英汉动后论元事件交替现象研究
|
摘要
自从上个世纪六十年代语言研究句法转向以来，动词语义与句法结构之间的关系一直是语法研究的中心议题之一。其中，Fillmore（1970）、Levin（1985，1993）等学者所倡导的“动词交替/论元交替”（verbal alternation/argumentalternation）研究综合考察动词语义、句子语义与句法结构特征，能够揭示单纯从句法形式特征（如生成学派的动词子语类化）或从动词的词汇语义（如词汇语义学）出发所观察不到的动词语义特征及其与句法连接（linking）（即句法-语义界面）的规律，因而受到语言学界的青睐。本文对英汉动后论元事件交替现象的研究正是在这一大背景下进行的。
事件与实体的区分无论在哲学上还是语言学上都有重要意义。在哲学上，事件主要表现为时间性，实体主要表现为空间性。事件与实体这种哲学上的对立使它们成为一对影响语言系统句法语义组合的重要范畴，在组合语义学中称为语义类型（semantic types），以区别于语义类别（semantic sorts）。实体论元（NP）与事件论元（VP）在语言系统中的对立主要表现为它们在句法上很多时候呈互补分布（complementary distribution）态势。但是，事件与实体的范畴对立在事件交替动词后得以调和，这一调和的条件（如动词语义特点）是什么？涉及语言系统哪些运作机制？英汉之间有何差异？这是本文试图回答的问题。
研究聚焦于英汉语义与句法上同时实体/事件交替的语言现象，文献中相关研究称为“逻辑转喻”（logical metonymy）、“事件强迫”（event coercion）、“宾语强迫”（object coercion）、“补语压制”（complement coercion）等。以往的研究主要着眼于动词的事件性和实体论元结构的语义构建机制，忽视事件交替结构的句法生成研究，不能解释很多非事件动词（如汉语中的“抛”、“赶”等）可以经历论元事件交替的现象。
针对以上不足，本研究提出了英汉动后论元事件交替现象的认知构式句法生成观，在Nuyts的“事态限定”理论、Talmy的（宏）事件框架理论及Fillmore的框架语义学基础上建立动词事件交替的宏事件认知模型来解释英汉动后论元事件交替结构的生成机制及其句法语义特点，并进行了英汉对比考察。本文定量研究与定性研究、系统构建与个案研究相结合，主要发现如下：
1）英汉事件交替动词语义具有聚类特征，即这些动词可以大致分为两个语义类：表达体意义的动词和表达事件情态语义的态度-评价动词。不过，这两个事件交替动词的语义类具有原型范畴特征，范畴成员均可区分为典型成员与非典型成员。典型成员词汇语义主要表达“体”或“事件情态”语义概念，是文献中通常所说的事件动词，它们是形成体构式与态度-评价构式的原型动词。非典型成员虽然不是典型的事件动词，但词汇语义中或多或少地具有某种“体”或“事件情态”语义成分，形成“aspect/modality+action”的词汇语义模式。根据事态限定理论，语言中的“体”和“事件情态”语义范畴在语义辖域上大于（因而要求管辖）句中的主要事件，属于“事件限定”（eventive qualification）范畴。因此，从这个意义上说，语言中的事件交替动词在语义上构成一个自然类，我们称之为“事件限定”语义范畴。此外，以往对动后论元事件交替现象的研究强调动词语义的事件性，我们的研究发现，动后论元事件交替现象对动词语义的要求除了事件性外，还必须具有及物性，两者缺一不可。这样，我们从动词语义特征角度对“事件”与“实体”对立范畴在语言中得以调和的条件做出了初步回答。
2）动后论元事件交替现象是认知主体对同一复杂事件（即“事件限定宏事件”）不同识解的结果，事件论元结构（NP1+V1+V2+NP2）与实体论元结构（NP1+V1+NP2）虽然语义相同，但语用有别，前者显影动作事件过程，后者强调动作事件的结果状态；相应地，事件交替结构（实体论元结构）中V1和隐含V2都有较严格的限制，英语只有强调NP2状态变化的体动词（即“宾语向心动词”）（如finish、begin等）才有论元事件交替用法，同时要求V2也必须能够引起NP2的状态改变，只有满足这两个条件英语实体论元体构式才能成立。基于以上认识，我们构建了动词化的“事件限定”范畴构式网络，并对英汉实体论元构式（包括实体论元体构式和实体论元态度-评价构式）的主语语义和宾语语义一般制约条件进行了描写。
3）英汉动后论元事件交替现象有以下差异：（i）英语动词后论元事件交替自由度大，可以在实体论元结构（NP）和事件论元结构（VP）（事件外显）之间自由选择；汉语倾向于用事件论元结构。（ii）与汉语相比，英语可以进入事件交替结构的原型动词多，非原型动词少，“体”意义范畴表现得特别明显。（iii）有些英语动词的后论元不能经历事件交替，但汉语中对应的动词却可以，最典型的是“抛”类动词（包括抛、甩、抢、倒）和“赶”义动词。
4）应用宏事件词汇-构式类型学模式对英汉动词事件交替现象的差异做出类型学意义的解释：英语事件限定宏事件的主要信息构式（MIC）具有词汇构式倾向，主要动词（即事件交替动词）词汇化（lexicalize）了宏事件的主要信息（MI=aspect/modality+EVENT）；汉语事件限定宏事件的主要信息构式具有图式构式倾向，主要动词（即事件交替动词）没有词汇化宏事件的主要信息（MI=aspect/modality+EVENT），宏事件的主要信息需要用一个结构来表达。通常情况下，汉语事件限定宏事件的主要信息部分（aspect/modality）由主要动词表达，部分（EVENT）由支撑信息构式（SIC）表达。此外，我们还应用了词汇-构式类型学模式对汉语中与动后论元事件交替现象密切相关的“你教你的英文”（“NP1+V+np1的NP2”句式）这一类“准定语”（本文称之为“隐性事件交替”）进行了探讨，研究表明，将该句式看作一个特殊的评价构式可以很好地解释该句式的句法语义特点和类型学特点。
本研究的理论意义在于发现了事件交替动词的语义聚类特征，建立了“事件限定”这一动词语义自然类，并且从体和态度-评价构式视角对逻辑转喻现象作出了系统的解释。此外，通过对英汉动后论元事件交替行为差异的考察初步证明了词汇-构式类型学模式的可行性，从而为构式视角的语言类型学研究提供了一个可资借鉴的路径。
The relationship between verbal semantics and syntactic structure has beenheatedly discussed as one of the central issues of grammatical study since thesyntactic turn of linguistics in the1960s. The study of verbal alternation/argumentalternation initiated by linguists such as Fillmore (1970) and Levin (1985,1993) isfavored under this background, and it holistically takes into account the verbalmeaning, sentential meaning and syntactic structure properties, and therefore canexpose the distinct semantic properties of verbs and semantic-syntactic linking(namely syntax-semantic interface) rules which could not be unveiled by the studiessolely concerned with the formal properties of sentence (such as the study of verbalsubcategorization under Generative-Transformational paradigm) or with the verbalmeaning (such as the study under the traditional Lexical Semantics). The presentresearch on the eventive alternation of postverbal argument in English and Chinese issubject to this trend.
The distinction between event and entity is significant both in philosophical andlinguistic sense. In philosophy, event is characteristic of temporality while entity ofspatiality. Accordingly, event and entity are two major categories which, known assemantic types distinct from semantic sorts, have impact on the compositionalsemantics of sentences, and, therefore, entity-denoting argument (NP) andevent-denoting argument (VP) are largely in complementary distribution. However,the oppositeness between event and entity is compromised after event-entityalternating verbs, eventive alternating verbs (EAVs) for short. In what conditionconcerning the verbal semantic properties, for example, does the compromise occurand what happens to the linguist system then? What are the differences betweenEnglish and Chinese? These are the major issues the present study strives to explore.
The present study is focused on the linguistic phenomena in English andChinese that the postverbal argument alternates both semantically and syntacticallybetween entity (NP) and event (VP), which, in relevant research, are so-called“logical metonymy”,“event coercion”,“object coercion”,“complement coercion”, etc.. These studies put major emphasis on the eventiveness of the verbs and thesemantic interpretation of the entity-argument construction and little attention is paidto the generative mechanisms of eventive alternating construction and nointerpretations are provided for the eventive alternations occurring to non-eventiveverbs such as gan and pao in Chinese.
To overcome the shortcomings of previous research, the present study proposesthe syntactic generative mechanism of eventive alternation of postverbal argument (inEnglish and Chinese) under the paradigm of cognitive constructional approach.Comprehensively employing Nuyts’ theory of Qualification of SoA (states of affairs),Talmy’s theory of event frame and Fillmore’s Frame Semantics, the present studyconstructs the Macro-Event Cognitive Model of Eventive Qualification to present thegenerative mechanism and the syntactic-semantic properties of the eventivealternating construction with many issues examined from comparative approach(between English and Chinese). The study is conducted under the scientific paradigmof hypothesis-deduction-verification, in which qualitative research is appropriatelycombined with quantitative research and systematic theory-building with case study.The major findings are as follows:
1) The EAVs in English and Chinese are found to be semantically grouped intotwo categories, namely verbs of aspectual meaning and verbs of attitude-evaluationexpressing event modality, and these categories are prototype-based, rather thanclassical (categorial-attribute), in nature. Each of them contains central, prototypicalmembers and more peripheral (nonprototypical) members. The prototypical membersmainly express aspectual/modal concepts and are eventive verbs so called in literature,which are responsible for the formation of aspectual construction/attitude-evaluationconstruction. The nonprototypical members, which are not typical eventive verbsthough, more or less bear semantic element of aspect/event modality and thus arecharacteristic of lexical semantic paradigm of “aspect/modality+action”. According tothe theory of qualification of SoA (states of affairs), the scope of aspect or eventmodality is conceptually wider than (therefore, must govern) the main eventexpressed by the sentence. In other words, aspect and event modality belong to the category of eventive qualification. Thus, the EAVs in all languages constitute, in asense, a natural semantic class, which is the category of eventive qualificationtentatively named by the author. Besides, the present study shows that the postverbalargument alternations are permitted only when the lexical semantics of main verbssimultaneously meets two requirements: eventiveness and transitivity, while theprevious studies place all weight on the former. In this way, great light is shed on theconditions under which the oppositeness between event and entity in language can becompromised in view of lexical semantic properties of verbs.
2) The eventive alternations of postverbal argument represent the differentconstrual of the same complex event (namely, the eventive qualification event), andtherefore the event-argument construction (NP1+V1+V2+NP2) and the entity-argumentconstruction (NP1+V1+NP2) are same in meaning but pragmatically different: theformer is used to profile the action process and the latter puts emphasis on the finalstate of the action. Accordingly, in the entity-argument construction, V1and theimplied V2are strictly restricted. Take entity-argument aspectual construction inEnglish as an example, both V1and the implied V2are confined to the verbs whichcan cause the change of state of the entity denoted by NP2and V1are usuallyobject-oriented aspectual verbs such as finish and begin. Based on theabove-mentioned knowledge, the present study constructs the construction network ofverbalized eventive qualification category and depicts the general semanticconstraints of subject (NP1) and object (NP2) in the entity-argument constructionincluding entity-argument aspectual construction and entity-argumentattitude-evaluation construction.
3) The eventive alternations of postverbal argument in English and Chinese aredifferent in the following aspects:(i) the eventive alternation of postverbal argumentin English is less restricted than that in Chinese, in other words, English EAVs canchoose freely between NP-argument and VP-argument while Chinese EAVs tend to befollowed by VP-argument.(ii) The prototypical members of EAVs in English aregreater in number than those in Chinese, which can be lucidly displayed in the EAVsof aspectual category.(iii) Eventive alternations occur to some Chinese verbs such as verbs of “pao” type (including pao, shuai, qiang, dao) and “gan” type while theircounterparts in English can not undergo eventive alternations.
4) The differences in eventive alternations of postverbal argument betweenEnglish and Chinese are interpreted in the Lexical-Constructional Model ofmacro-event typology. In English, the main information construction (MIC) of theeventive qualification macro-event tends to be lexical, that is, the main verb (the EAV)lexicalizes the main information of the macro-event (MI=aspect/modality+EVENT).The MIC of the eventive qualification macro-event, in Chinese, tends to be ofschematic construction, that is, the main verb doesn’t lexicalize the MI, and, to put itin more detail, part of the MI (aspect/modality) is expressed by the main verb, part ofit (EVENT) by the supporting construction (SIC). What’s more, theLexical-Constructional Typological Model is also employed to analyze thepseudo-attributive occurring in “ni jiao ni de ying wen”(“NP1+V+np1de NP2”sentence pattern) in Chinese which is called “Latent Eventive Alternation” in thepresent study. The present study considers this sentence pattern as a special evaluativeconstruction and hence illuminates in a better way its syntactic-semantic andtypological properties.
The theoretical implication of the present study resides in discovering thesemantic clustering of the EAVs, a natural semantic class of verbs named eventivequalification verbs, and having a systematic interpretation of the logical metonymyfrom the perspective of the aspectual and attitude-evaluation construction. Besides,the Lexical-Constructional Typological Model is testified to be feasible in explicatingthe differences of eventive alternating phenomena between English and Chinese, andtherefore promises to be used for reference in future typological studies from theconstructional approach.
事件与实体的区分无论在哲学上还是语言学上都有重要意义。在哲学上，事件主要表现为时间性，实体主要表现为空间性。事件与实体这种哲学上的对立使它们成为一对影响语言系统句法语义组合的重要范畴，在组合语义学中称为语义类型（semantic types），以区别于语义类别（semantic sorts）。实体论元（NP）与事件论元（VP）在语言系统中的对立主要表现为它们在句法上很多时候呈互补分布（complementary distribution）态势。但是，事件与实体的范畴对立在事件交替动词后得以调和，这一调和的条件（如动词语义特点）是什么？涉及语言系统哪些运作机制？英汉之间有何差异？这是本文试图回答的问题。
研究聚焦于英汉语义与句法上同时实体/事件交替的语言现象，文献中相关研究称为“逻辑转喻”（logical metonymy）、“事件强迫”（event coercion）、“宾语强迫”（object coercion）、“补语压制”（complement coercion）等。以往的研究主要着眼于动词的事件性和实体论元结构的语义构建机制，忽视事件交替结构的句法生成研究，不能解释很多非事件动词（如汉语中的“抛”、“赶”等）可以经历论元事件交替的现象。
针对以上不足，本研究提出了英汉动后论元事件交替现象的认知构式句法生成观，在Nuyts的“事态限定”理论、Talmy的（宏）事件框架理论及Fillmore的框架语义学基础上建立动词事件交替的宏事件认知模型来解释英汉动后论元事件交替结构的生成机制及其句法语义特点，并进行了英汉对比考察。本文定量研究与定性研究、系统构建与个案研究相结合，主要发现如下：
1）英汉事件交替动词语义具有聚类特征，即这些动词可以大致分为两个语义类：表达体意义的动词和表达事件情态语义的态度-评价动词。不过，这两个事件交替动词的语义类具有原型范畴特征，范畴成员均可区分为典型成员与非典型成员。典型成员词汇语义主要表达“体”或“事件情态”语义概念，是文献中通常所说的事件动词，它们是形成体构式与态度-评价构式的原型动词。非典型成员虽然不是典型的事件动词，但词汇语义中或多或少地具有某种“体”或“事件情态”语义成分，形成“aspect/modality+action”的词汇语义模式。根据事态限定理论，语言中的“体”和“事件情态”语义范畴在语义辖域上大于（因而要求管辖）句中的主要事件，属于“事件限定”（eventive qualification）范畴。因此，从这个意义上说，语言中的事件交替动词在语义上构成一个自然类，我们称之为“事件限定”语义范畴。此外，以往对动后论元事件交替现象的研究强调动词语义的事件性，我们的研究发现，动后论元事件交替现象对动词语义的要求除了事件性外，还必须具有及物性，两者缺一不可。这样，我们从动词语义特征角度对“事件”与“实体”对立范畴在语言中得以调和的条件做出了初步回答。
2）动后论元事件交替现象是认知主体对同一复杂事件（即“事件限定宏事件”）不同识解的结果，事件论元结构（NP1+V1+V2+NP2）与实体论元结构（NP1+V1+NP2）虽然语义相同，但语用有别，前者显影动作事件过程，后者强调动作事件的结果状态；相应地，事件交替结构（实体论元结构）中V1和隐含V2都有较严格的限制，英语只有强调NP2状态变化的体动词（即“宾语向心动词”）（如finish、begin等）才有论元事件交替用法，同时要求V2也必须能够引起NP2的状态改变，只有满足这两个条件英语实体论元体构式才能成立。基于以上认识，我们构建了动词化的“事件限定”范畴构式网络，并对英汉实体论元构式（包括实体论元体构式和实体论元态度-评价构式）的主语语义和宾语语义一般制约条件进行了描写。
3）英汉动后论元事件交替现象有以下差异：（i）英语动词后论元事件交替自由度大，可以在实体论元结构（NP）和事件论元结构（VP）（事件外显）之间自由选择；汉语倾向于用事件论元结构。（ii）与汉语相比，英语可以进入事件交替结构的原型动词多，非原型动词少，“体”意义范畴表现得特别明显。（iii）有些英语动词的后论元不能经历事件交替，但汉语中对应的动词却可以，最典型的是“抛”类动词（包括抛、甩、抢、倒）和“赶”义动词。
4）应用宏事件词汇-构式类型学模式对英汉动词事件交替现象的差异做出类型学意义的解释：英语事件限定宏事件的主要信息构式（MIC）具有词汇构式倾向，主要动词（即事件交替动词）词汇化（lexicalize）了宏事件的主要信息（MI=aspect/modality+EVENT）；汉语事件限定宏事件的主要信息构式具有图式构式倾向，主要动词（即事件交替动词）没有词汇化宏事件的主要信息（MI=aspect/modality+EVENT），宏事件的主要信息需要用一个结构来表达。通常情况下，汉语事件限定宏事件的主要信息部分（aspect/modality）由主要动词表达，部分（EVENT）由支撑信息构式（SIC）表达。此外，我们还应用了词汇-构式类型学模式对汉语中与动后论元事件交替现象密切相关的“你教你的英文”（“NP1+V+np1的NP2”句式）这一类“准定语”（本文称之为“隐性事件交替”）进行了探讨，研究表明，将该句式看作一个特殊的评价构式可以很好地解释该句式的句法语义特点和类型学特点。
本研究的理论意义在于发现了事件交替动词的语义聚类特征，建立了“事件限定”这一动词语义自然类，并且从体和态度-评价构式视角对逻辑转喻现象作出了系统的解释。此外，通过对英汉动后论元事件交替行为差异的考察初步证明了词汇-构式类型学模式的可行性，从而为构式视角的语言类型学研究提供了一个可资借鉴的路径。
The relationship between verbal semantics and syntactic structure has beenheatedly discussed as one of the central issues of grammatical study since thesyntactic turn of linguistics in the1960s. The study of verbal alternation/argumentalternation initiated by linguists such as Fillmore (1970) and Levin (1985,1993) isfavored under this background, and it holistically takes into account the verbalmeaning, sentential meaning and syntactic structure properties, and therefore canexpose the distinct semantic properties of verbs and semantic-syntactic linking(namely syntax-semantic interface) rules which could not be unveiled by the studiessolely concerned with the formal properties of sentence (such as the study of verbalsubcategorization under Generative-Transformational paradigm) or with the verbalmeaning (such as the study under the traditional Lexical Semantics). The presentresearch on the eventive alternation of postverbal argument in English and Chinese issubject to this trend.
The distinction between event and entity is significant both in philosophical andlinguistic sense. In philosophy, event is characteristic of temporality while entity ofspatiality. Accordingly, event and entity are two major categories which, known assemantic types distinct from semantic sorts, have impact on the compositionalsemantics of sentences, and, therefore, entity-denoting argument (NP) andevent-denoting argument (VP) are largely in complementary distribution. However,the oppositeness between event and entity is compromised after event-entityalternating verbs, eventive alternating verbs (EAVs) for short. In what conditionconcerning the verbal semantic properties, for example, does the compromise occurand what happens to the linguist system then? What are the differences betweenEnglish and Chinese? These are the major issues the present study strives to explore.
The present study is focused on the linguistic phenomena in English andChinese that the postverbal argument alternates both semantically and syntacticallybetween entity (NP) and event (VP), which, in relevant research, are so-called“logical metonymy”,“event coercion”,“object coercion”,“complement coercion”, etc.. These studies put major emphasis on the eventiveness of the verbs and thesemantic interpretation of the entity-argument construction and little attention is paidto the generative mechanisms of eventive alternating construction and nointerpretations are provided for the eventive alternations occurring to non-eventiveverbs such as gan and pao in Chinese.
To overcome the shortcomings of previous research, the present study proposesthe syntactic generative mechanism of eventive alternation of postverbal argument (inEnglish and Chinese) under the paradigm of cognitive constructional approach.Comprehensively employing Nuyts’ theory of Qualification of SoA (states of affairs),Talmy’s theory of event frame and Fillmore’s Frame Semantics, the present studyconstructs the Macro-Event Cognitive Model of Eventive Qualification to present thegenerative mechanism and the syntactic-semantic properties of the eventivealternating construction with many issues examined from comparative approach(between English and Chinese). The study is conducted under the scientific paradigmof hypothesis-deduction-verification, in which qualitative research is appropriatelycombined with quantitative research and systematic theory-building with case study.The major findings are as follows:
1) The EAVs in English and Chinese are found to be semantically grouped intotwo categories, namely verbs of aspectual meaning and verbs of attitude-evaluationexpressing event modality, and these categories are prototype-based, rather thanclassical (categorial-attribute), in nature. Each of them contains central, prototypicalmembers and more peripheral (nonprototypical) members. The prototypical membersmainly express aspectual/modal concepts and are eventive verbs so called in literature,which are responsible for the formation of aspectual construction/attitude-evaluationconstruction. The nonprototypical members, which are not typical eventive verbsthough, more or less bear semantic element of aspect/event modality and thus arecharacteristic of lexical semantic paradigm of “aspect/modality+action”. According tothe theory of qualification of SoA (states of affairs), the scope of aspect or eventmodality is conceptually wider than (therefore, must govern) the main eventexpressed by the sentence. In other words, aspect and event modality belong to the category of eventive qualification. Thus, the EAVs in all languages constitute, in asense, a natural semantic class, which is the category of eventive qualificationtentatively named by the author. Besides, the present study shows that the postverbalargument alternations are permitted only when the lexical semantics of main verbssimultaneously meets two requirements: eventiveness and transitivity, while theprevious studies place all weight on the former. In this way, great light is shed on theconditions under which the oppositeness between event and entity in language can becompromised in view of lexical semantic properties of verbs.
2) The eventive alternations of postverbal argument represent the differentconstrual of the same complex event (namely, the eventive qualification event), andtherefore the event-argument construction (NP1+V1+V2+NP2) and the entity-argumentconstruction (NP1+V1+NP2) are same in meaning but pragmatically different: theformer is used to profile the action process and the latter puts emphasis on the finalstate of the action. Accordingly, in the entity-argument construction, V1and theimplied V2are strictly restricted. Take entity-argument aspectual construction inEnglish as an example, both V1and the implied V2are confined to the verbs whichcan cause the change of state of the entity denoted by NP2and V1are usuallyobject-oriented aspectual verbs such as finish and begin. Based on theabove-mentioned knowledge, the present study constructs the construction network ofverbalized eventive qualification category and depicts the general semanticconstraints of subject (NP1) and object (NP2) in the entity-argument constructionincluding entity-argument aspectual construction and entity-argumentattitude-evaluation construction.
3) The eventive alternations of postverbal argument in English and Chinese aredifferent in the following aspects:(i) the eventive alternation of postverbal argumentin English is less restricted than that in Chinese, in other words, English EAVs canchoose freely between NP-argument and VP-argument while Chinese EAVs tend to befollowed by VP-argument.(ii) The prototypical members of EAVs in English aregreater in number than those in Chinese, which can be lucidly displayed in the EAVsof aspectual category.(iii) Eventive alternations occur to some Chinese verbs such as verbs of “pao” type (including pao, shuai, qiang, dao) and “gan” type while theircounterparts in English can not undergo eventive alternations.
4) The differences in eventive alternations of postverbal argument betweenEnglish and Chinese are interpreted in the Lexical-Constructional Model ofmacro-event typology. In English, the main information construction (MIC) of theeventive qualification macro-event tends to be lexical, that is, the main verb (the EAV)lexicalizes the main information of the macro-event (MI=aspect/modality+EVENT).The MIC of the eventive qualification macro-event, in Chinese, tends to be ofschematic construction, that is, the main verb doesn’t lexicalize the MI, and, to put itin more detail, part of the MI (aspect/modality) is expressed by the main verb, part ofit (EVENT) by the supporting construction (SIC). What’s more, theLexical-Constructional Typological Model is also employed to analyze thepseudo-attributive occurring in “ni jiao ni de ying wen”(“NP1+V+np1de NP2”sentence pattern) in Chinese which is called “Latent Eventive Alternation” in thepresent study. The present study considers this sentence pattern as a special evaluativeconstruction and hence illuminates in a better way its syntactic-semantic andtypological properties.
The theoretical implication of the present study resides in discovering thesemantic clustering of the EAVs, a natural semantic class of verbs named eventivequalification verbs, and having a systematic interpretation of the logical metonymyfrom the perspective of the aspectual and attitude-evaluation construction. Besides,the Lexical-Constructional Typological Model is testified to be feasible in explicatingthe differences of eventive alternating phenomena between English and Chinese, andtherefore promises to be used for reference in future typological studies from theconstructional approach.
引文
陈前瑞，2003，汉语内部视点体的聚焦度与主观性。《世界汉语教学》第4期，22-31页。
丛迎旭、王红阳，2013，基于语义变化的概念语法隐喻模式与类型。《现代外语》第1期，33-39页。
程琪龙，2003，领属框架及其语法体现。《外语与外语教学》第4期，1-4页。
程琪龙，2006，《概念框架和认知》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
戴维·克里斯特尔，2000，现代语言学词典(第1版)，沈家煊译。北京：商务印书馆。
邓思颖，2008，“形义错配”与名物化的参数分析，《汉语学报》第4期，72-81页。
邓思颖，2009，“他的老师当得好”及汉语方言的名物化，《语言科学》第3期，239-47页。
邓思颖，2010，形义错配与汉英的差异。《语言教学与研究》第3期，51-6页。
邓云华、石毓智，2007，论构式语法理论的进步与局限。《外语教学与研究》第5期，323-32页。
高翠雨，2012，认知语义视域下英语逻辑转喻的意义识解研究。东北师范大学博士学位论文。
韩蕾，2010，试析事件名词的词类地位。《宁夏大学学报》（人文社会科学版）第1期，6-10页。
胡建华，2007，题元、论元和语法功能项。《外语教学与研究》第3期，163-70页。
胡旭辉，2012，认知和生成学派视角下的构式理论对比研究。《外国语》第3期，13-23页。
黄国营，1982，“的”的句法、语义功能。《语言研究》第1期，101-29页。
黄衍，1992，汉语的空语类。《中国语文》第5期，383-93页。
黄正德，2005，北京大学讲座PPT。
黄正德，2007，汉语动词的题元结构与其句法表现。《语言科学》第4期，3-21页。
黄正德，2008，从“他的老师当得好”谈起。《语言科学》第3期，225-41页。
金积令，1996，英汉存在句对比研究。《外国语》第6期，10-7页。
金立鑫，2009，解决汉语补语问题的一个可行性方案。《中国语文》第5期，387-98页。
李京廉、刘娟，2005，汉语的限定与非限定研究。《汉语学习》第1期，19-24页。
李汝亚，2003，述谓标引规则与主宾不对称现象。《外国语》第1期，22-9页。
李勇忠，2004，构式义、转喻与句式压制。《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期，10-4页。
刘丹青，2005，从所谓“补语”谈古代汉语语法学体系的参照系。《汉语史学报》第5期。
刘丹青，2010，汉语是一种动词型语言。《世界汉语教学》第1期，3-18页。
刘辉，2009，现代汉语事件量词的语义和句法。上海师范大学博士论文。
刘宇红，2011，生成语法中词汇语义与句法的界面研究。《外语学刊》第5期，56-60页。
卢军羽，2011，语言模因与事件域认知模型—以“人肉搜索”事件的语言模因为例。《现代外语》第3期，254-261页。
鲁川，2003，语言的主观信息和汉语的情态标记。见中国语文杂志社编，《语法研究和探索》(十二)。北京:商务印书馆，317-30。
陆丙甫，1998，从语义、语用看语法形式的实质。《中国语文》第5期，353-67页。
陆俭明，1959，现代汉语中一个新的语助词“看”。《中国语文》10月号，490-2页.
陆俭明，2008，构式语法理论的价值与局限。《南京师范大学文学院学报》第1期，142-51页。
陆俭明，2009，构式与意象图式。《北京大学学报》（哲学社会科学版）第3期，103-6页。
吕叔湘，1979，《汉语语法分析问题》。北京:商务印书馆。
吕叔湘，1980，《现代汉语八百词》。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘，1985，《近代汉语指示代词》。《吕叔湘文集》（第三卷）。商务印书馆。
吕叔湘，1992，《理论研究和事实研究》，见《语法研究和探索(六)》。北京:商务印书馆。
孟琮等，1999，《汉语动词用法词典》。北京：商务印书馆。
彭利贞，2007，《现代汉语情态研究》。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
潘海华、陆烁，2011，从“他的老师当得好”看句法中重新分析的必要性。《语言研究》第2期，32-40页。
秦洪武，2010，英汉语中体动词逻辑转喻：基于语料库的研究。中国英汉语比较研究会第九次全国学术会议暨国际英汉比较与翻译研讨会论文集。
秦洪武、王克非，2010，论元实现的词汇化解释:英汉语中的位移动词。《当代语言学》第2期，115-25页。
秦洪武、王克非，2012，基于语言运用的体动词逻辑转喻分析。《外国语》第5期，16-23页
沈家煊，1995,说“有界”与“无界”。《中国语文》其5期，367-81页。
沈家煊，2000，说“偷”和“抢”。《语言教学与研究》第1期，19-24页。
沈家煊,2003,现代汉语“动补结构”的类型学考察。《世界汉语教学》第3期,17-23页。
沈家煊，2006，“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句。《中国语文》第4期，291-300页。
沈家煊，2007，也谈“他的老师当得好”及相关句式。《现代中国语研究》第9期,1-12页。
沈家煊，2010，如何解决“补语”问题。《世界汉语教学》第4期，435-46页。
沈园，2007，《句法-语义界面研究》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
史文磊，2011，国外学界对词化类型学的讨论述略。《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期，12-19页。
石毓智，2001，汉语的限定动词和非限定动词之别。《世界汉语教学》第2期，23-7页。
石毓智，2004，汉英双宾语结构差别的概念化原因。《外语教学与研究》第2期，83-90页。
石毓智，2008，《认知能力与语言学理论》。上海：学林出版社。
宋作艳，2009，现代汉语中的事件强迫现象研究。北京大学博士学位论文。
宋作艳，2011，轻动词、事件与汉语中的宾语强迫。《中国语文》第3期，205-18页。
束定芳，2008，认知语义学。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孙淑娟、黄国华，2007，尝试态语助词“看”的语用效果分析。《南昌工程学院学报》第2期，28-32页。
孙天琦、李亚非，2010，汉语非核心论元允准结构初探。《中国语文》第1期，21-35页。
汤廷池，2000，《汉语语法论集》。台北：金字塔出版社。
陶明忠、马玉蕾，2008，框架语义学—格语法的第三阶段。《当代语言学》第1期，35-42页。
田臻，2009，汉语静态存在构式对动作动词的语义制约。上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
王黎，2005，关于构式和词语的多功能性。《外国语》第4期，2-6页。
王寅，2005，事件域认知模型及其解释力。《现代外语》第1期，17-26页。
王寅，2007，《认知语言学》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅，2006，《认知语法概论》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅，2011a，《构式语法研究（上卷）》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅，2011b，《构式语法研究（下卷）》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王健，2009，从生成词库理论的角度看英语和汉语的差异。《常熟理工学院学报》（哲学社会科学）第9期，92-122页。
卫乃兴，2002，《词语搭配的界定与研究体系》。上海：上海交通大学出版社。
吴福祥，1995，尝试态助词“看”的历史考察。《语言研究》第2期，161-6.
吴怀成，2008，“准定语＋N＋V得R”句式的产生机制。《语言科学》第2期，127-34页。
吴早生，2012，现代汉语光杆被领者的指称性质。《语文研究》第l期，7-14页。
谢佳玲，2002，汉语的情态动词。台湾“清华大学”博士学位论文。
辛斌，1997，论叙实谓词和含蓄谓词的前提意义与句法特征。《山东外语教学》第2期，6-10页
熊学亮，2007，英汉语双宾构式探析。《外语教学与研究》第4期，261-7页。
熊学亮，2009，增效构式与非增效构式。《外语教学与研究》第5期，323-8页。
徐烈炯，1995，《语义学》。北京：语文出版。
徐烈炯，1999，从句中的空位主语，见徐烈炯主编，《共性与个性——汉语语言学中的争议》。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
徐盛桓，2007，相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究。《外语教学与研究》第4期，253-60页。
严辰松，2006，构式语法论要。《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期，6-11页
严辰松，2008，伦纳德·泰尔米的宏事件研究及其启示。《外语研究》第5期，6-13页。
袁野，2007，词汇及构式意义的体验观。《天津外国语学院学报》第4期，33-40页。
袁毓林，2002，无指代词“他”的句法语义功能，见中国语文杂志社编，《语法研究和探索》(十二)。北京:商务印书馆，44-64。
袁毓林，2004，论元结构与句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件。《语言研究》第4期，1-10页。
袁毓林，2008，《基于认知的汉语计算语言学研究》。北京：北京大学出版社。
袁毓林，2008，面向信息检索系统的语义资源规划。《语言科学》第1期，1-11页。
张辉、蔡辉，2005，认知语言学和关联理论的互补性。《外国语》第3期，14-21页。
张韧，2006，构式与语法系统的认知心理属性。《中国外语》第1期，29-35页。
张韧，2007，转喻的构式化表征。《外国语》第2期，21-8页。
张韧，2009，关于词类本质的一个动态认知视角。《当代语言学》第3期，233-43页。
张若兰，2003，Parallelism的结构特征及其语义特点。《华中科技大学学报》（社会科学版）第6期，99-103页。
周有斌、邵敬敏，1993，汉语心理动词及其句型。《语文研究》第3期，32-8页。
翟象俊主编，1999，《高等学校教材·精读：大学英语》(第1册)。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱德熙，1982，《语法讲义》。北京：商务印书馆。
朱军，2008，现代汉语受事宾语句中论元共现规律及管控机制研究。华中师范大学博士学位论文。
Almeida, R. G.2004. The effect of context on the processing of type-shifting verbs.Brain and Language90.249-61.
Amodio, D.&C. Frith.2006. Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and socialcognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience7.268-77.
Anderson, S. R.1971. On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation.Foundations of Language7.387-96.
Anderson, S. R.1977. Comments on the Paper by Wasow. Formal Syntax ed. by P. W.Culicover; T. Wasow; and A. Akmajian,361–77. Academic Press, New York.
Baker, Mark C.1988. Incorporation: A theory of Grammatical Function Changing.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Benveniste, E.[1958]1971. Subjectivity in language. Problems in General Linguistics,ed. by E. Benveniste, trans. M. Meek. Coral Gables,223-30. FL.: University ofMiami Press.
Bernini, G.; L. Spreafico; and A. Valentini.2006. Acquiring motion events in a secondlanguage: the case of Italian L2. Linguisticae Filologia23.7-26.
Boas, H. C.2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLIPublications.
Boas, H. C.2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammaticalconstructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6.113-44.
Boas, H. C.2011. Coercion and leaking argument structures in ConstructionGrammar. Linguistics Vol.49.6.1271–303.
Bohnemeyer, J.; Nicholas J. Enfield; J. Essegbey; and S. Kita.2010. TheMacro-Event property-The segmentation of causal chains. Event representationin language and cognition, ed. by J. Bohnemeyer&E. Pederson,43-67.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bohnemeyer, J.; Nicholas J. Enfield; J. Essegbey; Iraide Ibarretxe-Antu ano; S. Kita;Friederike Lüpke; and Felix K. Ameka.2007. Principles of event segmentation inlanguage: The case of motion events. Language.83.495-532.
Bolinger. Dwight L.1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.
Borer, H.2005a. Structuring Sense I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Borer, H.2005b. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Brennan, J.&L. Pylkk nen.2008. Processing events: behavioral and neuromagneticcorrelates of aspectual coercion. Brain and Language Vol.106.2.132-43.
Brent R. Michael.1993. From Grammar to Lexicon: Unsupervised Learning ofLexical Syntax. Computational Linguistics, Vol.19.2.243-62.
Bresnan, J.1982. The Passive in Lexical Theory. The mental presentation ofgrammatical relations, ed. by J. Bresnan,3–86. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Briscoe T., A. Copestake&B. Boguraev.1990. Enjoy the Paper: Lexical Semanticsvia Lexicology. Proceedings of the13th International Conference onComputational Linguistics(COLING-90), ed. by H. Karlgren,42-7. Helsinki.Finland.
Bucciarelli, M.&P. Johnson-Laird.2005. Naive deontics: A theory of meaning,representation, and reasoning. Cognitive Psychology50.159-93.
Butler，S.2009. The Lexical Constructional Model: genesis, strengths and challenges.Deconstructing constructions, ed. by C. Butler&J. M. Arista,117-52.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J.1985. Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J.2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Bybee, J.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind s responses to repetition.Language Vol.82.4.711-33.
Bybee, J.；Perkins, Revere Dale；and Pagliuca, William.1994. The Evolution ofGrammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. ChicagoIL: University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, J.&S. Fleischman.1995. Modality in grammar and discourse: Anintroductory essay. Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by J. L. Bybee&S.Fleischman,1-14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chierchia, G.1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics1.181-234.
Chierchia, G.1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural LanguageSemantics6.339-405.
Choi，S．＆M. Bowerman.1991. Learning to express motion events in English andKorean:The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition41.83-121．
Chomsky, N.1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N.1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York:Praeger.
Coates, J.1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London&Canberra: CroomHelm.
Copestake, A.&E. J. Briscoe.1992. Lexical operations in a unification basedframework. Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. Proceedings ofthe first SIGLEX workshop, ed. by J. Pustejovsky&S. Bergler,101-19. Berkeley,CA, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Copestake A.&E. J. Briscoe.1995. Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension.Journal of Semantics12.15-67.
Coxhead, A.2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly34.213-38.
Croft, W.1990. Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events. Meanings and Prototypes:Studies in Linguistic Categorization, ed. by S. L. Tsohatzidis,48–73. Routledge,London.
Croft, W.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W.1993. Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. Semantics and thelexicon, ed. by J. Pustejovsky,55-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Croft, W.1994. The Semantics of Subjecthood. Subjecthood and Subjectivity:TheStatus of the Subject in Linguistic Theory, ed. by M. Yaguello,29-75. Ophrys,Paris.
Croft, W.1998. Event Structure in Argument Linking. The projection of arguments:Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by M. Butt&W. Geuder,21-63.Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Croft, W.2006. On explaining metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts,“Metonymy as a prototypical category”. Cognitive Linguistics17.317-26.
Croft，W.; J．Baredal; W．Hollmann，V．Sotirova; and C. Taoka．2010．RevisingTalmy's typological classification of complex event constructions. ContrastiveStudies in Construction Grammar, ed. by H. C. Boas,201-36．Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins．
Crystal, D.(ed.)2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th edn.).Blackwell Publishing.
Davies，W. D.&S. Dubinsky.2004. The Grammar o fRaising and Control: A Coursein Syntactic Argumentation. Malden, MA.: Blackwell
Davidson, D.1967. The logical form of action sentences. The Logic of Decision andAction, ed. by N. Resher,81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Reprinted in1980, Essays on Actions and Events, ed. by D. Davidson,105-22.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Diessel, H.2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Dik, S.1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part1: The structure of the clause,2nd, rev. edn, ed. by K. Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W.2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Dixon, R. M. W.&Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.).2006. Complementation: ACross Linguistic Typoloy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D. R.1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbsand Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, D. R.1988. Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituentconjunction. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. byRichard Oehrle,153-97. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Dowty, D. R.1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language67.547-619.
Dowty, D. R.2007. Compositionality as an Empirical Problem. Compositionality asan Empirical Problem, ed. by C. Barker&P. Jacobson,23-101. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Egan, T.2008. Non-finite Complementation. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Egg, M.2003. Beginning novels and finishing hamburgers: remarks on the semanticsof begin. Journal of Semantics20.163-91.
Einstein, A.[1916]1961. Relativity: The special and the general theory. New York:Three Rivers Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by E.Bach&R. Harms,1-90. New York: Holt, Rinehart&Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J.1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. Readings in EnglishTransformational Grammar, ed. by R. Jacobs&P. Rosenbaum,120-33.Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Fillmore, Charles J.1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, Charles J.1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current Issues in LinguisticTheory, ed. by Roger W. Cole,76-138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. byLinguistic Society of Korea,111-37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, Charles J.1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni diSemantica Vol.7.1.49-58.
Freed, Alice F.1979. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. London:Reidel.
Fries, Charles C.1952. The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace&World.
Frisson, S.&Brian McElree.2008. Complement coercion is not modulated bycompetition: evidence from eye movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition31.1-11.
Frisson, S.&M. Pickering.1999. The processing of metonymy: evidence from eyemovements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition25.1366-83.
Givón, T.1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language18.265-337.
Godard, D.&J. Jayez.1993. Towards a proper treatment of coercionphenomena.Proceedings of the6th conference of the European chapter of theACL,168-177. Utrecht: OTS Utrecht.
Goldberg，A．1995．Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure．Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A.2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. CognitiveLinguistics Vol.13.4.327-56.
Goldberg, A.2003. Words by default：The persian complex predicate construction.Mismatch:Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Language, ed. byMichaelis, L. A.&E.A. Francis,117-48. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg，A．2006．Constructions at Work．Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.2010. Verbs, Constructions, and Semantic Frames. Lexical Semantics,Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by M. Rappaport; E. Doron; and I. Sichel.39-58.Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.&R. Jackendoff.2004. The English resultative as a family ofconstruction. Language80.532-69.
Gonzálvez-García, F.2007. Saved by the reflexive: Evidence from coercion viareflexives in verbless complement clauses in English and Spanish. AnnualReview of Cognitive Linguistics5.193–238.
Gonzálvez-García, F.2009. The family of object-related depictives in English andSpanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences31.663–723.
Guerssel, M.; K. Hale; M. Laughren; B. Levin; and J. W. Eagle.1985. ACross-Linguistic Study of Transitivity Alternations. Papers from the Parasessionon Causatives and Agentivity,48–63. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL.
Gruber, J. S.1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,Cambridge, MA.(Reprinted in Gruber1976:1-210.)
Hale, K. L.&S. J. Keyser.1987. A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project WorkingPapers10, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, K. L.&S. J. Keyser.1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression ofsyntactic relations. The view from building20: essays in linguistics in honor ofSylvain Bromberger, ed. by K. L. Hale&S. J. Keyser,53-110. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hall, B.1965. Subject and Object in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Haiman, J.1985. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heine, B.1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces andGrammaticalization．Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hengeveld, K.1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal ofLinguistics25.127-57.
Higginbotham, J.2000. On Events in linguistic semantics. Speaking of events, ed. by J.Higginbotham; F. Pianesi; and A. Varzi,49-79. Oxford/New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Higginbotham, J.2004. Events, states, and actions: some clarifications, talk given atNational Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Hu, Jianhua; Haihua Pan; and Liejiong Xu.2001. Is there a Finite vs. NonfiniteDistinction in Chinese? Linguistics39.1117-148.
Huang, C.-T. James.1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.
Huang, C.-T. James.1988. Wo pao de kuai and chinese phrase structure. Language64.274-311.
Huang, C.-T. James.1992. Complex predicates in control. Control and Grammar, ed.by R. Larson; U. Lahiri; S. Iatridou; and J. Higginbotham,109-47. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. J.1997. On Lexical structure and syntactic projection. Chineselanguages and linguistics3, Academia Sinica, Taipei.
Huang, C-T. James&Yen-hui Audrey Li.1996. Recent Generative Studies in ChineseSyntax. New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics, ed. by C.-T. J. Huang&Yen-huiAudrey Li,49-96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Huang, Chu-Ren; Siaw-Fong Chung; and I-Li Su.2008. Durative event： AComparison of gan3and qiang3. The Proceedings of the Chinese LexicalSemantic Workshop2008(CLSW2008),42-50. Singapore. July,14-6.
Im，Sung-Chool.2001. Typological Patterns of Motion Verbs in Korean. Bafflo，NY:State University of NY Ph.D. dissertation.
Iwata, S.2004. Over-prefixation: A lexical constructional approach. EnglishLanguage and Linguistics8.239-92.
Iwata, S.2005. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. CognitiveLinguistics Vol.16.2.355-407.
Jackendoff, R.1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1976. Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation. LinguisticInquiry7.89-150.
Jackendoff, R.1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1997. The Architecture of the language facult. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Jackendoff, R.2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, P.1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy22.117–84.
Jacobson, P.2000. Paycheck pronouns, bach-peters sentences, and variable-freesemantics. Natural Language Semantics8.77-155.
Johanson，L.2000. View point operators in European languages. Tense and Aspect inthe Languages of Europe, ed. by. Dahl (ed.)，27-187. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Koenig&A. Kathol (eds.) Lexical and Constructional Aspects of LinguisticExplanation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kopecka，A．2006．The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: TypologicalPerspective. Space in Languages. Linguistic Systemsand Cognitive Categories, ed.by M. Hickmann&S. Robert,83-101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, P.2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction.In (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, ed. by M. Fried&H. C.Boas,71-100. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kuperberg, G.; A. Choi; N. Cohn; M. Paczynski; and R. Jackendoff.2010.Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience Vol.22.12.2685-701.
Lakoff，G.1987. Women，Fire，and Dangerous things: What Categories reveal aboutthe mind. Chicago: University of Chieago Press.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive LinguisticsVol.20.1.167-76.
Lapata, M.,&A. Lascarides.2003. A probabilistic account of logical metonymy.Computational linguistics29.263-317.
Lapata, M.; Keller, F.; and Scheepers, C.2003. Intra-sentential context effects on theinterpretation of logical metonymy. Cognitive science27.649-68.
Lascarides, A.,&A. Copestake.1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal ofLinguistics34.387–414.
Larson, R.1998. Events and modification in nominals. Proceedings of SALT8.
Leech, G. N.[1983]1990. Semantics: The Study of Meaning，Penguin Books.
Levin, B.,(ed.)1985. Lexical Semantics in Review. Lexicon Project Working Papers1, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, B.1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B.&M. Rappaport.1998. Building verb meanings. The Projection ofArguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by M. Butt&W. Geuder97-134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Levin, B.&M. Rappaport.2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey.1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Lin, T.-H.2001. Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. Irvine:University of California Ph.D. dissertation.
Lin T.-H. Jonah&Liu C.-Y. Cecilia.2005. Coercion, Event structure, andsyntax.Nanzan linguistics2.9-31.
Liu, Mei-chun; Chu-Ren Huang; and Ching-Yi Lee.1999. Lexical information andbeyond: constructional inferences in semantic representation. Proceedings of the13th pacific asia conference on language, information and computation,27-38.Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, Mei-chun.2005. Lexical information and beyond: meaning coercion andconstructional inferences of Mandrain verb gan. Journal of ChineseLinguistics.Vol.33.2.310-32.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maienborn, C.; K. von Heusinger; and P. Portner (eds.).2011. Semantics： Aninternational handbook of natural language meaning; Volume1.(HSKHandbook series),802-29. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mairal R.&P. Faber.2007. Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory ofmeaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics5.137–172.
Mairal R.&Ruiz de Mendoza.2008. New challenges for lexical representation withinthe Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses57.137-58.
Mairal, R.&Ruiz de Mendoza.2009. Levels of description and explanation inmeaning construction. Deconstructing constructions, ed. by C. Butler&J. M.Arista,153-98. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Marantz, A. P.1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Masini, F.2005. Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the case ofItalian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics18.145-73.
McElree, B.; Matthew J. Taxler; Martin J. Pickering; Rachel E. Seely; and R.Jackendoff.2001. Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition,78.17-25.
McElree, B.; L. Pylkk nen; M. Pickering; and M. Traxler.2006. The time course ofenriched composition. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review Vol.13.1.53-9.
Michaelis, L.2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning.Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, ed. by H. Cuyckens; R. Dirven; JohnR. Taylor; and Ronald W. Langacker,163-209. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter.
Moens, M.&M. Steedman.1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference.Computational Linguistics14.15-28.
Montague, Richard.1970. Universal grammar. Theoria36.373-98.
Mukherjec, J.2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and aUsage-based Model. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Narrog, Heiko.2009. Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Nation, I. S. P.2004. A study of the most frequent word families in the BritishNational Corpus. Vocabulary in a Second Language, ed. by P. Bo-gaards&B.Laufer,3-13. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J.2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: Acognitive-pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J.2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it.Modality: Studies in Form and Function, ed. by A. Klinge&H. H. Müller,5-38.London: Equinox.
Nuyts, J.2006. Modality. The Expression of Modality, ed. by W. Frawley,1-26.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nuyts, J.2008. Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitiveplanning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6.185-207.
Nuyts, J.2009a. Language, conceptualization and TAM marking: Acognitive-functional perspective. Journal of Foreign Languages1.2-43
Nuyts, J.2009b. The “one-commitment-per-clause” principle and the cognitive statusof qualificational categories. Linguistics47.141-71.
Ochs E.&B. B. Schieffelin.1989. Language has a heart. Text9.7-25.
Palmer, F. R.1979. Modality and English Modals. New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. R.1990. Modality and the English modals,2nd edn. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R.2001. Mood and Modality,2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Partee, Barbara&Mats Rooth.1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity.Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. by R. B uerle; C. Schwarze;and A. von Stechow,361-83. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Partee, B.&V. Borschev.1998. Integrating lexical and formal semantics: genitives,relational nouns, and type-shifting. Proceedings of the Second Tbilisi Symposiumon Language, Logic and Computation, ed. by R. Cooper&T. Gamkrelidze,229-41. Tbilisi, Georgia: Center for Language, Logic, Speech, Tbilisi StateUniversity.
Pederson, J.2009a. The construction of macro-events: A Typological Perspective.Deconstructing constructions, ed. by C. Butler&J. M. Arista25-62.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pedersen, J.2009b. Lexical and constructional organization of argument structure. Acontrastive analysis. Studies in language and cognition, ed. by J. Zlatev et al,230-45. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Peirsman, Y.&D. Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. CognitiveLinguistics17.269–316.
Perlmutter, D.1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis.Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic society4,157-89. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia.
Pesetsky, D. M.1982. Paths and Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.
Pesetsky, D. M.1994. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pickering, M. J.; McElree, B.; and Traxler, M.2005. The difficulty of coercion: Aresponse to de Almeida. Brain&Language93.1-9.
Pike, Kenneth L.1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure ofHuman Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Pi ango, María M., Edgar Zurif&Ray Jackendoff.1999. Real-time processingimplications of enriched composition at the syntax–semantics interface. Journalof Psycholinguistic Research28.395-414.
Pustejovsky J.1989. Current Issues in Computational Lexical Semantics. Proceedings.of4th Eur. ACL., xvii-xxv. Manchester.
Pustejovsky, J.1991. The Syntax of event structure. Cognition41.47-81.
Pustejovsky J.1993. Type coercion and lexical selection. Semantics and the Lexicon,ed. by J. Pustejovsky,73-94. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pustejovsky, James.1995. Generative lexicon. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J.1998. The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia LinguisticaVol.32.3/4.323-47.
Pustejovsky, J.2001. Type construction and the logic of concepts. The syntax of wordmeaning, ed. by P. Bouillon&F. Busa,91-123. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Pustejovsky, J.2006. Type theory and lexical decomposition. Journal of CognitiveScience Vol.7.1.39-76.
Pustejovsky, J.2011. Coercion in a general theory of argument. Linguistics Vol.49.6.1401-31
Pustejovsky, J.&P. Bouillon.1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy.Journal of semantics Vol.12.2.133-62.
Pustejovsky, J.&E. Je ek.2008. Semantic coercion in language: Beyonddistributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics Vol.20.1.181-214.
Pylkk nen, L.2008. Mismatching Meanings in Brain and Behavior. Language andLinguistics Compass Vol.2.4.712-38.
Pylkk nen, L.&B. McElree.2006. The syntax–semantics interface: on-linecomposition of sentence meaning. Handbook of Psycholinguistics,2nd edn., ed.by M. Traxler&M. A. Gernsbacher,537-77. New York: Elsevier.
Pylkk nen, L.&B. McElree.2007. An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal ofCognitive Neuroscience19.1905-21.
Radden, G.; Klaus-Michael K pcke; T. Berg; and P. Siemund.2007. Aspects ofMeaning Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ramchand, G.2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport, M.&B. Levin.1988. What to Do with Theta-Roles. Thematic relations,ed. by W. Wilkins,7-36. New York: Academic Press.
Rappaport, M.&B. Levin.1998. Building Verb Meanings. The projection ofarguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by M. Butt&W. Geuder,97-134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Rappaport, M.&B. Levin.2001. An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives.Language77.766-97.
Rojo, A.&J. Valenzuela.2005. Verbs of sensory perception in English and Spanish.Languages in Contrast Vol.5.2.219-43.
Rosch, E.1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General104.192-233.
Rosca，A.2011. A lexical-constructional approach to light and sound emission verbs.RESLA24.171-91.
Ruiz de Mendoza&A. Baicchi.2006. Illocutionary constructions: cognitivemotivation and linguistic realization. Series A. General and Theoretical Papers,ed. by Linguistic LAUD Agency. Essen: LAUD.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Díez Velasco, O. I.2003. High-level metonymy and linguisticstructure. Interaction and Cognition in Linguistics, ed. by C. Inchaurralde&C.Floren,189-210. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Mairal, R.2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaningconstruction. Aspects of Meaning Construction,ed. by G. Radden; K. Kopcke; T.Berg; and P. Siemund,33-49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Mairal, R.2008. Levels of description and constraining factors inmeaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model.Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae Vol.42.2.355-400.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Lorena Pérez Hernandez.2001. Metonymy and grammar:motivation, constraints and interaction. Language&Communication,321-57.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Olga Isabel Diez Velasco.2004. Metonymic motivation inanaphoric reference. Studies in Linguistic Motivation, ed. by G. Radden&Klaus-Uwe Panther,293-320. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Ruppenhofer, J.; M. Elsworth; Miriam R.L. Petruck; Christopher R. Johnson&J.Scheffczyk.2006. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice.8August2012.Online: http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=126.
Schank，Roger C.&Roger P. Abelson.1977. Scripts, Plans，goals and understanding.Hilldale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shan, Chung-chieh&C. Barker.2006. Explaining crossover and superiority asleft-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy29.91-134.
Slobin, D. I.2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and theexpression of motion events. Relating events in narrative (Vol.2): Typologicaland contextual perspectives, ed. by S. Str mqvist&L. Verhoeven,219-57.Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steedman, M.1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language&Linguistic Theory5.403-39.
Steedman, M.1990. Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy13.207-64.
Stowell, T.1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D.dissertation.
Sweep, J.2010. A Frame-semantic Approach to Logical Metonymy. Constructionsand Frames2.1-32.
Sweep, J.2011. Metonymical transfers: The complex relation of metonymy andgrammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam Vol.4.1.http://www.linguisticsinamsterdam.nl
Talmy, L.1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms.Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.3, ed. by T. Shopen,57-149.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.1987. Lexicalization patterns: typologies and universals. BerkeleyCognitive Science Report47. Berkeley: Cognitive Science Program, Universityof California.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science12.49-100.
Talmy, L.1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of theSeventeenth Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Laurel A Sutton,Christopher Johnson and Ruth Shields,480-519. Berkeley: Berkeley LinguisticsSociety.
Talmy, L.2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L.2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L.2008. Main Verb Properties and Equipollent Framing. Crosslinguisticapproaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of DanIsaac Slobin, ed. by Guo, Jiansheng; E. Lieven; N. Budwig; S. Ervin-Tripp; K.Nakamura; and S. Ozcaliskan,389-402. London: Psychology Press.
Talmy, L.2010. Universals of Semantics. Cambridge Encyclopedia of the LanguageSciences, ed. by P. Hogan,754-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J.1989. Linguistic categorization:prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Tiee, Henry Hung-yeh.1986. A Reference Grammar of Chinese Sentence (withexercise). The University of Arizona Press.
Trandabat D.&M. Husarciuc.2008. Romanian semantic role resource. Proceedingsof the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08),Marrakech, Morocco.
Traxler, M. J.; McElree, B.; Williams, R. S.; and Pickering, M.J.2005. Context effectsin coercion: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language53.1-26.
Traxler, M. J.; Pickering, M.J.; and McElree, B.2002. Coercion in sentenceprocessing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal ofMemory and Language47.530–47.
Tsang, Chui Lim.1981. A Semantic Study of Modal AuxiliaryVerbs in Chinese. UMIPh.D. dissertation.
Van Fraassen, Bas C.1985. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time and Space.New York: Columbia University Press.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr.&R. J. LaPolla.1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Z.1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UniversityPress.
Verspoor, C. M.1997. Contextually-Dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh, U.K.:University of Edinburgh Ph.D. dissertation.
Verstraete, J.-C.2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality:Problemsin the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics37.1401-18.
Williams, E.1981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review1.81-114.
Wasow, T.1985. Postscript to Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: AnIntroduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase StructureGrammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
West, M.1953. A general service list of English words. Revised and enlarged edn.London: Longmans.
丛迎旭、王红阳，2013，基于语义变化的概念语法隐喻模式与类型。《现代外语》第1期，33-39页。
程琪龙，2003，领属框架及其语法体现。《外语与外语教学》第4期，1-4页。
程琪龙，2006，《概念框架和认知》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
戴维·克里斯特尔，2000，现代语言学词典(第1版)，沈家煊译。北京：商务印书馆。
邓思颖，2008，“形义错配”与名物化的参数分析，《汉语学报》第4期，72-81页。
邓思颖，2009，“他的老师当得好”及汉语方言的名物化，《语言科学》第3期，239-47页。
邓思颖，2010，形义错配与汉英的差异。《语言教学与研究》第3期，51-6页。
邓云华、石毓智，2007，论构式语法理论的进步与局限。《外语教学与研究》第5期，323-32页。
高翠雨，2012，认知语义视域下英语逻辑转喻的意义识解研究。东北师范大学博士学位论文。
韩蕾，2010，试析事件名词的词类地位。《宁夏大学学报》（人文社会科学版）第1期，6-10页。
胡建华，2007，题元、论元和语法功能项。《外语教学与研究》第3期，163-70页。
胡旭辉，2012，认知和生成学派视角下的构式理论对比研究。《外国语》第3期，13-23页。
黄国营，1982，“的”的句法、语义功能。《语言研究》第1期，101-29页。
黄衍，1992，汉语的空语类。《中国语文》第5期，383-93页。
黄正德，2005，北京大学讲座PPT。
黄正德，2007，汉语动词的题元结构与其句法表现。《语言科学》第4期，3-21页。
黄正德，2008，从“他的老师当得好”谈起。《语言科学》第3期，225-41页。
金积令，1996，英汉存在句对比研究。《外国语》第6期，10-7页。
金立鑫，2009，解决汉语补语问题的一个可行性方案。《中国语文》第5期，387-98页。
李京廉、刘娟，2005，汉语的限定与非限定研究。《汉语学习》第1期，19-24页。
李汝亚，2003，述谓标引规则与主宾不对称现象。《外国语》第1期，22-9页。
李勇忠，2004，构式义、转喻与句式压制。《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期，10-4页。
刘丹青，2005，从所谓“补语”谈古代汉语语法学体系的参照系。《汉语史学报》第5期。
刘丹青，2010，汉语是一种动词型语言。《世界汉语教学》第1期，3-18页。
刘辉，2009，现代汉语事件量词的语义和句法。上海师范大学博士论文。
刘宇红，2011，生成语法中词汇语义与句法的界面研究。《外语学刊》第5期，56-60页。
卢军羽，2011，语言模因与事件域认知模型—以“人肉搜索”事件的语言模因为例。《现代外语》第3期，254-261页。
鲁川，2003，语言的主观信息和汉语的情态标记。见中国语文杂志社编，《语法研究和探索》(十二)。北京:商务印书馆，317-30。
陆丙甫，1998，从语义、语用看语法形式的实质。《中国语文》第5期，353-67页。
陆俭明，1959，现代汉语中一个新的语助词“看”。《中国语文》10月号，490-2页.
陆俭明，2008，构式语法理论的价值与局限。《南京师范大学文学院学报》第1期，142-51页。
陆俭明，2009，构式与意象图式。《北京大学学报》（哲学社会科学版）第3期，103-6页。
吕叔湘，1979，《汉语语法分析问题》。北京:商务印书馆。
吕叔湘，1980，《现代汉语八百词》。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘，1985，《近代汉语指示代词》。《吕叔湘文集》（第三卷）。商务印书馆。
吕叔湘，1992，《理论研究和事实研究》，见《语法研究和探索(六)》。北京:商务印书馆。
孟琮等，1999，《汉语动词用法词典》。北京：商务印书馆。
彭利贞，2007，《现代汉语情态研究》。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
潘海华、陆烁，2011，从“他的老师当得好”看句法中重新分析的必要性。《语言研究》第2期，32-40页。
秦洪武，2010，英汉语中体动词逻辑转喻：基于语料库的研究。中国英汉语比较研究会第九次全国学术会议暨国际英汉比较与翻译研讨会论文集。
秦洪武、王克非，2010，论元实现的词汇化解释:英汉语中的位移动词。《当代语言学》第2期，115-25页。
秦洪武、王克非，2012，基于语言运用的体动词逻辑转喻分析。《外国语》第5期，16-23页
沈家煊，1995,说“有界”与“无界”。《中国语文》其5期，367-81页。
沈家煊，2000，说“偷”和“抢”。《语言教学与研究》第1期，19-24页。
沈家煊,2003,现代汉语“动补结构”的类型学考察。《世界汉语教学》第3期,17-23页。
沈家煊，2006，“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式——兼说汉语“糅合”造句。《中国语文》第4期，291-300页。
沈家煊，2007，也谈“他的老师当得好”及相关句式。《现代中国语研究》第9期,1-12页。
沈家煊，2010，如何解决“补语”问题。《世界汉语教学》第4期，435-46页。
沈园，2007，《句法-语义界面研究》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
史文磊，2011，国外学界对词化类型学的讨论述略。《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期，12-19页。
石毓智，2001，汉语的限定动词和非限定动词之别。《世界汉语教学》第2期，23-7页。
石毓智，2004，汉英双宾语结构差别的概念化原因。《外语教学与研究》第2期，83-90页。
石毓智，2008，《认知能力与语言学理论》。上海：学林出版社。
宋作艳，2009，现代汉语中的事件强迫现象研究。北京大学博士学位论文。
宋作艳，2011，轻动词、事件与汉语中的宾语强迫。《中国语文》第3期，205-18页。
束定芳，2008，认知语义学。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孙淑娟、黄国华，2007，尝试态语助词“看”的语用效果分析。《南昌工程学院学报》第2期，28-32页。
孙天琦、李亚非，2010，汉语非核心论元允准结构初探。《中国语文》第1期，21-35页。
汤廷池，2000，《汉语语法论集》。台北：金字塔出版社。
陶明忠、马玉蕾，2008，框架语义学—格语法的第三阶段。《当代语言学》第1期，35-42页。
田臻，2009，汉语静态存在构式对动作动词的语义制约。上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
王黎，2005，关于构式和词语的多功能性。《外国语》第4期，2-6页。
王寅，2005，事件域认知模型及其解释力。《现代外语》第1期，17-26页。
王寅，2007，《认知语言学》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅，2006，《认知语法概论》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅，2011a，《构式语法研究（上卷）》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王寅，2011b，《构式语法研究（下卷）》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王健，2009，从生成词库理论的角度看英语和汉语的差异。《常熟理工学院学报》（哲学社会科学）第9期，92-122页。
卫乃兴，2002，《词语搭配的界定与研究体系》。上海：上海交通大学出版社。
吴福祥，1995，尝试态助词“看”的历史考察。《语言研究》第2期，161-6.
吴怀成，2008，“准定语＋N＋V得R”句式的产生机制。《语言科学》第2期，127-34页。
吴早生，2012，现代汉语光杆被领者的指称性质。《语文研究》第l期，7-14页。
谢佳玲，2002，汉语的情态动词。台湾“清华大学”博士学位论文。
辛斌，1997，论叙实谓词和含蓄谓词的前提意义与句法特征。《山东外语教学》第2期，6-10页
熊学亮，2007，英汉语双宾构式探析。《外语教学与研究》第4期，261-7页。
熊学亮，2009，增效构式与非增效构式。《外语教学与研究》第5期，323-8页。
徐烈炯，1995，《语义学》。北京：语文出版。
徐烈炯，1999，从句中的空位主语，见徐烈炯主编，《共性与个性——汉语语言学中的争议》。北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
徐盛桓，2007，相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究。《外语教学与研究》第4期，253-60页。
严辰松，2006，构式语法论要。《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期，6-11页
严辰松，2008，伦纳德·泰尔米的宏事件研究及其启示。《外语研究》第5期，6-13页。
袁野，2007，词汇及构式意义的体验观。《天津外国语学院学报》第4期，33-40页。
袁毓林，2002，无指代词“他”的句法语义功能，见中国语文杂志社编，《语法研究和探索》(十二)。北京:商务印书馆，44-64。
袁毓林，2004，论元结构与句式结构互动的动因、机制和条件。《语言研究》第4期，1-10页。
袁毓林，2008，《基于认知的汉语计算语言学研究》。北京：北京大学出版社。
袁毓林，2008，面向信息检索系统的语义资源规划。《语言科学》第1期，1-11页。
张辉、蔡辉，2005，认知语言学和关联理论的互补性。《外国语》第3期，14-21页。
张韧，2006，构式与语法系统的认知心理属性。《中国外语》第1期，29-35页。
张韧，2007，转喻的构式化表征。《外国语》第2期，21-8页。
张韧，2009，关于词类本质的一个动态认知视角。《当代语言学》第3期，233-43页。
张若兰，2003，Parallelism的结构特征及其语义特点。《华中科技大学学报》（社会科学版）第6期，99-103页。
周有斌、邵敬敏，1993，汉语心理动词及其句型。《语文研究》第3期，32-8页。
翟象俊主编，1999，《高等学校教材·精读：大学英语》(第1册)。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱德熙，1982，《语法讲义》。北京：商务印书馆。
朱军，2008，现代汉语受事宾语句中论元共现规律及管控机制研究。华中师范大学博士学位论文。
Almeida, R. G.2004. The effect of context on the processing of type-shifting verbs.Brain and Language90.249-61.
Amodio, D.&C. Frith.2006. Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and socialcognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience7.268-77.
Anderson, S. R.1971. On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation.Foundations of Language7.387-96.
Anderson, S. R.1977. Comments on the Paper by Wasow. Formal Syntax ed. by P. W.Culicover; T. Wasow; and A. Akmajian,361–77. Academic Press, New York.
Baker, Mark C.1988. Incorporation: A theory of Grammatical Function Changing.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Benveniste, E.[1958]1971. Subjectivity in language. Problems in General Linguistics,ed. by E. Benveniste, trans. M. Meek. Coral Gables,223-30. FL.: University ofMiami Press.
Bernini, G.; L. Spreafico; and A. Valentini.2006. Acquiring motion events in a secondlanguage: the case of Italian L2. Linguisticae Filologia23.7-26.
Boas, H. C.2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLIPublications.
Boas, H. C.2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammaticalconstructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6.113-44.
Boas, H. C.2011. Coercion and leaking argument structures in ConstructionGrammar. Linguistics Vol.49.6.1271–303.
Bohnemeyer, J.; Nicholas J. Enfield; J. Essegbey; and S. Kita.2010. TheMacro-Event property-The segmentation of causal chains. Event representationin language and cognition, ed. by J. Bohnemeyer&E. Pederson,43-67.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bohnemeyer, J.; Nicholas J. Enfield; J. Essegbey; Iraide Ibarretxe-Antu ano; S. Kita;Friederike Lüpke; and Felix K. Ameka.2007. Principles of event segmentation inlanguage: The case of motion events. Language.83.495-532.
Bolinger. Dwight L.1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.
Borer, H.2005a. Structuring Sense I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Borer, H.2005b. Structuring Sense II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Brennan, J.&L. Pylkk nen.2008. Processing events: behavioral and neuromagneticcorrelates of aspectual coercion. Brain and Language Vol.106.2.132-43.
Brent R. Michael.1993. From Grammar to Lexicon: Unsupervised Learning ofLexical Syntax. Computational Linguistics, Vol.19.2.243-62.
Bresnan, J.1982. The Passive in Lexical Theory. The mental presentation ofgrammatical relations, ed. by J. Bresnan,3–86. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Briscoe T., A. Copestake&B. Boguraev.1990. Enjoy the Paper: Lexical Semanticsvia Lexicology. Proceedings of the13th International Conference onComputational Linguistics(COLING-90), ed. by H. Karlgren,42-7. Helsinki.Finland.
Bucciarelli, M.&P. Johnson-Laird.2005. Naive deontics: A theory of meaning,representation, and reasoning. Cognitive Psychology50.159-93.
Butler，S.2009. The Lexical Constructional Model: genesis, strengths and challenges.Deconstructing constructions, ed. by C. Butler&J. M. Arista,117-52.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J.1985. Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J.2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Bybee, J.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind s responses to repetition.Language Vol.82.4.711-33.
Bybee, J.；Perkins, Revere Dale；and Pagliuca, William.1994. The Evolution ofGrammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. ChicagoIL: University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, J.&S. Fleischman.1995. Modality in grammar and discourse: Anintroductory essay. Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by J. L. Bybee&S.Fleischman,1-14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chierchia, G.1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics1.181-234.
Chierchia, G.1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural LanguageSemantics6.339-405.
Choi，S．＆M. Bowerman.1991. Learning to express motion events in English andKorean:The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition41.83-121．
Chomsky, N.1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N.1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York:Praeger.
Coates, J.1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London&Canberra: CroomHelm.
Copestake, A.&E. J. Briscoe.1992. Lexical operations in a unification basedframework. Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. Proceedings ofthe first SIGLEX workshop, ed. by J. Pustejovsky&S. Bergler,101-19. Berkeley,CA, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Copestake A.&E. J. Briscoe.1995. Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension.Journal of Semantics12.15-67.
Coxhead, A.2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly34.213-38.
Croft, W.1990. Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events. Meanings and Prototypes:Studies in Linguistic Categorization, ed. by S. L. Tsohatzidis,48–73. Routledge,London.
Croft, W.1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W.1993. Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. Semantics and thelexicon, ed. by J. Pustejovsky,55-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Croft, W.1994. The Semantics of Subjecthood. Subjecthood and Subjectivity:TheStatus of the Subject in Linguistic Theory, ed. by M. Yaguello,29-75. Ophrys,Paris.
Croft, W.1998. Event Structure in Argument Linking. The projection of arguments:Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by M. Butt&W. Geuder,21-63.Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Croft, W.2006. On explaining metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts,“Metonymy as a prototypical category”. Cognitive Linguistics17.317-26.
Croft，W.; J．Baredal; W．Hollmann，V．Sotirova; and C. Taoka．2010．RevisingTalmy's typological classification of complex event constructions. ContrastiveStudies in Construction Grammar, ed. by H. C. Boas,201-36．Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins．
Crystal, D.(ed.)2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th edn.).Blackwell Publishing.
Davies，W. D.&S. Dubinsky.2004. The Grammar o fRaising and Control: A Coursein Syntactic Argumentation. Malden, MA.: Blackwell
Davidson, D.1967. The logical form of action sentences. The Logic of Decision andAction, ed. by N. Resher,81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Reprinted in1980, Essays on Actions and Events, ed. by D. Davidson,105-22.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Diessel, H.2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Dik, S.1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part1: The structure of the clause,2nd, rev. edn, ed. by K. Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W.2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Dixon, R. M. W.&Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.).2006. Complementation: ACross Linguistic Typoloy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D. R.1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbsand Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, D. R.1988. Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituentconjunction. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. byRichard Oehrle,153-97. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Dowty, D. R.1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language67.547-619.
Dowty, D. R.2007. Compositionality as an Empirical Problem. Compositionality asan Empirical Problem, ed. by C. Barker&P. Jacobson,23-101. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Egan, T.2008. Non-finite Complementation. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Egg, M.2003. Beginning novels and finishing hamburgers: remarks on the semanticsof begin. Journal of Semantics20.163-91.
Einstein, A.[1916]1961. Relativity: The special and the general theory. New York:Three Rivers Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by E.Bach&R. Harms,1-90. New York: Holt, Rinehart&Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J.1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. Readings in EnglishTransformational Grammar, ed. by R. Jacobs&P. Rosenbaum,120-33.Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Fillmore, Charles J.1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, Charles J.1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current Issues in LinguisticTheory, ed. by Roger W. Cole,76-138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. byLinguistic Society of Korea,111-37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, Charles J.1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni diSemantica Vol.7.1.49-58.
Freed, Alice F.1979. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. London:Reidel.
Fries, Charles C.1952. The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace&World.
Frisson, S.&Brian McElree.2008. Complement coercion is not modulated bycompetition: evidence from eye movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition31.1-11.
Frisson, S.&M. Pickering.1999. The processing of metonymy: evidence from eyemovements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition25.1366-83.
Givón, T.1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language18.265-337.
Godard, D.&J. Jayez.1993. Towards a proper treatment of coercionphenomena.Proceedings of the6th conference of the European chapter of theACL,168-177. Utrecht: OTS Utrecht.
Goldberg，A．1995．Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to ArgumentStructure．Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A.2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. CognitiveLinguistics Vol.13.4.327-56.
Goldberg, A.2003. Words by default：The persian complex predicate construction.Mismatch:Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Language, ed. byMichaelis, L. A.&E.A. Francis,117-48. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg，A．2006．Constructions at Work．Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.2010. Verbs, Constructions, and Semantic Frames. Lexical Semantics,Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by M. Rappaport; E. Doron; and I. Sichel.39-58.Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.&R. Jackendoff.2004. The English resultative as a family ofconstruction. Language80.532-69.
Gonzálvez-García, F.2007. Saved by the reflexive: Evidence from coercion viareflexives in verbless complement clauses in English and Spanish. AnnualReview of Cognitive Linguistics5.193–238.
Gonzálvez-García, F.2009. The family of object-related depictives in English andSpanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences31.663–723.
Guerssel, M.; K. Hale; M. Laughren; B. Levin; and J. W. Eagle.1985. ACross-Linguistic Study of Transitivity Alternations. Papers from the Parasessionon Causatives and Agentivity,48–63. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL.
Gruber, J. S.1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,Cambridge, MA.(Reprinted in Gruber1976:1-210.)
Hale, K. L.&S. J. Keyser.1987. A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project WorkingPapers10, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, K. L.&S. J. Keyser.1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression ofsyntactic relations. The view from building20: essays in linguistics in honor ofSylvain Bromberger, ed. by K. L. Hale&S. J. Keyser,53-110. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hall, B.1965. Subject and Object in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Haiman, J.1985. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heine, B.1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces andGrammaticalization．Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hengeveld, K.1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal ofLinguistics25.127-57.
Higginbotham, J.2000. On Events in linguistic semantics. Speaking of events, ed. by J.Higginbotham; F. Pianesi; and A. Varzi,49-79. Oxford/New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Higginbotham, J.2004. Events, states, and actions: some clarifications, talk given atNational Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Hu, Jianhua; Haihua Pan; and Liejiong Xu.2001. Is there a Finite vs. NonfiniteDistinction in Chinese? Linguistics39.1117-148.
Huang, C.-T. James.1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.
Huang, C.-T. James.1988. Wo pao de kuai and chinese phrase structure. Language64.274-311.
Huang, C.-T. James.1992. Complex predicates in control. Control and Grammar, ed.by R. Larson; U. Lahiri; S. Iatridou; and J. Higginbotham,109-47. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. J.1997. On Lexical structure and syntactic projection. Chineselanguages and linguistics3, Academia Sinica, Taipei.
Huang, C-T. James&Yen-hui Audrey Li.1996. Recent Generative Studies in ChineseSyntax. New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics, ed. by C.-T. J. Huang&Yen-huiAudrey Li,49-96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Huang, Chu-Ren; Siaw-Fong Chung; and I-Li Su.2008. Durative event： AComparison of gan3and qiang3. The Proceedings of the Chinese LexicalSemantic Workshop2008(CLSW2008),42-50. Singapore. July,14-6.
Im，Sung-Chool.2001. Typological Patterns of Motion Verbs in Korean. Bafflo，NY:State University of NY Ph.D. dissertation.
Iwata, S.2004. Over-prefixation: A lexical constructional approach. EnglishLanguage and Linguistics8.239-92.
Iwata, S.2005. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. CognitiveLinguistics Vol.16.2.355-407.
Jackendoff, R.1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1976. Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation. LinguisticInquiry7.89-150.
Jackendoff, R.1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1997. The Architecture of the language facult. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Jackendoff, R.2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, P.1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy22.117–84.
Jacobson, P.2000. Paycheck pronouns, bach-peters sentences, and variable-freesemantics. Natural Language Semantics8.77-155.
Johanson，L.2000. View point operators in European languages. Tense and Aspect inthe Languages of Europe, ed. by. Dahl (ed.)，27-187. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Koenig&A. Kathol (eds.) Lexical and Constructional Aspects of LinguisticExplanation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kopecka，A．2006．The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: TypologicalPerspective. Space in Languages. Linguistic Systemsand Cognitive Categories, ed.by M. Hickmann&S. Robert,83-101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, P.2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction.In (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, ed. by M. Fried&H. C.Boas,71-100. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kuperberg, G.; A. Choi; N. Cohn; M. Paczynski; and R. Jackendoff.2010.Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience Vol.22.12.2685-701.
Lakoff，G.1987. Women，Fire，and Dangerous things: What Categories reveal aboutthe mind. Chicago: University of Chieago Press.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M.1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive LinguisticsVol.20.1.167-76.
Lapata, M.,&A. Lascarides.2003. A probabilistic account of logical metonymy.Computational linguistics29.263-317.
Lapata, M.; Keller, F.; and Scheepers, C.2003. Intra-sentential context effects on theinterpretation of logical metonymy. Cognitive science27.649-68.
Lascarides, A.,&A. Copestake.1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal ofLinguistics34.387–414.
Larson, R.1998. Events and modification in nominals. Proceedings of SALT8.
Leech, G. N.[1983]1990. Semantics: The Study of Meaning，Penguin Books.
Levin, B.,(ed.)1985. Lexical Semantics in Review. Lexicon Project Working Papers1, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, B.1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B.&M. Rappaport.1998. Building verb meanings. The Projection ofArguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by M. Butt&W. Geuder97-134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Levin, B.&M. Rappaport.2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey.1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Lin, T.-H.2001. Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. Irvine:University of California Ph.D. dissertation.
Lin T.-H. Jonah&Liu C.-Y. Cecilia.2005. Coercion, Event structure, andsyntax.Nanzan linguistics2.9-31.
Liu, Mei-chun; Chu-Ren Huang; and Ching-Yi Lee.1999. Lexical information andbeyond: constructional inferences in semantic representation. Proceedings of the13th pacific asia conference on language, information and computation,27-38.Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, Mei-chun.2005. Lexical information and beyond: meaning coercion andconstructional inferences of Mandrain verb gan. Journal of ChineseLinguistics.Vol.33.2.310-32.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maienborn, C.; K. von Heusinger; and P. Portner (eds.).2011. Semantics： Aninternational handbook of natural language meaning; Volume1.(HSKHandbook series),802-29. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mairal R.&P. Faber.2007. Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory ofmeaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics5.137–172.
Mairal R.&Ruiz de Mendoza.2008. New challenges for lexical representation withinthe Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses57.137-58.
Mairal, R.&Ruiz de Mendoza.2009. Levels of description and explanation inmeaning construction. Deconstructing constructions, ed. by C. Butler&J. M.Arista,153-98. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Marantz, A. P.1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Masini, F.2005. Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the case ofItalian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics18.145-73.
McElree, B.; Matthew J. Taxler; Martin J. Pickering; Rachel E. Seely; and R.Jackendoff.2001. Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition,78.17-25.
McElree, B.; L. Pylkk nen; M. Pickering; and M. Traxler.2006. The time course ofenriched composition. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review Vol.13.1.53-9.
Michaelis, L.2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning.Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, ed. by H. Cuyckens; R. Dirven; JohnR. Taylor; and Ronald W. Langacker,163-209. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter.
Moens, M.&M. Steedman.1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference.Computational Linguistics14.15-28.
Montague, Richard.1970. Universal grammar. Theoria36.373-98.
Mukherjec, J.2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and aUsage-based Model. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Narrog, Heiko.2009. Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Nation, I. S. P.2004. A study of the most frequent word families in the BritishNational Corpus. Vocabulary in a Second Language, ed. by P. Bo-gaards&B.Laufer,3-13. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J.2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: Acognitive-pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J.2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it.Modality: Studies in Form and Function, ed. by A. Klinge&H. H. Müller,5-38.London: Equinox.
Nuyts, J.2006. Modality. The Expression of Modality, ed. by W. Frawley,1-26.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nuyts, J.2008. Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitiveplanning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6.185-207.
Nuyts, J.2009a. Language, conceptualization and TAM marking: Acognitive-functional perspective. Journal of Foreign Languages1.2-43
Nuyts, J.2009b. The “one-commitment-per-clause” principle and the cognitive statusof qualificational categories. Linguistics47.141-71.
Ochs E.&B. B. Schieffelin.1989. Language has a heart. Text9.7-25.
Palmer, F. R.1979. Modality and English Modals. New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. R.1990. Modality and the English modals,2nd edn. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R.2001. Mood and Modality,2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Partee, Barbara&Mats Rooth.1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity.Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. by R. B uerle; C. Schwarze;and A. von Stechow,361-83. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Partee, B.&V. Borschev.1998. Integrating lexical and formal semantics: genitives,relational nouns, and type-shifting. Proceedings of the Second Tbilisi Symposiumon Language, Logic and Computation, ed. by R. Cooper&T. Gamkrelidze,229-41. Tbilisi, Georgia: Center for Language, Logic, Speech, Tbilisi StateUniversity.
Pederson, J.2009a. The construction of macro-events: A Typological Perspective.Deconstructing constructions, ed. by C. Butler&J. M. Arista25-62.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pedersen, J.2009b. Lexical and constructional organization of argument structure. Acontrastive analysis. Studies in language and cognition, ed. by J. Zlatev et al,230-45. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Peirsman, Y.&D. Geeraerts.2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. CognitiveLinguistics17.269–316.
Perlmutter, D.1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis.Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic society4,157-89. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia.
Pesetsky, D. M.1982. Paths and Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.
Pesetsky, D. M.1994. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pickering, M. J.; McElree, B.; and Traxler, M.2005. The difficulty of coercion: Aresponse to de Almeida. Brain&Language93.1-9.
Pike, Kenneth L.1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure ofHuman Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Pi ango, María M., Edgar Zurif&Ray Jackendoff.1999. Real-time processingimplications of enriched composition at the syntax–semantics interface. Journalof Psycholinguistic Research28.395-414.
Pustejovsky J.1989. Current Issues in Computational Lexical Semantics. Proceedings.of4th Eur. ACL., xvii-xxv. Manchester.
Pustejovsky, J.1991. The Syntax of event structure. Cognition41.47-81.
Pustejovsky J.1993. Type coercion and lexical selection. Semantics and the Lexicon,ed. by J. Pustejovsky,73-94. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pustejovsky, James.1995. Generative lexicon. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J.1998. The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia LinguisticaVol.32.3/4.323-47.
Pustejovsky, J.2001. Type construction and the logic of concepts. The syntax of wordmeaning, ed. by P. Bouillon&F. Busa,91-123. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Pustejovsky, J.2006. Type theory and lexical decomposition. Journal of CognitiveScience Vol.7.1.39-76.
Pustejovsky, J.2011. Coercion in a general theory of argument. Linguistics Vol.49.6.1401-31
Pustejovsky, J.&P. Bouillon.1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy.Journal of semantics Vol.12.2.133-62.
Pustejovsky, J.&E. Je ek.2008. Semantic coercion in language: Beyonddistributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics Vol.20.1.181-214.
Pylkk nen, L.2008. Mismatching Meanings in Brain and Behavior. Language andLinguistics Compass Vol.2.4.712-38.
Pylkk nen, L.&B. McElree.2006. The syntax–semantics interface: on-linecomposition of sentence meaning. Handbook of Psycholinguistics,2nd edn., ed.by M. Traxler&M. A. Gernsbacher,537-77. New York: Elsevier.
Pylkk nen, L.&B. McElree.2007. An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal ofCognitive Neuroscience19.1905-21.
Radden, G.; Klaus-Michael K pcke; T. Berg; and P. Siemund.2007. Aspects ofMeaning Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ramchand, G.2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport, M.&B. Levin.1988. What to Do with Theta-Roles. Thematic relations,ed. by W. Wilkins,7-36. New York: Academic Press.
Rappaport, M.&B. Levin.1998. Building Verb Meanings. The projection ofarguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by M. Butt&W. Geuder,97-134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Rappaport, M.&B. Levin.2001. An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives.Language77.766-97.
Rojo, A.&J. Valenzuela.2005. Verbs of sensory perception in English and Spanish.Languages in Contrast Vol.5.2.219-43.
Rosch, E.1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General104.192-233.
Rosca，A.2011. A lexical-constructional approach to light and sound emission verbs.RESLA24.171-91.
Ruiz de Mendoza&A. Baicchi.2006. Illocutionary constructions: cognitivemotivation and linguistic realization. Series A. General and Theoretical Papers,ed. by Linguistic LAUD Agency. Essen: LAUD.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Díez Velasco, O. I.2003. High-level metonymy and linguisticstructure. Interaction and Cognition in Linguistics, ed. by C. Inchaurralde&C.Floren,189-210. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Mairal, R.2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaningconstruction. Aspects of Meaning Construction,ed. by G. Radden; K. Kopcke; T.Berg; and P. Siemund,33-49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Mairal, R.2008. Levels of description and constraining factors inmeaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model.Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae Vol.42.2.355-400.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Lorena Pérez Hernandez.2001. Metonymy and grammar:motivation, constraints and interaction. Language&Communication,321-57.
Ruiz de Mendoza&Olga Isabel Diez Velasco.2004. Metonymic motivation inanaphoric reference. Studies in Linguistic Motivation, ed. by G. Radden&Klaus-Uwe Panther,293-320. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Ruppenhofer, J.; M. Elsworth; Miriam R.L. Petruck; Christopher R. Johnson&J.Scheffczyk.2006. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice.8August2012.Online: http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=126.
Schank，Roger C.&Roger P. Abelson.1977. Scripts, Plans，goals and understanding.Hilldale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shan, Chung-chieh&C. Barker.2006. Explaining crossover and superiority asleft-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy29.91-134.
Slobin, D. I.2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and theexpression of motion events. Relating events in narrative (Vol.2): Typologicaland contextual perspectives, ed. by S. Str mqvist&L. Verhoeven,219-57.Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steedman, M.1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language&Linguistic Theory5.403-39.
Steedman, M.1990. Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy13.207-64.
Stowell, T.1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D.dissertation.
Sweep, J.2010. A Frame-semantic Approach to Logical Metonymy. Constructionsand Frames2.1-32.
Sweep, J.2011. Metonymical transfers: The complex relation of metonymy andgrammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam Vol.4.1.http://www.linguisticsinamsterdam.nl
Talmy, L.1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms.Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.3, ed. by T. Shopen,57-149.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.1987. Lexicalization patterns: typologies and universals. BerkeleyCognitive Science Report47. Berkeley: Cognitive Science Program, Universityof California.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science12.49-100.
Talmy, L.1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of theSeventeenth Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Laurel A Sutton,Christopher Johnson and Ruth Shields,480-519. Berkeley: Berkeley LinguisticsSociety.
Talmy, L.2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L.2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L.2008. Main Verb Properties and Equipollent Framing. Crosslinguisticapproaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of DanIsaac Slobin, ed. by Guo, Jiansheng; E. Lieven; N. Budwig; S. Ervin-Tripp; K.Nakamura; and S. Ozcaliskan,389-402. London: Psychology Press.
Talmy, L.2010. Universals of Semantics. Cambridge Encyclopedia of the LanguageSciences, ed. by P. Hogan,754-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J.1989. Linguistic categorization:prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Tiee, Henry Hung-yeh.1986. A Reference Grammar of Chinese Sentence (withexercise). The University of Arizona Press.
Trandabat D.&M. Husarciuc.2008. Romanian semantic role resource. Proceedingsof the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08),Marrakech, Morocco.
Traxler, M. J.; McElree, B.; Williams, R. S.; and Pickering, M.J.2005. Context effectsin coercion: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language53.1-26.
Traxler, M. J.; Pickering, M.J.; and McElree, B.2002. Coercion in sentenceprocessing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal ofMemory and Language47.530–47.
Tsang, Chui Lim.1981. A Semantic Study of Modal AuxiliaryVerbs in Chinese. UMIPh.D. dissertation.
Van Fraassen, Bas C.1985. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time and Space.New York: Columbia University Press.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr.&R. J. LaPolla.1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Z.1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UniversityPress.
Verspoor, C. M.1997. Contextually-Dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh, U.K.:University of Edinburgh Ph.D. dissertation.
Verstraete, J.-C.2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality:Problemsin the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics37.1401-18.
Williams, E.1981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review1.81-114.
Wasow, T.1985. Postscript to Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: AnIntroduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase StructureGrammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
West, M.1953. A general service list of English words. Revised and enlarged edn.London: Longmans.