metaphor inGrammar[C]. Klaus-Uwe Panther,Linda L. Thornburg,Antonio Barcelona(eds),John Benjamins Publishing Company
Breban, T.2010. English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and GrammaticalizedUses[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Breivik E. L. and A. E. Mart nez-Insua.2008. Grammaticalization, Subjectificationand Non-Concord in English Existential Sentences[J]. English Studies, Vol.89, No.3:351-362.
Bright, W.1992. International encyclopedia of linguistics. OUP.
Brisard, F.2002. Grounding: The epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference[C].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F.2006. Logic, subjectivity, and the semantics/pragmatics distinction[A]. InAthanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds. Subjectification: Various path tosubjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Briton, L. J.1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and DiscourseFunction[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Broccias, C.&W. B. Hollann.2007. Do we need summary and sequential scanning in(Cognitive) grammar?[J]. Cognitive Linguistics18–4(2007),487–522.
Brown, P, Levinson, S.n C.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use[M].Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World[M]. Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press.
Bybee, J.2011. Markedness: Iconicity, Economy, and Frequency[J]. In The OxfordHandbook of Linguistic Typology. Jae Jung, Song(ed). OUP.2011.
Bybee. J.1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning andForm[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Campbell,L.2001. What’s wrong with Grammaticalization?[J]. Language Sciences.23:113-161
Carston, R.1996. Mtealinguistic negation and echoic use[M]. Journal of Pragmatics.25(3):309-330.
Chafe, W. L.&Johanna Nicholas.1998. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Bridging theGap [C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Chafe，W.1984. How people use adverbial clauses[M]. Berkley Linguistic Society10，437－449.
Chao, Y. R.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.
Charolles，M.2005. Framing adverbials and their role in discourse cohesion: Fromconnection to forward labeling[J]. Paper presented for the Symposium onthe Exploration and Modelling of Meaning，Biarritz.
Chen, Chungyu,1978. Aspectual features of the verb and the relative position of thelocatives[J]. JCL (中国语言学报)6.1:76-103.
Clark, H.1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conception Company Company.2006. Zero in syntax, ten in pragmatics:Subjectification as syntactic cancellation[A]. In Athanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds. Subjectification: Various path to subjectivity.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in TypologicalPerspective[M]. OUP.
Croft,W.&Cruse,2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
Crompton, P.2006. The effect of position on the discourse scope of adverbials[J].Text&Talk,245-279.
Dancygier，B.＆E. Sweetser.2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: ConditionalConstructions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier，B.＆E. Sweetser.1996. Conditionals，distancing，and alternativespaces[A]. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.)，Conceptual Structure，Discourse andLanguage，83－98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
De Smet, Hendrik and Jean-Christophe Verstraete.2006. Coming to terms withsubjectivity[J]. Cognitive Linguistics17:365-392.
Denison, D.2005. History of the Sort of Construction Family[OL]. Paper presented atthe Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki,6–8September2002.http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/SubjectAreas/LinguisticsEnglishLanguage/AcademicStaff/DavidDenison.
Dewell, B. R.2007. Moving around: The role of the conceptualizer in semanticinterpretation[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.18–3,383–415.
Diessel， H.2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: Atypological study[J]. Language77.3，433－455.
Diessel, H.2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbialclauses[J]. Linguistics,43–3(2005),449–470.
Diessel, H.2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar[J].Cognitive Linguistics,463-489.
Dik, S.C.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar[M]. Berlin&New York: Moutonde Gruyter.
Dixon, R.1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays inSemantics and Syntax[M]. Berlin: Mouton.
Evans, V. and M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction[M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G.2008. Mappings in Thought and Language[M].世界图书出版公司.
Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in NaturalLanguage[M].CUP.
Finegan, E.1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction[A]. In Stein&Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation[C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Foley,A. W.2007. Typology of information packaging in the clause[A]. In TimothyShopen,(ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description.(Secondedition) Volume I: Clause Structure.2007. Cambridge University Press
Geeraerts， D. and H. Cuyckens.2007. The Oxford Handbook of CognitiveLinguistics[M]. Oxford University Press.
Ghesquière, L.2010. On the subjectification and intersubjectification paths followedby the adjectives of completeness[A]. In Subjectification,intersubjectification and grammaticalization[C]. Davidse, K., LievenVandelanotte, Hubert Cuyckens (ed.). Walter de Gruyter.
Givón, T.2001. Syntax I&II: An introduction[M]. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Goldberg, A.1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure [M]. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.&R.Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning[M]. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M].2nd ed. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Edward Arnoldlimited.
Haspelmath,M.2003. Coordinating constructions: An overview[J],in CoordinatingConstructions[C],Martin Haspelmath (eds).John Benjamins PublishingCompany:Amsterdam/Philadelphia,2003.
Hawkins,J. A.1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hetzron, R.1978. On the relative order of adjectives[A]. In Language Universals,Hansjakob Seiler (ed.),165-184. Tübingen: Narr.
Haiman, J.1985. Iconicity in syntax[M]. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper,J. P.&Elizabeth Closs Traugott.2003. Grammaticalization[M]. CUP.
Horn, L. R.1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity[J]. Language,61(1):121-174.
Israeli, A.1997. Semantics and Pragmatics of the "Reflexive" Verbs in Russian[M].München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Iwasaki, S.1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse[M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, Ray S.1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts[M]:MIT Press.
Jespersen, O.1917. Negation in English and other Languages[A]. In SelectedWritings of Otto Jespersen, London: Allen&Unwin.
Jose, M. G.2007. Clause Structure and Transitivity[A]. in The Oxford Handbook ofCognitive Linguistics,Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). OxfordUniversity Press.
Kittll, S.2011. Transitivity Typology[A]. In The Oxford Handbook of Typology.Oxford: OUP,2011.
Kuno, S.1977. Empathy and Syntax[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, vol.8. pp.627-672.
Lakoff G.1987. Women Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal aboutthe Mind[M]. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.&M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live By[M]. University of ChicagoPress,
Lakoff, G.&M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh――the embodied mind andits challenge to the western thoughts[M]. New York: Basic books.
Lambrecht, K.1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and themental representation of discourse referents[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Vols.I/II.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990a. Subjectification[J]. Cognitive Linguistics1:5238.
Langacker, R. W.1990b. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis ofgrammar[M].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1995Subjectification in grammaticalisation[A]. In Stein, Dieter andSusan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. LinguisticPerspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,31-54.
Langacker, R. W.1999a. On subjectification and grammaticization[A]. InJ.P.Koenig(ed.). Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford:CSLIPublications:1-89.
Langacker, R. W.1999b."Losing Control: Grammaticization, Subjectification, andTransparency"[A]. Historical Semantics and Cognition ed. by AndreasBlank&Peter Koch,147-175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R, W.1998. On subjectification and grammaticalization. In Discourse andCognition: Bridging the Gap, Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.).71-89. Stanford:CSLI.
Langacker, R, W.2002a ''Deixis and subjectivity''[A]. In Grounding: The EpistemicFooting of Deixis and Reference[C], Frank Brisard(ed.). Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-28.
Langacker, R, W.2002b ''Remarks on the English grounding systems''[A]. InGrounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference[C], FrankBrisard(ed.). Berlin/New York:29-38.
Langacker, R, W.2004. Remarks on nominal grounding[J], Functions of Language,John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, R, W.2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptualarchetypes[A]. In Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C.&Cornillie, B.(eds.).2006.Subjectification: Various paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton.
Langacker, R, W.2007. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction[M]. OxfordUniversity Press.
Langacker, R. W.2009a. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
Langacker,R, W.2009b. Metonymic grammar[A]. in Metonymy and Metaphor inGrammar,Klaus-Uwe Panther,Linda L. Thornburg,Antonio Barcelona(eds.)John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levinson, C. S.2001. Pragmatics [M].外语教学与研究出版社.
Levinson,S.C.2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in CognitiveDiversity[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press.
Li, C.&T. A. Thompson.1989. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional ReferenceGrammar[M]. University of California Press.
Light, T.1979. Word order and word order change in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Journal ofChinese Linguistics. No.7.2.149-180
Lyons John.1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge UniversityPress.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Longor, ergo sum?[A]. In R.J. Jarvella&W.K l ein(eds.). Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and RelatedTopics [C]. New York: John Wiley,101-124.
Maldonado,R.2007. Grammatical Voice in Cognitive Grammar[A]. In: D. Geeraertsand H. Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Michaelis,L. A.2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approachto aspectual coercion[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.
Michaelis,L. A.2005.Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax[A].In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and TheoreticalExtensions[C], ǒstman, Jan-Ola&M. Fried (eds.). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,
Mithun, M.1995. Morphological and prosodic forces shaping word order[A]. in P.Downing and M. Noonan(eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
N ss,.2007. Prototypical transitivity[M]. John Benjamins
Narrog, H.2010.(Inter)subjectification in the domain of modality andmood-Concepts and cross-linguistic realities[A]. InSubjectification,Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C], Davidse,K. Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens(eds.). Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter GmbH&Co. KG.
Newman, J.&S. Rice2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in theBNC[A] in Corpora in cognitive linguistics: corpus-based approaches tosyntax and lexis[C], Stefan Th. Gries, Anatol Stefanowitsch(ed.). Mouton deGruyter.
Nikiforidou, K.2010. Subjective construal and factual interpretation in sententialcomplements[A]. In Athanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds.Subjectification: Various path to subjectivity.pp.347-374.
Nuyts, Jan.2001. Epistemic Mdality, Language and Conceptualization[M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Osgood,C. E.&Bock, J.K.1977. Salience and sentencing: some productionprinciples. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), sentence production: developments inresearch and theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Pander, M，H．＆L．Degand．2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in termsof speaker involvement[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,211－245.
Panther, K.&Thornburg, L.2007. Metonymy[A]. in The Oxford Handbook ofCognitive Linguistics,Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). OxfordUniversity Press.
Paradis, C.2011. Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change[A]. In A.Barcelona, R. Benczes&F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibá ez (Eds.), What ismetonymy? An attempt at building a consensus view on the delimitation ofthe notion of metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins.2011.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.1985. A ComprehensiveGrammar of the English Language[M]. Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. G. Leech and J.Svartvik.1972. A Grammar ofContemporary English[M]. London: Longman.
Radden,G.&Dirven, R.2007. Cognitive English Grammar[M]. John BenjaminsPublishing Company.
Ramsay, V.1987. The functional distribution of preposed and postposed IF andWHEN clauses in written discourse. In Coherence and Grounding inDiscourse[C], Russell S. Tomlin (ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Rice, S.1987a. Towards a cognitive model of transitivity[M]. University of Califonia,San Diego.
Rice, S.1987b. Towards a Transitive Prototype: Evidence from Some AtypicalEnglish Passives. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society (1987), pp.422-434.
Schwenter,S. A. and R. Waltereit.2010. Presupposition accommodation and languagechange[A]. In Subjectification, intersubjectification andgrammaticalization[C]. Davidse, K., Lieven Vandelanotte, Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). Walter de Gruyter.
Scott, A. S. and R. Waltereit.2010. Presupposition accommodation and languagechange. In Subjectification,Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C],Davidse, K. Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens(eds.). Berlin/NewYork: Walter de Gruyter GmbH&Co. KG.
Searle, J. R.1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in Theory of Speech Acts[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber，D．＆D．Wilson.1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M].Oxford: Blackwell．
Stein, D. and S.Wright.1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swan, T.1988. The development of sentence adverbs in English[J]. Studia Linguistica42(1):1–17.
Sweetser,E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspectsof Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.2000a/b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol.1/2[M]. Mass: MIT Press.
Thompson,S. A.1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purposeclauses in English.[J] Text5.1/2，55－84.
Thompson，S.A.,R, E. Longacre＆S. Ja J. Hwang.2007. Adverbial clauses[A]. InTimothy Shopen(ed.),Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.2:Complex Constructions,237－300. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Tomasello, M.2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge[M]. MA: TheMIT Press.
Traugott, E. C.1982From propositional to textual and expressive meanings. Somesemantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization[A]. In Perspectives onHistorical Linguistics, Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.),245-271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C.1995Subjectification in grammaticalisation[A]. In Subjectivity andSubjectivisation, Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.),31-54. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher.2002. Regularity in Semantic Change[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., and E. K nig.1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalizationrevisited[A]. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches toGrammaticalization, vol.1. Focus on Theoretical and MethodologicalIssues. Amsterdam: Benjamins,189-218.
Traugott, E.C.1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example ofsubjectification in semantic change[J]. Language57:33-65.
Traugott, E. C.1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: Thecase of promise and threaten[A]. In Modality in Germanic languages, TorilSwan and Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.),185-210. Berlin/New York: Moutonde Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C.1999.''The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a studyin subjectifcation''[A]. In Andreas Blank and Peter Koch, eds. HistoricalSemantics and Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.177-196.
Traugott, E.C.2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification[A]. In RaymondHickey(ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.124-139.
Traugott, E.C.2005''From ideational to interpersonal: a reassessment''[A]. Paperpresented at Fitigra (From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives fromGrammaticalization), Leuven,10-12February2005.
Traugott, E.C.2007.''(Inter)subjecti?cation and unidirectionality''[A]. Journal ofHistorical Pragmatics8-2(Special issue on subjectivity, intersubjectivityand historical changes in Japanese[C], ed. by Noriko O. Onodera and RyokoSuzuki):295-309.
Traugott, E.C.2010.(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment[A].in Kristin Davidse Lieven Vandelanotte Hubert Cuyckens (eds)Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization.
Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H. J.2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].外语教学与研究出版社.
Verhagen, A.1995. Subjectification, syntax, and communication[A]. In Dieter Steinand Susan Wright, eds., Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language103-28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhagen, A.2001. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Whymatrix clauses may be more dependent than complements[A]. In TextRepresentation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects[C], Ted Sanders,Joost Schilperoord and Wilbert Spooren (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins,337-357.
Verhagen, A.2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, andcognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verhagen, A.2007. Construal and perspectivisation[A]. In: D. Geeraerts and H.Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,48-81.
Verhagen, A.2008. On subjectivity and “long distance WH-movement[A]. InAthanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds. Subjectification: Various path tosubjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Verhagen, A.2012. Construal and Stylistics-within a language, across contexts,across languages.http://www.arieverhagen.nl/research/publications/publications-listing/#2012
Verstraete, J.2001. Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideationalfunctions in the English modal auxiliary system[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,33.
Wang Yu-Fang.2002. The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking inMandarin Chinese discourse[A]. Text22(1), pp.141-172. Walter deGruyter.
Wierzbicka, Aa.1979. Ethno-syntax and the Philosophy of Grammar[J]. Studies inLanguage3.3:313-383.
Wierzbicka, A.1986.“What's in a Noun?(Or: How Do Nouns Differ in Meaningfrom Adjectives?)”[J]. Studies in Language10:2,353–389.
Wierzbicka, A.1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Studies in Language Companion[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wasow, T.1997. End-weight from the speaker’s perspective[J]. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research,26,347–361.
Yuasa, E.&J. M. Sadock.2002. Pseudo-subordination: a mismatch between syntaxand semantics[J]. Journal of Linguistics38.1:87-111.
Yule, G.2000.Pragmatics [M].上海外语教育出版社.
Zhang Ren.2010. Specialized Grounding in English and Chinese Existentials. In Shu,Dingfang/Turner, Ken (eds.) Contrasting Meaning in Languages of the Eastand West.2010. Peter Lang.
蔡维天.谈“有人”、“有的人”和“有些人”[J]．汉语学报，2004,(2):16－25.
陈昌来.现代汉语句子[M].华东师范大学出版社,2000.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海教育出版社,1997.
陈小荷.主观量问题初探――兼谈副词“就”“才”"、“都”[J].世界汉语教学，1994年第4期.
储泽祥、陶伏平.汉语因果复句的关联标记模式与“联系项居中”原则[J].中国语文,2008年第5期.
崔山佳.现代汉语”潜显”现象研究[M].四川出版集团/巴蜀书社,2008.
崔希亮.认知语言学理论与汉语位移事件研究[A].载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆，2008。
崔希亮.汉语方位结构“在……里”的认知考察，语法研究和探索(十一).
崔希亮.认知语法与对外汉语教学论集[C].北京语言大学出版社2011）
崔永华.汉语形容词分类的现状和问题[J].语言教学与研究，1990年第3期。
戴浩一.时间顺序和汉语的语序[J],黄河译.国外语言学,1988年第1期.
丁力.从疑问系统看“是不是”问句[J].中国语文,1999年第6期.
董秀芳.词汇化:汉语双音词的衍生和发展[M],四川民族出版社,2002.
范伟.“偏”和“偏偏”的情态类型及主观性差异[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版)2009年第5期.
范继淹.论介词短语"在+处所"[J].语言研究,1982年第1期.
方梅.认证义谓宾动词的虚化－从谓宾动词到语用标记[J].中国语文,2005年第6期.
方梅.动态呈现语法理论与汉语“用法”研究[A].载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆，2008.
方梅.自然口语中空虚化连词的话语标记功能[J].中国语文,2000年第5期.
房玉清.实用汉语语法[M].北京语言大学出版社,2008.
顾阳.时态、时制理论与汉语时间参照研究[J].语言科学,2007.
郭锐.过程和非过程--汉语谓词性成分的两种外在时间类型[J].中国语文,1997(3).
郭锐.汉语动词的过程结构[J].中国语文,1993(6).
郭锐.空间参照理论与汉语方位表达参照策略研究[A]。载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆,2008
何春燕.语用否定的类型及使用动机[J]解放军外国语学院学报,2002年第3期.
何洪锋,彭吉军.指宾状语的历时考察[J].语言研究,2009年第4期.
何洪锋.状态性指宾状语句的语义性质[J].语言研究,2010年4期.
贺阳.性质形容词作状语情况的考察[J].语言研究.1996.
黄伯荣,廖序东.现代汉语(增订二版).高等教育出版社，2003.
黄晓红.“多”+V和V+“多”[J].语言教学与研究,2001年第3期.
江蓝生.处所词的领格用法与结构助词“底”的由来[J].中国语文,1999.
蒋绍愚.内部构拟法在近代汉语语法研究中的运用.中国语文,1995年03期.
金立鑫."才""就"的情态和时体意义及语义对立[J].待发表
金立鑫."没"和"了"共现的句法条件[J].汉语学习,2005年2月.
金立鑫.把OV在L的语义、句法、语用分析[J].语法研究与语法应用,1993年第3期.
金立鑫.从普通语言学和语言类型角度看汉语补语问题[J].世界汉语教学，2011年第4期.
金立鑫.解决汉语补语问题的一个可行性方案[J].中国语文,2009年第5期.
金立鑫,于秀金.从与OV-VO相关和不相关参项考察普通话的语序类型[J].外国语,2012年3月.
柯润兰.介词“向”的句法语义考察[D]北京语言文化大学,2003.
黎锦熙,刘世儒.汉语语法教材[M].北京:商务印书馆,1962.
李芳杰.定语易位问题刍议[J].语文研究,1983年第3期.
李劲荣.指宾状语句的功能透视[J].中国语文2007年04期.
李晋霞,刘云.复句类型的演变[J].汉语学习,2007年第2期.
李晋霞.“好”的语法化与主观性[J].世界汉语教学,2005年第1期.
刘丹青.“有”字领有句的语义倾向和信息结构[J].中国语文,2011年第2期.
刘丹青.从所谓“补语”谈古代汉语语法学体系的参照系[J].汉语史学报,2005年第5期.
刘丹青.小句内句法结构:《语法调查研究手册》节选[J].世界汉语教学,2005年第3期.
刘丹青.语序类型学与介词理论[J].商务印书馆2003年。
刘宁生.句首介词结构“在---”的语义指向[J].汉语学习,1984年02期.
刘松汉.形容词作状语、补语情况再考察[J].南京师范大学学报,1990年第1期.
刘月华.实用现代汉语语法（增订本），商务印书馆，2004
刘正光.主观化对句法限制的消解[J].外语教学与研究2011年03期
刘正光.语言非范畴化--语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
卢建.可换位摹物状语的句位实现及功能分析[J].语言研究2003年01期，
陆丙甫.“的”的基本功能和派生功能[J].世界汉语教学,2003年第1期.
陆丙甫.对Greenberg45条共性的分析[A].载崔希亮主编《认知语法与对外汉语教学论集》118-149,北京语言大学出版社,2011.
陆丙甫.汉语语序的总体特点及其功能解释:从话题突出到焦点突出[J].《庆祝〈中国语文〉创刊50周年学术论文集》,北京:商务印书馆,2004.
陆丙甫.论“整体-部分、多量-少量”优势顺序的普遍性[J].外国语,2010年第4期.
陆丙甫.语序类型学理论与汉语句法研究[A].2008.载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编,商务印书馆,2008.
陆丙甫.语序优势的认知解释(上/下):论可别度对语序的普遍影响[J].当代语言学,2005年第1/2期.
陆丙甫,金立鑫.关于多重复句的层次问题[J].汉语学习,1988年05期.
陆俭明.汉语口语里的句法易位现象[J].中国语文,1980.
陆俭明.关于定语易位的问问题[J].中国语文,1982.
陆俭明.汉语中表示主从从关系的连词[J].北京大学学报(哲社版).1983（3）.
陆俭明.现代汉语句法论[M].商务印书馆,1993.
陆俭明、沈阳.汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
陆俭明.现代汉语语法研究教程[M].北京大学出版社,2004.
陆俭明汉语语法语义研究新探索[M].商务印书馆,2010.
吕叔湘.汉语句法的灵活性[J].中国语文,1986年第1期.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集(第一卷:中国文法要略)[M].商务印书馆,1990.
吕叔湘.现代汉语800词[M].商务印书馆,1999.
马真.现代汉语虚词研究方法论[M].商务印书馆,2004.
马贝加.现代汉语介词[M].中华书局,2002.
马庆株.自主动词和非自主动词[J].中国语言学报,1988年第3期.
聂仁发,史锡尧.“不”否定的对象和“不”的位置[J].汉语学习,1995年第1期.
牛保义.英语因果复句的认知语法研究[J].现代外语,2006年第4期.
齐沪扬,李文浩.突显度、主观化与短时义副词“才”[J].语言教学与研究,2009年第5期.
屈承熹.汉语认知功能语法[M].黑龙江人民出版社.2005.
屈承熹.汉语篇章语法［M］．潘文国等(译)．北京:北京语言大学出版社,2006.
屈哨兵.“由于”句的语义偏向[J].中国语文,2002年第1期.
邵敬敏.现代汉语通论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2001.
沈家煊,完权.也谈“之字结构”和“之”字的功能[J].语言研究,2009年4月.
沈家煊.“移位”还是“移情”?---析“他是去年生的孩子”[J].中国语文,2008(5).
沈家煊.“在”字句和“给”字句[J].中国语文,1999年第2期.
沈家煊.不对称和标记理论[M].江西教育出版社,1999.
沈家煊.汉语的主观性和汉语语法教学[J].汉语学习,2009年01期.
沈家煊.如何处置“处置式”－论“把”字句的主观性这[J].中国语文，2002（5）.
沈家煊.如何解决“补语”问题？[J].世界汉语教学,2010年04期.
沈家煊.英汉否定词的分合和名词的分合[J].中国语文,2010年第5期.
沈家煊.语言的主观性和主观化[J].外语教学与研究,2001年第4期.
沈家煊.语用否定考察[J].中国语文,1993年第5期.
石锓.汉语形容词重叠形式的历史发展[M].商务印书馆,2010.
石毓智,李纳.汉语语法化的历程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.c
石毓智.汉语的有标记和无标记语法结构[A]，《语法研究与探索》（十），北京：商务印书馆,2000.
石毓智.汉语发展史上的双音化趋势和动补结构的诞生[J].语言研究,2002（1）.
石毓智.汉语语法[M].商务印书馆,2010.
石毓智.肯定和否定的对称与不对称(增订本)[M].北京语言文化大学出版社,2001a.
石毓智.语法的形式和理据[J].江西教育出版社,2001b.
史金生.证据副词的范围、类别和共现顺序[J].中国语文,2003年第1期.
束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
束定芳.隐喻和换喻的差别与联系[J].外国语,2004年第3期.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
束定芳.隐喻与转喻研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
宋玉柱.评“介词结构作补语”.语文战线.1980年10月.
宋作艳,陶红印.汉英因果复句顺序的话语分析与比较研究[J].汉语学报,2008年第4期.孙峻.英语定冠词the的桥接作用[J].现代外语,2012年第3期.
孙朝奋.主观化理论与现代汉语把字句研究[A].载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆,2008.
陶媛.谓词性指元状语的句法制约条件[J].汉语学习,2009年第5期.
田惠刚.多层定语的次序及其逻辑特性[J].世界汉语教学,1994年第3期.
完权.指示词定语漂移的篇章认知因素[J].当代语言学,2012年第4期.
王还.汉语状语与“得”后的补语和英语的状语[J].语言教学与研究,1984（4）.
王还.说“在”[J].中国语文,1957年第2期.
王欣.“不”和“没(有)”的认知语义分析[J].语言教学与研究,2007年第4期.
王寅.构式压制、词汇压制和惯性压制[J].外语与外语教学,2009年第12期.
王灿龙.试论“不”与“没(有)”语法表现的相对同一性[J].中国语文,2011年第4期.
王春辉:汉语条件句小句间的语序类型[J].世界汉语教学,2010年第4期.
王红旗.“把”字句的意义究竟是什么[J].语文研究,2003(2).
王群力.略说汉语主观量----以副词“才”、“就”为例[J].辽宁大学学报,2005(3).
王维贤、张学成、卢曼云、程怀友.现代汉语复句新解[M].华东师范大学出版社,1994.
王远杰.定语标记“的”的隐现研究[D].北京:首都师范大学博士学位论文,2008.
魏在江.隐喻的主观性与主观化[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2007年第2期.
温所林.“有+数量结构”中“有”的自然焦点凸显功能[J].中国语文，2012年第1期.
文旭,伍倩.话语主观性在时体范畴中的体现[J].外语学刊,2007年第2期.
肖治野,沈家煊.“了2”的行、知、言三域[J].中国语文,2009年第6期.
邢福义.“由于”句的语义偏向辨[J].中国语文,2002年第4期.
邢福义.汉语复句研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
徐李洁.英语be sure to构式的主观化再研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2012年第3期.
徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和含意否定[J]。外语教学与研究,1994年第4期.
杨杏红,齐沪扬.现代汉语多项补语的语序问题[J].世界汉语教学,2010（1）.
姚占龙.“说、想、看”的主观化及其诱因[J].语言教学与研究,2008年第5期.
俞咏梅.论“在+处所”的语义功能和语序制约原则[J].中国语文,1999年第1期.
袁毓林,李湘,曹宏,王健.“有”字句的情景语义分析[J].世界汉语教学，2009年第3期.
袁毓林.定语顺序的认知解释及其理论蕴涵[J].中国社会科学,1999年第2期.
袁毓林.句子的焦点结构及其对语义解释的影响[J].当代语言学,2003年第4期.
袁毓林.现代汉语祈使句研究[M].北京大学出版社,1993.
岳中奇.句首前置定语和状语的位移性质思辨[J].汉语学习,2007第6期.
曾立英.“我看”与“你看”的主观化[J].汉语学习,2005年第2期.
张赪.论决定“在L+VP”或“VP+在L”的因素,语言教学与研究，1997(2).
张赪.现代汉语介词词组“在L”与动词宾语的词序规律的形成[J].中国语文,2001年第2期.
张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
张敏.自然句法理论与汉语语法象似性研究.2008.载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆,2008.
张韧.参照点处理对概念内容的限制：“有”字句的证据[J].外国语,2012(5).
张黎.汉语“动作一结果”的句法呈现及其认知类型学的解释[A].载《认知语法与对外汉语教学论集》。北京语言大学出版社,2011.
张黎.汉语句法的主观结构和主观量度[J].汉语学习,2007年第2期.
张伯江,方梅.汉语功能语法研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1996.
张伯江.论“把”字句的句式语义[J].语言研究2000(1).
张国宪,卢建.“在+处所”状态构式的事件表述和语篇功能[J].中国语文,2010年第6期.
张国宪.“在+处所”构式的动词标量取值及其意义浮现[J].中国语文,2009(4).
张国宪.现代汉语形容词功能与认知研究[M].商务印书馆,2006.
张力军.论“NP1+A+VP+NP2”格式中A的语义指向[J].烟台大学学报,1990(3).
张旺熹.汉语特殊句法的语义研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1999.
张谊生.现代汉语副词[M].学林出版社,2000.
张谊生.“把N+VV”祈使句的成句因素[J].汉语学习,1997(1).
赵元任.汉语口语语法[M].吕叔湘译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
郑贵友.现代汉语状位形容词的“系”研究[J].华中师范大学出版社,2000.
周少青.试论连字句的主观性和主观化[J].东南学术,2009年第4期.
朱德熙.“在黑板上写字”及相关句式[J].语言教学与研究,1978年第1期.
朱德熙.语法丛稿[M].上海教育出版社,1990.
朱德熙.朱德熙文集[M].商务印书馆,1999.
朱德熙.现代汉语形容词研究[J].语言研究,1956年第1期.
朱德熙.语法讲义[M].商务印书馆,1982.
朱德熙.再说说“在”[J].语言教学与研究,1980年第3期.
朱德熙.语法答问[J].商务印书馆,1985.
Adamson, S.&González-Diáz, V.2005.“And I were your very very Rosalind”: therole of hyperbole in the grammaticalisation of intensifiers. Paper presentedat FITIGRA (From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives fromGrammaticalization), Leuven,10–12February2005.
Athanasiadou, A., C. Canakis, and B. Cornillie (eds.).2006. Subjectification: VariousPaths to Subjectivity[C].Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin,J.L.1962. How to Do Things with Words[M]. Oxford: OUP.
Bache, C.2000. Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar[M].Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.(eds.).2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A CognitivePerspective[C]. Berlin&New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona,A.2006. Metonymy in meaning and form, with special attention to its rolein lexical semantic change[A]. In J. G. Vázquez González, M. Vázquez,&P.Ron Vaz, eds., The Historical Linguistics-Cognitive Linguistics Interface,19-57. Huelva: University of Huelva.
Barcelona,A.2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form：The roles ofmetonymy and inference[A]. in Klaus-Uwe Panther,Linda L.Thornburg,Antonio Barcelona (eds), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar.John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beaugrande, R. de.1980. Text, Discourse, and Process. Towards a MultidisciplinaryScience of Texts[M]. London: Longman.
Benveniste,1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics[J].223-230. Trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL: University ofMiami Press.
Bolinger, D.1952. Linear modification.[J]. Publications of the modern languageassociation of America67:1117-1144.
Bolinger, D.1977. The form of language[M]. London: Longmans.
Bolinger, D.1989. Intonation and its Uses[M]. Stanford University Press.
Brdar,M. Metonymies we live without[A]., in Metonymy and Metaphor inGrammar[C]. Klaus-Uwe Panther,Linda L. Thornburg,Antonio Barcelona(eds),John Benjamins Publishing Company
Breban, T.2010. English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and GrammaticalizedUses[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Breivik E. L. and A. E. Mart nez-Insua.2008. Grammaticalization, Subjectificationand Non-Concord in English Existential Sentences[J]. English Studies, Vol.89, No.3:351-362.
Bright, W.1992. International encyclopedia of linguistics. OUP.
Brisard, F.2002. Grounding: The epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference[C].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F.2006. Logic, subjectivity, and the semantics/pragmatics distinction[A]. InAthanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds. Subjectification: Various path tosubjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Briton, L. J.1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and DiscourseFunction[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Broccias, C.&W. B. Hollann.2007. Do we need summary and sequential scanning in(Cognitive) grammar?[J]. Cognitive Linguistics18–4(2007),487–522.
Brown, P, Levinson, S.n C.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use[M].Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World[M]. Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press.
Bybee, J.2011. Markedness: Iconicity, Economy, and Frequency[J]. In The OxfordHandbook of Linguistic Typology. Jae Jung, Song(ed). OUP.2011.
Bybee. J.1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning andForm[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Campbell,L.2001. What’s wrong with Grammaticalization?[J]. Language Sciences.23:113-161
Carston, R.1996. Mtealinguistic negation and echoic use[M]. Journal of Pragmatics.25(3):309-330.
Chafe, W. L.&Johanna Nicholas.1998. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Bridging theGap [C]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Chafe，W.1984. How people use adverbial clauses[M]. Berkley Linguistic Society10，437－449.
Chao, Y. R.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.
Charolles，M.2005. Framing adverbials and their role in discourse cohesion: Fromconnection to forward labeling[J]. Paper presented for the Symposium onthe Exploration and Modelling of Meaning，Biarritz.
Chen, Chungyu,1978. Aspectual features of the verb and the relative position of thelocatives[J]. JCL (中国语言学报)6.1:76-103.
Clark, H.1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conception Company Company.2006. Zero in syntax, ten in pragmatics:Subjectification as syntactic cancellation[A]. In Athanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds. Subjectification: Various path to subjectivity.
Croft, W.2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in TypologicalPerspective[M]. OUP.
Croft,W.&Cruse,2004. Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
Crompton, P.2006. The effect of position on the discourse scope of adverbials[J].Text&Talk,245-279.
Dancygier，B.＆E. Sweetser.2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: ConditionalConstructions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier，B.＆E. Sweetser.1996. Conditionals，distancing，and alternativespaces[A]. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.)，Conceptual Structure，Discourse andLanguage，83－98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
De Smet, Hendrik and Jean-Christophe Verstraete.2006. Coming to terms withsubjectivity[J]. Cognitive Linguistics17:365-392.
Denison, D.2005. History of the Sort of Construction Family[OL]. Paper presented atthe Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki,6–8September2002.http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/SubjectAreas/LinguisticsEnglishLanguage/AcademicStaff/DavidDenison.
Dewell, B. R.2007. Moving around: The role of the conceptualizer in semanticinterpretation[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.18–3,383–415.
Diessel， H.2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: Atypological study[J]. Language77.3，433－455.
Diessel, H.2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbialclauses[J]. Linguistics,43–3(2005),449–470.
Diessel, H.2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar[J].Cognitive Linguistics,463-489.
Dik, S.C.1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar[M]. Berlin&New York: Moutonde Gruyter.
Dixon, R.1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays inSemantics and Syntax[M]. Berlin: Mouton.
Evans, V. and M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction[M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G.2008. Mappings in Thought and Language[M].世界图书出版公司.
Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in NaturalLanguage[M].CUP.
Finegan, E.1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction[A]. In Stein&Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation[C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Foley,A. W.2007. Typology of information packaging in the clause[A]. In TimothyShopen,(ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description.(Secondedition) Volume I: Clause Structure.2007. Cambridge University Press
Geeraerts， D. and H. Cuyckens.2007. The Oxford Handbook of CognitiveLinguistics[M]. Oxford University Press.
Ghesquière, L.2010. On the subjectification and intersubjectification paths followedby the adjectives of completeness[A]. In Subjectification,intersubjectification and grammaticalization[C]. Davidse, K., LievenVandelanotte, Hubert Cuyckens (ed.). Walter de Gruyter.
Givón, T.2001. Syntax I&II: An introduction[M]. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Goldberg, A.1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure [M]. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.&R.Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning[M]. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M].2nd ed. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Edward Arnoldlimited.
Haspelmath,M.2003. Coordinating constructions: An overview[J],in CoordinatingConstructions[C],Martin Haspelmath (eds).John Benjamins PublishingCompany:Amsterdam/Philadelphia,2003.
Hawkins,J. A.1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hetzron, R.1978. On the relative order of adjectives[A]. In Language Universals,Hansjakob Seiler (ed.),165-184. Tübingen: Narr.
Haiman, J.1985. Iconicity in syntax[M]. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper,J. P.&Elizabeth Closs Traugott.2003. Grammaticalization[M]. CUP.
Horn, L. R.1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity[J]. Language,61(1):121-174.
Israeli, A.1997. Semantics and Pragmatics of the "Reflexive" Verbs in Russian[M].München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Iwasaki, S.1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse[M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, Ray S.1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts[M]:MIT Press.
Jespersen, O.1917. Negation in English and other Languages[A]. In SelectedWritings of Otto Jespersen, London: Allen&Unwin.
Jose, M. G.2007. Clause Structure and Transitivity[A]. in The Oxford Handbook ofCognitive Linguistics,Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). OxfordUniversity Press.
Kittll, S.2011. Transitivity Typology[A]. In The Oxford Handbook of Typology.Oxford: OUP,2011.
Kuno, S.1977. Empathy and Syntax[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, vol.8. pp.627-672.
Lakoff G.1987. Women Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal aboutthe Mind[M]. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.&M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live By[M]. University of ChicagoPress,
Lakoff, G.&M. Johnson.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh――the embodied mind andits challenge to the western thoughts[M]. New York: Basic books.
Lambrecht, K.1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and themental representation of discourse referents[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Vols.I/II.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990a. Subjectification[J]. Cognitive Linguistics1:5238.
Langacker, R. W.1990b. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis ofgrammar[M].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1995Subjectification in grammaticalisation[A]. In Stein, Dieter andSusan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. LinguisticPerspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,31-54.
Langacker, R. W.1999a. On subjectification and grammaticization[A]. InJ.P.Koenig(ed.). Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford:CSLIPublications:1-89.
Langacker, R. W.1999b."Losing Control: Grammaticization, Subjectification, andTransparency"[A]. Historical Semantics and Cognition ed. by AndreasBlank&Peter Koch,147-175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R, W.1998. On subjectification and grammaticalization. In Discourse andCognition: Bridging the Gap, Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.).71-89. Stanford:CSLI.
Langacker, R, W.2002a ''Deixis and subjectivity''[A]. In Grounding: The EpistemicFooting of Deixis and Reference[C], Frank Brisard(ed.). Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-28.
Langacker, R, W.2002b ''Remarks on the English grounding systems''[A]. InGrounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference[C], FrankBrisard(ed.). Berlin/New York:29-38.
Langacker, R, W.2004. Remarks on nominal grounding[J], Functions of Language,John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, R, W.2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptualarchetypes[A]. In Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C.&Cornillie, B.(eds.).2006.Subjectification: Various paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton.
Langacker, R, W.2007. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction[M]. OxfordUniversity Press.
Langacker, R. W.2009a. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar[M]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
Langacker,R, W.2009b. Metonymic grammar[A]. in Metonymy and Metaphor inGrammar,Klaus-Uwe Panther,Linda L. Thornburg,Antonio Barcelona(eds.)John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levinson, C. S.2001. Pragmatics [M].外语教学与研究出版社.
Levinson,S.C.2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in CognitiveDiversity[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press.
Li, C.&T. A. Thompson.1989. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional ReferenceGrammar[M]. University of California Press.
Light, T.1979. Word order and word order change in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Journal ofChinese Linguistics. No.7.2.149-180
Lyons John.1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction[M]. Cambridge UniversityPress.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J.1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Longor, ergo sum?[A]. In R.J. Jarvella&W.K l ein(eds.). Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and RelatedTopics [C]. New York: John Wiley,101-124.
Maldonado,R.2007. Grammatical Voice in Cognitive Grammar[A]. In: D. Geeraertsand H. Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Michaelis,L. A.2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approachto aspectual coercion[J]. Cognitive Linguistics.
Michaelis,L. A.2005.Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax[A].In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and TheoreticalExtensions[C], ǒstman, Jan-Ola&M. Fried (eds.). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,
Mithun, M.1995. Morphological and prosodic forces shaping word order[A]. in P.Downing and M. Noonan(eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
N ss,.2007. Prototypical transitivity[M]. John Benjamins
Narrog, H.2010.(Inter)subjectification in the domain of modality andmood-Concepts and cross-linguistic realities[A]. InSubjectification,Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C], Davidse,K. Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens(eds.). Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter GmbH&Co. KG.
Newman, J.&S. Rice2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in theBNC[A] in Corpora in cognitive linguistics: corpus-based approaches tosyntax and lexis[C], Stefan Th. Gries, Anatol Stefanowitsch(ed.). Mouton deGruyter.
Nikiforidou, K.2010. Subjective construal and factual interpretation in sententialcomplements[A]. In Athanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds.Subjectification: Various path to subjectivity.pp.347-374.
Nuyts, Jan.2001. Epistemic Mdality, Language and Conceptualization[M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Osgood,C. E.&Bock, J.K.1977. Salience and sentencing: some productionprinciples. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), sentence production: developments inresearch and theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Pander, M，H．＆L．Degand．2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in termsof speaker involvement[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,211－245.
Panther, K.&Thornburg, L.2007. Metonymy[A]. in The Oxford Handbook ofCognitive Linguistics,Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). OxfordUniversity Press.
Paradis, C.2011. Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change[A]. In A.Barcelona, R. Benczes&F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibá ez (Eds.), What ismetonymy? An attempt at building a consensus view on the delimitation ofthe notion of metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins.2011.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.1985. A ComprehensiveGrammar of the English Language[M]. Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. G. Leech and J.Svartvik.1972. A Grammar ofContemporary English[M]. London: Longman.
Radden,G.&Dirven, R.2007. Cognitive English Grammar[M]. John BenjaminsPublishing Company.
Ramsay, V.1987. The functional distribution of preposed and postposed IF andWHEN clauses in written discourse. In Coherence and Grounding inDiscourse[C], Russell S. Tomlin (ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Rice, S.1987a. Towards a cognitive model of transitivity[M]. University of Califonia,San Diego.
Rice, S.1987b. Towards a Transitive Prototype: Evidence from Some AtypicalEnglish Passives. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society (1987), pp.422-434.
Schwenter,S. A. and R. Waltereit.2010. Presupposition accommodation and languagechange[A]. In Subjectification, intersubjectification andgrammaticalization[C]. Davidse, K., Lieven Vandelanotte, Hubert Cuyckens(ed.). Walter de Gruyter.
Scott, A. S. and R. Waltereit.2010. Presupposition accommodation and languagechange. In Subjectification,Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C],Davidse, K. Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens(eds.). Berlin/NewYork: Walter de Gruyter GmbH&Co. KG.
Searle, J. R.1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in Theory of Speech Acts[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber，D．＆D．Wilson.1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M].Oxford: Blackwell．
Stein, D. and S.Wright.1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swan, T.1988. The development of sentence adverbs in English[J]. Studia Linguistica42(1):1–17.
Sweetser,E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspectsof Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.2000a/b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol.1/2[M]. Mass: MIT Press.
Thompson,S. A.1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purposeclauses in English.[J] Text5.1/2，55－84.
Thompson，S.A.,R, E. Longacre＆S. Ja J. Hwang.2007. Adverbial clauses[A]. InTimothy Shopen(ed.),Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.2:Complex Constructions,237－300. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Tomasello, M.2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge[M]. MA: TheMIT Press.
Traugott, E. C.1982From propositional to textual and expressive meanings. Somesemantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization[A]. In Perspectives onHistorical Linguistics, Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.),245-271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C.1995Subjectification in grammaticalisation[A]. In Subjectivity andSubjectivisation, Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.),31-54. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher.2002. Regularity in Semantic Change[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., and E. K nig.1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalizationrevisited[A]. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches toGrammaticalization, vol.1. Focus on Theoretical and MethodologicalIssues. Amsterdam: Benjamins,189-218.
Traugott, E.C.1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example ofsubjectification in semantic change[J]. Language57:33-65.
Traugott, E. C.1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: Thecase of promise and threaten[A]. In Modality in Germanic languages, TorilSwan and Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.),185-210. Berlin/New York: Moutonde Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C.1999.''The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a studyin subjectifcation''[A]. In Andreas Blank and Peter Koch, eds. HistoricalSemantics and Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.177-196.
Traugott, E.C.2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification[A]. In RaymondHickey(ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.124-139.
Traugott, E.C.2005''From ideational to interpersonal: a reassessment''[A]. Paperpresented at Fitigra (From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives fromGrammaticalization), Leuven,10-12February2005.
Traugott, E.C.2007.''(Inter)subjecti?cation and unidirectionality''[A]. Journal ofHistorical Pragmatics8-2(Special issue on subjectivity, intersubjectivityand historical changes in Japanese[C], ed. by Noriko O. Onodera and RyokoSuzuki):295-309.
Traugott, E.C.2010.(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment[A].in Kristin Davidse Lieven Vandelanotte Hubert Cuyckens (eds)Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization.
Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H. J.2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].外语教学与研究出版社.
Verhagen, A.1995. Subjectification, syntax, and communication[A]. In Dieter Steinand Susan Wright, eds., Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language103-28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhagen, A.2001. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Whymatrix clauses may be more dependent than complements[A]. In TextRepresentation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects[C], Ted Sanders,Joost Schilperoord and Wilbert Spooren (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins,337-357.
Verhagen, A.2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, andcognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verhagen, A.2007. Construal and perspectivisation[A]. In: D. Geeraerts and H.Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,48-81.
Verhagen, A.2008. On subjectivity and “long distance WH-movement[A]. InAthanasiadou, Canakis&Cornillie, eds. Subjectification: Various path tosubjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Verhagen, A.2012. Construal and Stylistics-within a language, across contexts,across languages.http://www.arieverhagen.nl/research/publications/publications-listing/#2012
Verstraete, J.2001. Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideationalfunctions in the English modal auxiliary system[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,33.
Wang Yu-Fang.2002. The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking inMandarin Chinese discourse[A]. Text22(1), pp.141-172. Walter deGruyter.
Wierzbicka, Aa.1979. Ethno-syntax and the Philosophy of Grammar[J]. Studies inLanguage3.3:313-383.
Wierzbicka, A.1986.“What's in a Noun?(Or: How Do Nouns Differ in Meaningfrom Adjectives?)”[J]. Studies in Language10:2,353–389.
Wierzbicka, A.1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Studies in Language Companion[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wasow, T.1997. End-weight from the speaker’s perspective[J]. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research,26,347–361.
Yuasa, E.&J. M. Sadock.2002. Pseudo-subordination: a mismatch between syntaxand semantics[J]. Journal of Linguistics38.1:87-111.
Yule, G.2000.Pragmatics [M].上海外语教育出版社.
Zhang Ren.2010. Specialized Grounding in English and Chinese Existentials. In Shu,Dingfang/Turner, Ken (eds.) Contrasting Meaning in Languages of the Eastand West.2010. Peter Lang.
蔡维天.谈“有人”、“有的人”和“有些人”[J]．汉语学报，2004,(2):16－25.
陈昌来.现代汉语句子[M].华东师范大学出版社,2000.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海教育出版社,1997.
陈小荷.主观量问题初探――兼谈副词“就”“才”"、“都”[J].世界汉语教学，1994年第4期.
储泽祥、陶伏平.汉语因果复句的关联标记模式与“联系项居中”原则[J].中国语文,2008年第5期.
崔山佳.现代汉语”潜显”现象研究[M].四川出版集团/巴蜀书社,2008.
崔希亮.认知语言学理论与汉语位移事件研究[A].载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆，2008。
崔希亮.汉语方位结构“在……里”的认知考察，语法研究和探索(十一).
崔希亮.认知语法与对外汉语教学论集[C].北京语言大学出版社2011）
崔永华.汉语形容词分类的现状和问题[J].语言教学与研究，1990年第3期。
戴浩一.时间顺序和汉语的语序[J],黄河译.国外语言学,1988年第1期.
丁力.从疑问系统看“是不是”问句[J].中国语文,1999年第6期.
董秀芳.词汇化:汉语双音词的衍生和发展[M],四川民族出版社,2002.
范伟.“偏”和“偏偏”的情态类型及主观性差异[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版)2009年第5期.
范继淹.论介词短语"在+处所"[J].语言研究,1982年第1期.
方梅.认证义谓宾动词的虚化－从谓宾动词到语用标记[J].中国语文,2005年第6期.
方梅.动态呈现语法理论与汉语“用法”研究[A].载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆，2008.
方梅.自然口语中空虚化连词的话语标记功能[J].中国语文,2000年第5期.
房玉清.实用汉语语法[M].北京语言大学出版社,2008.
顾阳.时态、时制理论与汉语时间参照研究[J].语言科学,2007.
郭锐.过程和非过程--汉语谓词性成分的两种外在时间类型[J].中国语文,1997(3).
郭锐.汉语动词的过程结构[J].中国语文,1993(6).
郭锐.空间参照理论与汉语方位表达参照策略研究[A]。载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆,2008
何春燕.语用否定的类型及使用动机[J]解放军外国语学院学报,2002年第3期.
何洪锋,彭吉军.指宾状语的历时考察[J].语言研究,2009年第4期.
何洪锋.状态性指宾状语句的语义性质[J].语言研究,2010年4期.
贺阳.性质形容词作状语情况的考察[J].语言研究.1996.
黄伯荣,廖序东.现代汉语(增订二版).高等教育出版社，2003.
黄晓红.“多”+V和V+“多”[J].语言教学与研究,2001年第3期.
江蓝生.处所词的领格用法与结构助词“底”的由来[J].中国语文,1999.
蒋绍愚.内部构拟法在近代汉语语法研究中的运用.中国语文,1995年03期.
金立鑫."才""就"的情态和时体意义及语义对立[J].待发表
金立鑫."没"和"了"共现的句法条件[J].汉语学习,2005年2月.
金立鑫.把OV在L的语义、句法、语用分析[J].语法研究与语法应用,1993年第3期.
金立鑫.从普通语言学和语言类型角度看汉语补语问题[J].世界汉语教学，2011年第4期.
金立鑫.解决汉语补语问题的一个可行性方案[J].中国语文,2009年第5期.
金立鑫,于秀金.从与OV-VO相关和不相关参项考察普通话的语序类型[J].外国语,2012年3月.
柯润兰.介词“向”的句法语义考察[D]北京语言文化大学,2003.
黎锦熙,刘世儒.汉语语法教材[M].北京:商务印书馆,1962.
李芳杰.定语易位问题刍议[J].语文研究,1983年第3期.
李劲荣.指宾状语句的功能透视[J].中国语文2007年04期.
李晋霞,刘云.复句类型的演变[J].汉语学习,2007年第2期.
李晋霞.“好”的语法化与主观性[J].世界汉语教学,2005年第1期.
刘丹青.“有”字领有句的语义倾向和信息结构[J].中国语文,2011年第2期.
刘丹青.从所谓“补语”谈古代汉语语法学体系的参照系[J].汉语史学报,2005年第5期.
刘丹青.小句内句法结构:《语法调查研究手册》节选[J].世界汉语教学,2005年第3期.
刘丹青.语序类型学与介词理论[J].商务印书馆2003年。
刘宁生.句首介词结构“在---”的语义指向[J].汉语学习,1984年02期.
刘松汉.形容词作状语、补语情况再考察[J].南京师范大学学报,1990年第1期.
刘月华.实用现代汉语语法（增订本），商务印书馆，2004
刘正光.主观化对句法限制的消解[J].外语教学与研究2011年03期
刘正光.语言非范畴化--语言范畴化理论的重要组成部分[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
卢建.可换位摹物状语的句位实现及功能分析[J].语言研究2003年01期，
陆丙甫.“的”的基本功能和派生功能[J].世界汉语教学,2003年第1期.
陆丙甫.对Greenberg45条共性的分析[A].载崔希亮主编《认知语法与对外汉语教学论集》118-149,北京语言大学出版社,2011.
陆丙甫.汉语语序的总体特点及其功能解释:从话题突出到焦点突出[J].《庆祝〈中国语文〉创刊50周年学术论文集》,北京:商务印书馆,2004.
陆丙甫.论“整体-部分、多量-少量”优势顺序的普遍性[J].外国语,2010年第4期.
陆丙甫.语序类型学理论与汉语句法研究[A].2008.载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编,商务印书馆,2008.
陆丙甫.语序优势的认知解释(上/下):论可别度对语序的普遍影响[J].当代语言学,2005年第1/2期.
陆丙甫,金立鑫.关于多重复句的层次问题[J].汉语学习,1988年05期.
陆俭明.汉语口语里的句法易位现象[J].中国语文,1980.
陆俭明.关于定语易位的问问题[J].中国语文,1982.
陆俭明.汉语中表示主从从关系的连词[J].北京大学学报(哲社版).1983（3）.
陆俭明.现代汉语句法论[M].商务印书馆,1993.
陆俭明、沈阳.汉语和汉语研究十五讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
陆俭明.现代汉语语法研究教程[M].北京大学出版社,2004.
陆俭明汉语语法语义研究新探索[M].商务印书馆,2010.
吕叔湘.汉语句法的灵活性[J].中国语文,1986年第1期.
吕叔湘.吕叔湘文集(第一卷:中国文法要略)[M].商务印书馆,1990.
吕叔湘.现代汉语800词[M].商务印书馆,1999.
马真.现代汉语虚词研究方法论[M].商务印书馆,2004.
马贝加.现代汉语介词[M].中华书局,2002.
马庆株.自主动词和非自主动词[J].中国语言学报,1988年第3期.
聂仁发,史锡尧.“不”否定的对象和“不”的位置[J].汉语学习,1995年第1期.
牛保义.英语因果复句的认知语法研究[J].现代外语,2006年第4期.
齐沪扬,李文浩.突显度、主观化与短时义副词“才”[J].语言教学与研究,2009年第5期.
屈承熹.汉语认知功能语法[M].黑龙江人民出版社.2005.
屈承熹.汉语篇章语法［M］．潘文国等(译)．北京:北京语言大学出版社,2006.
屈哨兵.“由于”句的语义偏向[J].中国语文,2002年第1期.
邵敬敏.现代汉语通论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2001.
沈家煊,完权.也谈“之字结构”和“之”字的功能[J].语言研究,2009年4月.
沈家煊.“移位”还是“移情”?---析“他是去年生的孩子”[J].中国语文,2008(5).
沈家煊.“在”字句和“给”字句[J].中国语文,1999年第2期.
沈家煊.不对称和标记理论[M].江西教育出版社,1999.
沈家煊.汉语的主观性和汉语语法教学[J].汉语学习,2009年01期.
沈家煊.如何处置“处置式”－论“把”字句的主观性这[J].中国语文，2002（5）.
沈家煊.如何解决“补语”问题？[J].世界汉语教学,2010年04期.
沈家煊.英汉否定词的分合和名词的分合[J].中国语文,2010年第5期.
沈家煊.语言的主观性和主观化[J].外语教学与研究,2001年第4期.
沈家煊.语用否定考察[J].中国语文,1993年第5期.
石锓.汉语形容词重叠形式的历史发展[M].商务印书馆,2010.
石毓智,李纳.汉语语法化的历程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.c
石毓智.汉语的有标记和无标记语法结构[A]，《语法研究与探索》（十），北京：商务印书馆,2000.
石毓智.汉语发展史上的双音化趋势和动补结构的诞生[J].语言研究,2002（1）.
石毓智.汉语语法[M].商务印书馆,2010.
石毓智.肯定和否定的对称与不对称(增订本)[M].北京语言文化大学出版社,2001a.
石毓智.语法的形式和理据[J].江西教育出版社,2001b.
史金生.证据副词的范围、类别和共现顺序[J].中国语文,2003年第1期.
束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
束定芳.隐喻和换喻的差别与联系[J].外国语,2004年第3期.
束定芳.认知语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
束定芳.隐喻与转喻研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
宋玉柱.评“介词结构作补语”.语文战线.1980年10月.
宋作艳,陶红印.汉英因果复句顺序的话语分析与比较研究[J].汉语学报,2008年第4期.孙峻.英语定冠词the的桥接作用[J].现代外语,2012年第3期.
孙朝奋.主观化理论与现代汉语把字句研究[A].载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆,2008.
陶媛.谓词性指元状语的句法制约条件[J].汉语学习,2009年第5期.
田惠刚.多层定语的次序及其逻辑特性[J].世界汉语教学,1994年第3期.
完权.指示词定语漂移的篇章认知因素[J].当代语言学,2012年第4期.
王还.汉语状语与“得”后的补语和英语的状语[J].语言教学与研究,1984（4）.
王还.说“在”[J].中国语文,1957年第2期.
王欣.“不”和“没(有)”的认知语义分析[J].语言教学与研究,2007年第4期.
王寅.构式压制、词汇压制和惯性压制[J].外语与外语教学,2009年第12期.
王灿龙.试论“不”与“没(有)”语法表现的相对同一性[J].中国语文,2011年第4期.
王春辉:汉语条件句小句间的语序类型[J].世界汉语教学,2010年第4期.
王红旗.“把”字句的意义究竟是什么[J].语文研究,2003(2).
王群力.略说汉语主观量----以副词“才”、“就”为例[J].辽宁大学学报,2005(3).
王维贤、张学成、卢曼云、程怀友.现代汉语复句新解[M].华东师范大学出版社,1994.
王远杰.定语标记“的”的隐现研究[D].北京:首都师范大学博士学位论文,2008.
魏在江.隐喻的主观性与主观化[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2007年第2期.
温所林.“有+数量结构”中“有”的自然焦点凸显功能[J].中国语文，2012年第1期.
文旭,伍倩.话语主观性在时体范畴中的体现[J].外语学刊,2007年第2期.
肖治野,沈家煊.“了2”的行、知、言三域[J].中国语文,2009年第6期.
邢福义.“由于”句的语义偏向辨[J].中国语文,2002年第4期.
邢福义.汉语复句研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
徐李洁.英语be sure to构式的主观化再研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2012年第3期.
徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和含意否定[J]。外语教学与研究,1994年第4期.
杨杏红,齐沪扬.现代汉语多项补语的语序问题[J].世界汉语教学,2010（1）.
姚占龙.“说、想、看”的主观化及其诱因[J].语言教学与研究,2008年第5期.
俞咏梅.论“在+处所”的语义功能和语序制约原则[J].中国语文,1999年第1期.
袁毓林,李湘,曹宏,王健.“有”字句的情景语义分析[J].世界汉语教学，2009年第3期.
袁毓林.定语顺序的认知解释及其理论蕴涵[J].中国社会科学,1999年第2期.
袁毓林.句子的焦点结构及其对语义解释的影响[J].当代语言学,2003年第4期.
袁毓林.现代汉语祈使句研究[M].北京大学出版社,1993.
岳中奇.句首前置定语和状语的位移性质思辨[J].汉语学习,2007第6期.
曾立英.“我看”与“你看”的主观化[J].汉语学习,2005年第2期.
张赪.论决定“在L+VP”或“VP+在L”的因素,语言教学与研究，1997(2).
张赪.现代汉语介词词组“在L”与动词宾语的词序规律的形成[J].中国语文,2001年第2期.
张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
张敏.自然句法理论与汉语语法象似性研究.2008.载《当代语言学理论和汉语研究》，沈阳，冯胜利编，商务印书馆,2008.
张韧.参照点处理对概念内容的限制：“有”字句的证据[J].外国语,2012(5).
张黎.汉语“动作一结果”的句法呈现及其认知类型学的解释[A].载《认知语法与对外汉语教学论集》。北京语言大学出版社,2011.
张黎.汉语句法的主观结构和主观量度[J].汉语学习,2007年第2期.
张伯江,方梅.汉语功能语法研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1996.
张伯江.论“把”字句的句式语义[J].语言研究2000(1).
张国宪,卢建.“在+处所”状态构式的事件表述和语篇功能[J].中国语文,2010年第6期.
张国宪.“在+处所”构式的动词标量取值及其意义浮现[J].中国语文,2009(4).
张国宪.现代汉语形容词功能与认知研究[M].商务印书馆,2006.
张力军.论“NP1+A+VP+NP2”格式中A的语义指向[J].烟台大学学报,1990(3).
张旺熹.汉语特殊句法的语义研究[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1999.
张谊生.现代汉语副词[M].学林出版社,2000.
张谊生.“把N+VV”祈使句的成句因素[J].汉语学习,1997(1).
赵元任.汉语口语语法[M].吕叔湘译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
郑贵友.现代汉语状位形容词的“系”研究[J].华中师范大学出版社,2000.
周少青.试论连字句的主观性和主观化[J].东南学术,2009年第4期.
朱德熙.“在黑板上写字”及相关句式[J].语言教学与研究,1978年第1期.
朱德熙.语法丛稿[M].上海教育出版社,1990.
朱德熙.朱德熙文集[M].商务印书馆,1999.
朱德熙.现代汉语形容词研究[J].语言研究,1956年第1期.
朱德熙.语法讲义[M].商务印书馆,1982.
朱德熙.再说说“在”[J].语言教学与研究,1980年第3期.
朱德熙.语法答问[J].商务印书馆,1985.